Drones: A predominant technological innovation in Indian construction 12-13

 Technology plays a pivotal role in shaping Indian construction industry. One new-gen technology that is gaining interest in the construction industry is the usage of drones. It is poised to serve as an effective medium towards building smart cities in a cost-effective, faster and safer manner with optimum utilisation of skills and efforts. It is expected that in the next 10 years, the use of drones in construction will register a manifold growth and will play a leading role in futuristic buildings.

According to a recent industry report, India is one of the fastest growing markets for UAVs and by 2021, the Indian UAV market is expected to reach USD 885.7 million. The usage of drones in the construction industry, has seen a 239% growth year-over-year globally, higher than any other commercial sector. In India too, the growth is set to increase manifold. 

“In the present scenario, it is very crucial for India to realise the aerial revolution that can be brought about by the proper utilisation of drones which have emerged as a highly viable commercial tool globally. As a matter of fact, the most notable sector of economy being benefitted by drones is construction. There’s no denying on the fact that there is an unstoppable rise of commercial drones; a market set to be worth billions over the coming years,” said AV Antao, Chief Operating Officer, Synergy Property Development Services.

There are numerous safety and legal implications that one should be aware of, as well as the differences between the commercial and personal use of drones. Despite increasing adoption and regulation, there is still tremendous growth in the use of drones in construction. Drones can add significant value to a project throughout its lifecycle.

The areas where drone technology will benefit the construction process:

Improvised quality and thermal imaging

The quality of the scans and aerial imagery provided by the cameras mounted on top of the drones are undeniably superior. Drones equipped with high-resolution thermal cameras serve as an excellent investigative tool for a host of building-specific applications and energy efficiency audits, including roof insulation inspection. They can also graphically depict energy inefficiencies and identify wet insulations in the roof or elsewhere by displaying temperature variations within the building.

Drones integration with BIM

Drones have proved themselves to be an asset for data-driven approach and thus can effectively undertake numerous tasks to aid the BIM (Building Information Modeling) workflow. Giving an aerial perspective in the creation of the initial BIM, drones also provide scalable point cloud scanning and photography at different stages of construction.

Highly cost-effective in topographical surveys

A drone carrying out standard survey and inspection activities is undoubtedly a significant cost-effective approach, as it removes the need for any kind of monetary or physical efforts put in for the surveys. As an example, for a typical topographic survey, the use of a drone can help to reduce costs by approximately 50%.

Ensuring completion of projects

The use of drones completely eradicates the need of shutting down active work sites for the concerns of maintaining and inspecting work like pipeline or flare stacks, which can be carried out safely under UAV supervision. Drones also monitor site activity and provide a comprehensive overview of the site through land surveying. Therefore, it is highly efficient in reducing the timeframe for the process of construction leading to a speedy delivery of the projects.

Reducing risk and keeping people safe

Drones help in minimising the possibility of risk by being monitored to perform a task. The UAV technology thus helps in supporting the drive towards zero incidents onsite as it takes away some of the risks from the construction activities like the need for labourers to work at heights when inspecting assets like bridges. UAVs and drones are effective in conducting safer, faster and more accurate inspections instead of safety managers, who physically conduct the site walk-throughs to identify potential hazards.

Compact and intelligent results

Acute 3D software can dramatically enhance productivity by turning a simple series of digital photos taken with a smart camera. When these cameras are mounted on drones they give a 360-degree overview of the project into a 3D reality mesh model. The result is a compact, intelligent representation of the asset in its current operating context. This also eases out the task for engineers and designers allowing them to work on an up-to-date 3D model for their enhancement and maintenance plans.

“Drones are tools that will play a fundamental role in ensuring that the construction industry can deliver huge and complex projects with better finishing and on-time results,” concludes Antao.

View at the original source

The product management talent dilemma 12-06

Product management is one of the most critical talent pools for any company that is writing software but often does not get the right level of attention. Having a world-class product management function requires a multipronged approach under a holistic talent-management program. We recommend that this be a joint priority of the chief HR officer and the head of product. 
 Despite product managers’ central roles in software organizations, they are often neglected from a talent-management perspective. Four levers can address this industry-wide challenge.

Product management remains one of the most critical roles for any company for which software is a core growth driver. Amid the growing importance of data in decision making, an increased customer and design focus, and the evolution of software-development methodologies, the role of the product manager has evolved to influence every aspect of making a product successful. As a result, CEOs and technology leaders often identify the role of product manager as one of their top talent priorities. Paradoxically, results from the McKinsey Product Management Index reveal that companies are underinvesting in this crucial talent pool.

