The importance of technology in our life is growing rapidly. Its impact on education, however, remains limited because of a lack of tuning with pedagogy. This proposal aims at increasing the pedagogical value of technology, by studying the effectiveness of videoblogging (vlogging) in science education. Whereas vlogging has proven itself as an increasingly popular form of entertainment among adolescents, a small but increasing number of studies shows that vlogging can provide a powerful means to enhance students’ learning and engagement in science education. It is, however, yet unknown what aspects of vlogging contribute to these benefits. Based on theories of learning, vlogging may be effective because it relies on proven learning strategies, such as explaining. It also allows the use of visual support, such as pictures, diagrams, or gestures, and thus fosters learning through multiple modalities and enables interaction between learner and learning materials. Additionally, vlogging may increase engagement and students interest in science by introducing more social activities. The proposed project will experimentally investigate how explaining, visual support, and social aspects contribute to learning and engagement during vlogging. It also investigates how innovative technologies, such as artificial intelligence and augmented reality, can support vlogging and enhance learning and engagement.

As the Dutch TBS order aims to prevent dangerous (mentally disordered) offenders from re-offending through confinement and treatment, it is of indeterminate duration. As a consequence, its legitimate imposition and execution depend both on legal safeguards and behavioural science evidence. A fortiori, the uncertainty of behavioural science evidence calls for specific legal safeguards itself. This also applies to comparable sanctions in other jurisdictions. The proposed research therefore examines the question: How can the indeterminate sentencing of dangerous offenders be made more legitimate, both legally and empirically? Divided into four sub-questions, the research will lead to several papers in preeminent international journals in the field of law and behavioural science. Firstly, indeterminate sentencing will be tested with regard to the legal state of the art through a comparison of the provisions in six Western jurisdictions and an analysis of subsequent constitutional or human rights-related case law. Secondly, the provisions for indeterminate sentencing in these jurisdictions will be confronted with the behavioural science state of the art as derived from empirical evidence. This is called for as some sentences have existed for many decades and others have been based on single incidents, while all use behavioural scientifically challenged criteria such as dangerousness, disorder, criminal responsibility, and treatability. Thirdly, procedural provisions on the use of behavioural scientific evidence in the six jurisdictions will be compared. As the jurisdictions are equally divided amongst inquisitorial and adversarial legal systems, the consequences of having either a univocal testimony or a ?battle of the experts? will be discussed. Fourthly, these procedural provisions will be tested empirically with a view to determining which legal safeguards deal most effectively with the uncertainty of behavioural science evidence. The final aim is to form both nationally and internationally applicable interdisciplinary standards (or recommendations) for legitimate imposition and execution of indeterminate sentences.

The fashion industry is facing significant restructuring. As the location of production moves to the East and fast fashion is on the rise together with a higher speed of fashion cycles, independent fashion designers have to develop new strategies to compete. Within this framework, a significantly increasing number of designers seek to stay local, rediscover local craftsmanship skills and wish to exert greater amounts of control over the production process, while also infusing an artisanal ethos and emphasis on quality into their collections. These locally focused strategies are accompanied by new ways to reach the (global) intermediaries and the market. In theory, digitalisation and globalisation allow to cut intermediaries and interact directly with the consumers, but the extent of such dis-intermediation remains unclear. Some scholars argue in favour of re-intermediation processes. The aim of the project is to provide a first exploration of the entrepreneurial practices of independent fashion designers in relation to local production systems (the practices between independent fashion designers and local craftsmen) and intermediation processes (the practices between independent fashion designers and intermediaries) from both a cultural economic perspective and a cultural sociological perspective. Erasmus University Rotterdam and Hogeschool Rotterdam partner with MARGREETH OLSTHOORN, Van Rijthoven Holding, NOT JUST A LABEL, Willem de Kooning Academy, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen and Het Nieuwe Instituut to analyse the case of Rotterdam-based designers. Among the deliverables are series of meeting with the partners, a round table and a final symposium for a broader public, a shop-in-shop and a final report.

This research will investigate how people gather, interpret, and use information about COVID-19. Which information sources do they use? How often do they consult these sources? What is their factual knowledge about COVID-19? How confident are they about this knowledge? Do they endorse conspiracy theories about COVID-19? How closely do they follow governmental guidelines about COVID-19 related behavior? Are there systematic individual differences in these issues? Are there cross-cultural differences in COVID-19 information processing?

People’s lives are pervaded with quantitative information. For example, practically all products and services carry quantitative information ranging from nutritional content (e.g., “60 grams sugar content") to ecological impact (e.g., “6 liters/100 kilometers fuel consumption”). This widespread provision of quantitative information is generally encouraged because it should allow for better-informed decisions. In contrast with this assumption, a growing research stream has been documenting a large number of errors in decisions involving quantitative information. As such, the well-intentioned provision of quantitative information may be ineffective in improving individuals’ decisions. By using a combination of online, lab and field studies, this project will investigate how the metric (e.g., grams vs. cubes of sugar) in which information is described improves understanding of quantitative information. A first subproject will test whether metrics that lead individuals to think of quantitative information as a collection of discrete elements (a set of cubes, piles, bags…) engender a more natural understanding of quantitative information than nondiscrete metrics (liters, grams, pounds). A second subproject will investigate how using a discrete metric renders quantitative information to be more important in decisions: Do individuals rely more on quantitative information about sugar content when it is described in cubes than in grams? In a third subproject, I will focus on how discrete metrics may be particularly effective in two contexts in which most decision errors occur: due to a temporal (cognitive busyness) or chronic lack of ability (numeracy: the ability to process numerical concepts). For theory, the project will be among the first to turn attention to how individuals’ understanding of quantitative information and decision making can be improved. For practice, this project will provide policy makers with an easy-to-implement, yet relevant intervention that is applicable to all domains involving quantitative decision making.