Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

We should be very careful in thinking about whether we’re working on the right problems. If we don’t, that ties into the problem that we don’t have experimental evidence that could move us forward. We're trying to develop theories that we use to find out which are good experiments to make, and these are the experiments that we build.   We build particle detectors and try to find dark matter; we build larger colliders in the hope of producing new particles; we shoot satellites into orbit and try to look back into the early universe, and we do that because we hope there’s something new to find there. We think there is because we have some idea from the theories that we’ve been working on that this would be something good to probe. If we are working with the wrong theories, we are making the wrong extrapolations, we have the wrong expectations, we make the wrong experiments, and then we don’t get any new data. We have no guidance to develop these theories. So, it’s a chicken and egg problem. We have to break the cycle. I don’t have a miracle cure to these problems. These are hard problems. It’s not clear what a good theory is to develop. I’m not any wiser than all the other 20,000 people in the field.

I’m still asking myself the same question that I asked myself ten years ago: "What is going on in my community?" I work in the foundations of physics, and I see a lot of strange things happening there. When I look at the papers that are being published, many of them seem to be produced simply because papers have to be produced. They don’t move us forward in any significant way. I get the impression that people are working on them not so much because it’s what they’re interested in but because they have to produce outcomes in a short amount of time. They sit on short-term positions and have short-term contracts, and papers must be produced.

The field that I mostly work in is the foundations of physics, which is, roughly speaking, composed of cosmology, the foundations of quantum mechanics, high-energy particle physics, and quantum gravity. It’s a peculiar field because there hasn’t been new data for almost four decades, since we established the Standard Model of particle physics. There has been, of course, the Higgs particle that was discovered at the LHC in 2012, and there have been some additions to the Standard Model, but there has not been a great new paradigm change, as Kuhn would have put it. We’re still using the same techniques, and we’re still working with the same theories as we did in the 1970s.

Really, Willingham says, people have different abilities, not styles. Some people read better than others; some people hear worse than others. But most of the tasks we encounter are only really suited to one type of learning. You can’t visualize a perfect French accent, for example.

There has been no study exploring the prevalence or characteristics of MPA among professional choral musicians, who may be considered a vocal analogue of orchestral musicians. There may be systematic differences among different types of musicians regarding the level of performance anxiety experienced.

Chorus artists were ideal subjects for the proposed study because they are a clear exemplar of a group of musicians with high performance demands and expectations who have heavy rehearsal and performance schedules.

While this study suggests that treatment efforts be directed at reducing MPA rather than occupational stress, further investigation of the relationship between occupational stress and trait anxiety is needed.

asked permission to hire an arts-integration teacher

and that year and subsequent years, the scores on the state assessments improved.

a compendium of 62 research studies that support the powerful positive academic and social effects of learning in and through the arts

Most schools will say that they want students to have an understanding of their world as a whole, but they seldom look at topics with an interdisciplinary focus. Why? It is easy to find reasons why this disjointed approach to learning happens: · Some argue that there is so much content and so many skills to be learned  in each discipline that they don’t have time to integrate subjects. · Others say that the each discipline has a body of knowledge and skills that  should stand on its own and not be muddied by the intrusion of other disciplines. · Secondary educators say that there is insufficient common planning time  to combine their efforts to teach an interdisciplinary course. · Still others say that the whole system is geared toward separate subjects  and to break out of this would require a monumental effort. · Others are guided by “the tests,” which are presented by separate disciplines.

The ultimate goal for the study of any subject is to develop a deeper understanding of its content and skills so that students can engage in higher-level thinking and higher- level application of its principles. When students dig deeper and understand content across several disciplines, they will be better equipped to engage in substantive discussion and application of the topic. They will also be better able to see relationships across disciplines.

a new teaching approach here called “proficiency-based education” that was inspired by a 2012 state law.

law requires that by 2021, students graduating from Maine high schools must show they have mastered specific skills to earn a high school diploma.

CompetencyWorks, a national organization t

Can Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein be read as an early research ethics text?

Frankenstein is an early and balanced text on the ethics of research upon human subjects and that it provides insights that are as valid today as when the novel was written.

Mary Shelley conceived the idea for and started writing Frankenstein in 1816 and it was first published in 1818.1 In its historical context, the earlier 17th and 18th centuries had seen the early signs of the rise of science and experimentation. Francis Bacon (1561–1626) had laid the theoretical foundations in his “Great Insauration”2 and scientists such as Boyle, Newton, and Hooke developed the experimental methods. Sir Robert Talbor, a 17th century apothecary and one of the key figures in developing the use of quinine to treat fevers, underlined this: “the most plausible reasons unless backed by some demonstrable experiments seem but suppositions or conjectures”.3