The McKinsey Product Management Index is a survey of product managers at leading software companies to understand the capabilities and enablers that create top-performing product managers (Exhibit 1). This research surfaced systemic gaps around software-talent management; in fact, fewer than half of the product managers feel prepared to play the roles expected of them or grow into future product leaders.

Exhibit 1

Product managers spend time across a range of critical areas and influence every part of the product

The McKinsey Product Management Index highlights the wide range of activities that demand the attention of product managers. The days and weeks of an average product manager are fragmented, which requires they be good at wearing multiple hats and prioritizing ruthlessly (Exhibit 2).

Modern product managers are involved in a wide range of decisions. For example, nearly 80 percent of product managers actively participate in design activities, over 80 percent are involved in go-to-market decisions, and nearly half are involved in pricing decisions. Additionally, 60 percent of product managers have basic analytics skills that enable them to dive into metrics and draw insights without relying on analysts.

Talent management is a pervasive gap

Despite the central role that a product manager plays, the talent-management practices associated with this function are surprisingly underdeveloped. This gap is evident across the industry—at large software companies in Silicon Valley, early-stage tech companies, and incumbents in other industries that are becoming more software oriented.

As an example, only 35 percent of the product managers have clarity on what it would take to advance in their organizations, roughly the same number feel sufficiently coached and mentored and around 20 percent say that their companies have highly effective programs to identify and retain the best talent.

We observe several underlying drivers for this gap in talent development. First, there are limited roles that involve managing people and teams in the product organization, and unlike in engineering, companies have not consistently defined an expert track for product managers. This can prevent product managers from growing or feeling that their careers are progressing unless they are managing more people.

Additionally, the leadership development model for product management—that is, the behaviors and mind-sets that product managers are expected to display at various levels—is often poorly articulated. As a result, the only way to measure product managers is on the success of their product. Product managers tell us that they believe career progression at their companies is a matter of being in the right place at the right time to become part of a hit product rather than of doing the right things.

What is more, product management primarily requires learning on the job, but few software companies have put in place mechanisms to support this learning. Product managers often start in other functions, such as engineering, design, or marketing, and bring a specific set of skills from their previous roles. But this transitioning talent needs support to wear the multiple hats required of product managers.

Compounding the issue is the fact that product managers make up a small talent pool at most companies and hence often end up lower on the agenda of HR leaders.

Several elements can help companies build a world-class product management talent program

There are four key levers to pull to build a world-class program for product management talent.

First, articulate the product management leadership development model for the organization. This should include a concrete, actionable description of what the organization wants and expects from its product managers. It should reflect the organization’s strategy and priorities and is not the same as the conventional list of competencies used to assess employees. For example, competency models are often expressed as innate traits, qualities, or values that product managers should have, such as “is decisive,” whereas a leadership model is expressed as concrete descriptions of desired behaviors, such as “acts to reach timely closure on decisions.” The leadership model should also articulate what it looks like to make different transitions in the organization. For example, how do the behaviors and mind-sets differ for an established, principal product manager from one who is transitioning to a director of product.

Second, provide the product managers with organizational enablers for ongoing growth and apprenticeship. There are many ways to do this, including rotational programs, regular cadence of product reviews (with focus on coaching and knowledge sharing rather than inspection), walking in the shoes of other functions (taking support calls or doing customer demonstrations, for example), conducting skip-level one-on-one sessions, providing formal mentorship programs, giving regular growth-based feedback, and so on. 

Third, leverage a field-and-forum approach to design an end-to-end learning journey. There are several principles and approaches for learning programs that we have discovered through our work with technology companies. The first is that product managers, like most adults, learn best by doing rather than by watching videos or sitting in classrooms. Additionally, product managers learn most effectively through activities that are grounded in their day-to-day context rather than through generic product management trainings. For example, we have run a product management academy program in which product managers take on ambitious projects and are coached through them on a weekly basis (Exhibit 3). It is important to note that these learning programs must be tailored to the different transitions that are critical for the individual organization. Additionally, it is important to put hard metrics on the “soft stuff” by tracking key performance indicators for these programs that measure both participation and subsequent effectiveness.

 Third, leverage a field-and-forum approach to design an end-to-end learning journey. There are several principles and approaches for learning programs that we have discovered through our work with technology companies. The first is that product managers, like most adults, learn best by doing

rather than by watching videos or sitting in classrooms. Additionally, product managers learn most effectively through activities that are grounded in their day-to-day context rather than through generic product management trainings. For example, we have run a product management academy program in which product managers take on ambitious projects and are coached through them on a weekly basis (Exhibit 3). It is important to note that these learning programs must be tailored to the different transitions that are critical for the individual organization. Additionally, it is important to put hard metrics on the “soft stuff” by tracking key performance indicators for these programs that measure both participation and subsequent effectiveness. 

Last, hiring should be a strategic priority for senior leadership. At best-in-class software companies, senior product managers often report spending 3 to 5 percent of their time (equivalent to a half day to a full day per month) on recruiting. Doing recruiting well includes getting three elements right:

1. identifying and articulating the organizations’ unique value proposition for product managers
2. leveraging diverse sourcing channels (using online communities like Hacker News, sponsoring meet-ups, identifying internal talent in other functions that are likely to produce product managers, and making “acqui-hires,” for example)
3. a recruiting process that is efficient, removes unconscious biases
   , and tests real-life skills (through cases, actual presentations on product ideas, analyses using real product data, interactions across functions to test the ability to work with engineering and design, for example)  
    View at the original source

---

  

Effects of varying amounts of carbohydrate on metabolism after weight loss 12-05

Image credit :Shyam's Imagination Library 

Losing weight is hard work, but many people who have lost weight may agree that keeping the weight off 

It can be an even greater challenge. A lack of self-control or a few too many dietary indulgences are often cited as reasons for regaining weight. But a new study in the November issue of BMJ questions this conventional view, finding that the type of calories you consume may influence how likely you are to keep that weight off for the long term. [1]

The human body is designed to protect itself when it sheds weight, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, by causing an increased urge to eat and a slowdown in metabolism while more efficiently storing fat. Although it may be exciting to see pounds on the scale drop, the ability to keep losing weight or even maintain any weight loss becomes harder, because cravings to eat rise while the body more readily stores those calories as fat.

The purpose of the BMJ study was to see if different levels of carbohydrate in the diet could prevent these metabolic changes from occurring, so that any weight lost might stay off. The focus on carbohydrates was based on the “carbohydrate-insulin model” of obesity, which states that high insulin levels that result from eating a high glycemic load diet (i.e., highly processed carbohydrates like refined breads, crackers, cookies, and sugars) causes energy from the food to be stored more easily as fat, and may increase hunger and food cravings, lower energy expenditure, and promote weight gain.

The study

Participants were first placed on a weight-reducing diet to lose about 12% of their starting weight (weight loss averaged 25 pounds) to kickstart metabolic changes. The next phase randomly assigned the 164 p

1. high (60%) carbohydrate and low (20%) fat diet
2. moderate (40%) carbohydrate and (40%) fat diet
3. low (20%) carbohydrate and high (60%) fat diet

The protein amount was the same in all groups at 20%. Total calories were adjusted up or down to prevent any weight changes in each participant. All meals were provided to the participants during the weight loss phase and throughout the 20-week test phase. The types of foods in each diet group were designed to be as similar as possible, but varying in amounts: the high carbohydrate group ate more whole grains, fruits, legumes, and low fat dairy products. In contrast, the low carbohydrate group ate more fat but eliminated all grains and some fruits and legumes.

Participants followed the diets for 20 weeks and total energy expenditure was measured. During the 20 weeks, the participants in all groups maintained their weight and there was minimal difference in secondary measures including physical activity and resting energy expenditure (factors that could independently increase total energy expenditure).

The findings

• The low carbohydrate group showed an increased energy expenditure with a range of 209-278 calories/day compared with the high carbohydrate group. The moderate carbohydrate group showed a smaller increase in expenditure of about 100 calories compared with the high carbohydrate group. This trend was consistent throughout the 20-week period.
• The increased metabolic effect with the low carbohydrate diet was most significant in people who had high insulin secretion at the start of the study, with an increased energy expenditure of a range of 308-478 calories/day. (People with high insulin secretion tend to be shaped more like “apples” than “pears,” as excess body fat is stored predominantly around the mid-section.) This finding supports recent research to suggest that differences in biology may affect how people respond to weight loss diets over the long term.

A hormone that works to increase appetite, ghrelin, decreased significantly on the low carbohydrate diet, which could help with weight loss maintenance. Another appetite-regulating hormone, leptin, also decreased. Leptin regulates energy balance and works to keep body weight stable. It typically counteracts ghrelin by sending signals to the brain to suppress appetite when the body has enough food. Previously, high leptin levels were thought to lower one’s appetite and cause the body to begin using stored fat for energy. However, some forms of obesity/overweight may lead to “leptin resistance” when the body has high levels of leptin. In this scenario, the brain does not receive an alert that leptin levels are already high, so it continues to send strong hunger signals while conserving body fat stores. In other words, high leptin levels may promote leptin resistance. Its significance in the BMJ study was that the lower carbohydrate diet appeared to improve leptin sensitivity by reducing high levels of leptin.

“This study raises the possibility that a focus on restricting carbohydrates, rather than calories, may work better for long-term weight control,” said Dr. David Ludwig, professor in the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who led the study with Dr. Cara Ebbeling from Boston Children’s Hospital.

Dr. Walter Willett, professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard Chan School, who was not involved in the study, also noted that  “these findings from a carefully conducted investigation can help explain why low fat/high carbohydrate diets are not successful for most people and have failed to maintain weight loss in formal randomized trials that have lasted for one year or longer.”

Related

In a review featured in Science magazine the same week as the BMJ study, Dr. Ludwig discussed the controversy over specific fat-to-carbohydrate ratios in maintaining a healthy weight and lowering disease risk. [2] He, Dr. Willett, and other experts on the subject agreed that by focusing mainly on diet quality—replacing saturated or trans fats with unsaturated fats and replacing refined carbohydrates with whole grains and nonstarchy vegetables—most people can maintain good health within a broad range of fat-to-carbohydrate ratios. Read more at  Dietary fat is good? Dietary fat is bad? Coming to consensus.


View at the original source

Switzerland leads the 5th consecutive edition of the IMD World Talent Ranking 11-22

Image credit : Shyam's Imagination Library.

The 2018 edition of one of the world’s foremost reports on the quality of international workforces h
as been released, with Western Europe dominating the top-10

IMD's fifth edition of the World Talent Ranking 2018 assesses the extent to which countries develop, attract and retain talent to sustain the pool that enterprises employ to create long-term value
Canada is the only non-European nation in top-10

The full ranking is available here

Lausanne, Switzerland 19 November 2018 - Switzerland in first and Denmark in second, firmly lead the IMD World Talent Ranking 2018 for the fifth year in a row, followed by Norway, Austria and the Netherlands. Norway joins the top three, advancing four places up from last year, thanks to an improvement in public expenditure on education and the readiness of its talent pool. Canada (6th), Finland (7th), Sweden (8th), Luxembourg (9th), and Germany (10th) complete the top 10.
The Slovak Republic (59th), Colombia (60th), Mexico (61st), Mongolia (62nd), and Venezuela (63rd) are the last countries in the ranking.

“Since 2014, the Talent Ranking assesses how the 63 economies we study develop, attract and retain highly-skilled professionals. Cultivating a skilled and educated workforce is crucial to strengthening competitiveness and achieving long-term prosperity, particularly in the current dynamic landscape where artificial intelligence, robotics and other new technologies constantly redefine the challenges that governments, businesses and society in general will have to face in the future,” said Arturo Bris, Director of the IMD World Competitiveness Center. “This year the most successful countries in talent competitiveness are mainly European, mid-size economies. Moreover, these countries share high levels of investment in education and quality of life,” concludes Arturo Bris.

The IMD World Talent Ranking 2018, which has just been released from the Singapore edition of IMD’s signature program Orchestrating Winning Performance (OWP), evaluates the capability of 63 countries in developing, attracting and retaining talent. The assessment is based on three factors: Investment and Development, Appeal, and Readiness. These factors include indicators that capture the resources invested in developing local talent, the extent to which a country attracts and retains talent, and the quality of skills available in the talent pool.

Hard data and responses to the IMD Executive Opinion Survey are used to produce the ranking. The latter annual survey compiles input from over six thousand executives based in 63 different economies.

Western Europe leads, Eastern Europe lags, North America gives strong performance

This year, Switzerland once again confirms its role as an important global talent hub. It ranks 4th in Investment and Development, and 1st in both the Appeal and Readiness factors. In addition, several European countries fall within the 25 most competitive with respect to talent. Belgium (11th), Cyprus (15th), Portugal (17th), Ireland (21st), United Kingdom (23rd), and France (25th) complete this list.
With the exception of Estonia (28th), Slovenia (30th), and Latvia (33rd), Eastern European countries generally place in the lower part of the ranking. For instance, Slovak Republic (59th), Bulgaria (57th), and Romania (56th) underperform in attracting highly skilled workers from abroad and they also face problems in retaining their locally-grown talent.

Canada (6th) is the only non-European country in the top ten, rising from 11th place, lifted by an improvement in the quality of its talent pool. The USA (12th) also moves up with respect to last year showing advancements in all three talent factors.

Singapore and Hong Kong SAR lead in Asia Pacific

In Asia, Singapore (13th), Hong Kong SAR (18th) and Malaysia (22nd) achieve the best placements in terms of talent competitiveness. While the two city-states continue to excel in tapping into the international talent pool, Malaysia instead focuses on investments in education to develop its homegrown skilled workforce. Taiwan (27th) prioritizes the attraction and retention of talent, Japan improves (29th) due to the availability of skilled labor and the effectiveness of its education system and South Korea advances (33rd) partly due to increased government expenditure on education and improvements in the implementation of apprenticeships programs and employee training. China (39th) places in the second half of the ranking, because of its difficulties in attracting foreign skilled workers paired with a level of public expenditure in education that remains below the average of other advanced economies. Kazakhstan (40th) and Thailand (42nd) also fall in the second half of the ranking, partly due to their performance in the readiness of domestic talent.

In the Pacific area, Australia (14th) and New Zealand (20th) confirm their role as talent-appealing hubs. Both countries show high levels of readiness in their talent pool and offer attractive quality of life for international professionals.

Latin America struggles.

At the bottom of the ranking are several Latin American countries. These economies are struggling to develop and retain talent. Venezuela (63rd), Mexico (61st), Colombia (60th) and Brazil (58th) all share issues related to brain drain, matched by a relatively low level of investment in education.
In annex: detailed region and country-specific information.

Switzerland

Switzerland tops the talent ranking for the fifth consecutive year confirming its role as an important global talent hub. It ranks 4th in Investment and Development, and 1st in both the Appeal and Readiness factors.

The country ranks 1st in apprenticeships, health infrastructure, highly-skilled foreign personnel, remuneration in the services professions, remuneration of management, the education system, university education and management education. Other strengths include international experience (2nd), retaining human capital (2nd), and quality of life (3rd). The latter, however, shows a slight decline this year.

Switzerland’s lowest rankings at the indicator level are in cost-of-living (59th), labor force growth (38th), pupil-teacher ratio in primary education (30th) and female labor force (26th). There has been an increase in negative perceptions of the prioritization that the private sector gives to attracting and retaining talent which drops to 12th (from 4th).

Nordic countries

Denmark ranks 2nd in the overall ranking. Norway takes 3rd place, Finland and Sweden come in at 7th and 8th respectively. Iceland, the only Nordic country ranked outside the top 10, is 16th.
For the third consecutive year, Denmark ranks 1st in the Investment and Development Factor. The country improves three places in the Appeal factor in which it ranks 7th. However, it drops 4 places in the Readiness factor to 8th. Norway improves its performance in all factors, ranking 3rd, 12th and 10th in Investment and Development, Appeal and Readiness, respectively. Finland rises in the Appeal factor (21st) and decreases two positions in both the Investment and Development (7th), and Readiness (7th) factors. Conversely, Sweden remains 9th in Investment and Development, and improves to 9th in Appeal and 15th in Readiness (from 12th and 19th, respectively).

At the factor level, Nordic countries all have their best performance in Investment and Development. Here they are all highly ranked in total public expenditure. Norway, Finland and Denmark rank 2nd, 6th and 7th (respectively) in health infrastructure. In the employee training indicator, Denmark is 1st and Norway reaches 5th place.

In the Appeal factor, most Nordic countries are perceived to have high quality of life and be successful in attracting and retaining talent. Nevertheless, high cost of living and high personal income tax rates may constrain the Nordics from further strengthening their talent pools.
In Readiness, the region ranks high in the availability of finance and language skills. Denmark, Norway and Finland perform well in the effectiveness of their education systems in general, and specifically in management education as well as science in schools. Notably, the indicator capturing the availability of senior managers with international experience is one of the weakest points in the performance of Norway (34th) and Iceland (51st).

Spain

Spain is positioned (31st) in the top half of the annual IMD World Talent Ranking.
Among Western-European countries, it ranks ahead of only Italy (32nd) and Greece (44th). However, Spain performs better than almost all Eastern European countries with the exception of Estonia (28th) and Slovenia (30th).

In the Investment and Development factor, Spain drops from 30th to 36th. While in the Appeal factor Spain remains in the 25th spot. In the Readiness factor it improves slightly from 41st to 40th.
The Investment and Development factor includes one of Spain’s key strengths; in the health infrastructure indicator, it ranks 9th. However, this factor also shows some of its main weaknesses. The country ranks 58th in employee training and 55th in the implementation of apprenticeships. This may explain Spain’s relatively poor performance in Investment and Development.

Key strengths lie in Spain’s Appeal factor. In both, the remuneration of management and the quality of life indicators, Spain ranks 19th. Although this factor highlights the need to prioritize attracting and retaining talent (58th position).

Within the Readiness factor, Spain’s performance in indicators assessing the effectiveness of university and management education and the availability of competent senior managers, shows steady improvement since 2016. Yet, there are some weaknesses in this factor. For example, in labor force growth, Spain ranks 53rd and in language skills, it comes in at 52nd.

Eastern-Europe

With the exception of Estonia (28th) and Slovenia (30th), Eastern European countries generally place in the lower part of the ranking.

Estonia improves slightly this year. It ranks 16th in Investment and Development, 33rd in Appeal, and 31st in Readiness. It progresses five ranks in the Appeal factor mainly due to improvements in worker motivation, the impact of brain drain, and the country’s attractiveness for highly-skilled foreign personnel. In the Readiness factor, Estonia also moves up four ranks as a result of an upturn in positive perceptions of the availability of finance skills, executives with international experience, competent senior managers, language skills, and the effectiveness of the education system.

Slovenia moves from 37th to 30th place. It ranks 27th in Investment and Development, 42nd in Appeal and 29th in Readiness. The country’s ranking improvements arise from more positive executive opinions about the private sector’s prioritization of attracting and retaining talent, quality of life, and availability of senior managers with international experience and language skills. There are some worrying signs for the future development of the country’s talent pool. It ranks 59th in the implementation of apprenticeships and 56th in the country’s attractiveness for highly-skilled overseas staff.

Elsewhere in the region, other countries improve to different degrees: the Czech Republic ranks 37th, Ukraine 48th, Hungary 49th and Croatia 54th. Ukraine’s strong performance in moving out of the bottom five originates mainly in gains in the implementation of apprenticeships, emphasis on employee training and the effectiveness of its health infrastructure. In addition, Ukraine improves in the prioritization of attracting and retaining talent, availability of a skilled labor force, financial skills and competent senior managers.

Conversely, Lithuania (33rd to 36th), Poland (34th to 38th), and Russia (43rd to 46th) all decline.
At the lower end of the ranking, Romania (56th), Bulgaria (57th), and the Slovak Republic (59th) all decline in the Investment and Development factor. In the Appeal factor, the Slovak Republic and Bulgaria drop, and Romania rises. While Bulgaria and Romania slightly improve in the Readiness factor, the Slovak Republic drops several ranks because of a deterioration across all components of the factor.

View at the original source

How to Teach Engineering to a 5-Year-Old 08-27

Here’s a neat (and short) lesson from Washington state’s latest Teacher of the Year, Camille Jones. Camille teaches science and engineering to students as young as 5 years old. When she visited my office earlier this year, I asked her how she talks to such young kids about engineering. Take a look at what she showed me:

One thing I love about this is that it takes ideas that can seem very abstract, like pressure and tension, and makes them concrete. Camille told me the lesson was designed by the Museum of Science in Boston—a great example of how putting great lessons and other tools in the hands of talented teachers can lead to magical moments in the classroom. Technology is making it easier for teachers to find these tools, which is one of the things that makes me hopeful about the future of education.
You can read more about my visit with Camille here.


Education, at its most engaging, is performance art. From the moment a teacher steps into the classroom, students look to him or her to set the tone and course of study for everyone, from the most enthusiastic to the most apathetic students. Even teachers who have moved away from the traditional lecture format, toward more learner autonomy-supportive approaches such as project-based and peer-to-peer learning, still need to engage students in the process, and serve as a vital conduit between learner and subject matter.


Camille Jones is the kind of teacher I wish I would have had when I was in school, someone who could peak a kids interest in science and engineering instead of a nun who just whacked you across the knuckles with a ruler if you were holding your pencil too tight or the wrong way! 

View at the original site