Group items tagged

The findings can help anyone, from a fourth grader doing long division to a retiree taking on a new language. But they directly contradict much of the common wisdom about good study habits, and they have not caught on. For instance, instead of sticking to one study location, simply alternating the room where a person studies improves retention. So does studying distinct but related skills or concepts in one sitting, rather than focusing intensely on a single thing.

But individual learning is another matter, and psychologists have discovered that some of the most hallowed advice on study habits is flat wrong. For instance, many study skills courses insist that students find a specific place, a study room or a quiet corner of the library, to take their work. The research finds just the opposite. In one classic 1978 experiment, psychologists found that college students who studied a list of 40 vocabulary words in two different rooms — one windowless and cluttered, the other modern, with a view on a courtyard — did far better on a test than students who studied the words twice, in the same room. Later studies have confirmed the finding, for a variety of topics.

The brain makes subtle associations between what it is studying and the background sensations it has at the time, the authors say, regardless of whether those perceptions are conscious. It colors the terms of the Versailles Treaty with the wasted fluorescent glow of the dorm study room, say; or the elements of the Marshall Plan with the jade-curtain shade of the willow tree in the backyard. Forcing the brain to make multiple associations with the same material may, in effect, give that information more neural scaffolding. “What we think is happening here is that, when the outside context is varied, the information is enriched, and this slows down forgetting,” said Dr. Bjork, the senior author of the two-room experiment.

If you examine this backwards, it would appear that the only way to change behaviors in an individual is to first alter the perceptions/predictions which are coming from the brain.

Thus, if we couple expectations with predictions and perceptions, I believe that we can go a long way in changing behavior over time.  If a person is going to behave based on what the brain see’s as most logical, then behavior can be changed by changing the logic.  I am a true believer in congnitive therapy, for instance.  I believe that cognitive therapy is rather strong proof that the patterns of ones behaviors can be changed by retraining the brain to set up the resultant behaviors to the desired outcome.

There needs to be more emphasis on “what” behaviors are resulting from technology.  If we can tangilby measure the behaviors resulting from technological innovation, would that not help us to understand what parts of technology are effective and what parts are ineffective?

Where does the mind stop and the rest of the world begin? The question invites two standard replies. Some accept the demarcations of skin and skull, and say that what is outside the body is outside the mind. Others are impressed by arguments suggesting that the meaning of our words "just ain't in the head", and hold that this externalism about meaning carries over into an externalism about mind. We propose to pursue a third position. We advocate a very different sort of externalism: an active externalism, based on the active role of the environment in driving cognitive processes.

It is not just the presence of advanced external computing resources which raises the issue, but rather the general tendency of human reasoners to lean heavily on environmental supports. Thus consider the use of pen and paper to perform long multiplication (McClelland et al 1986, Clark 1989), the use of physical re-arrangements of letter tiles to prompt word recall in Scrabble (Kirsh 1995), the use of instruments such as the nautical slide rule (Hutchins 1995), and the general paraphernalia of language, books, diagrams, and culture. In all these cases the individual brain performs some operations, while others are delegated to manipulations of external media.

In these cases, the human organism is linked with an external entity in a two-way interaction, creating a coupled system that can be seen as a cognitive system in its own right. All the components in the system play an active causal role, and they jointly govern behavior in the same sort of way that cognition usually does. If we remove the external component the system's behavioral competence will drop, just as it would if we removed part of its brain. Our thesis is that this sort of coupled process counts equally well as a cognitive process, whether or not it is wholly in the head.

When children are told to watch a television program not for fun but to learn something from it, their expenditure of mental effort rises dramatically, and with it, the quality of learning outcomes. [14] Quite clearly, children's differential perceptions of the media and of symbolic forms of representation ("pictures are realistic and hence require less mental effort than print") reflect the views of the social world around them. Where or when television is perceived as a serious medium (as was the case in Israel in the early days of television), processing capacities become mobilized, and much learning takes place. Not so when the medium is taken to be "just pictures." The socially held and communicated views of the media appear to affect the way children handle them, the depth with which they process their offerings, and thus what they actually learn from them.

Significantly, I and others have found that children often tend to handle a medium more on the basis of the general image they hold of it than on the basis of its particular offering or intrinsic attributes. Symbolic forms of representation that are perceived to duplicate reality closely (e.g., pictures) are taken to require no knowledge of authorship and no skill for processing.[12] Television, as a general rule, is perceived to be fun, simple, easy to understand, and generally useless. Comprehending televised content is perceived to require no brains, while failing to comprehend it is a sign of stupidity. On the other hand, print is generally perceived to be highly demanding, and success in comprehending a story in print is regarded as a matter of ability. Failing to comprehend print is expected because it is "tough." Do these differential perceptions make a difference in learning? Indeed, they do! In line with such perceptions, children do not expend much mental effort on a televised story, even when it is quite poetic and requires effort. Thus they learn far less from it than from an equivalent story in print. The largest and most impressive difference in responses is found in the more intelligent children, who mobilize their capacities to learn from the print story but forgo doing so when it comes to TV.[13]

Forms of Representation As Tools of the Mind Last, and perhaps most important, we need to ask whether the different symbolic forms of representation not only offer different meanings, require different mental capacities, and are differentially perceived, but also whether they leave some differential cognitive residue. That is, do they somehow affect the way we come to perceive or represent the world to ourselves? Do they affect our cognitive apparatus in some lasting way, thus coming to serve as tools of the mind?

This is emphatically wrong. Hawkins needs to consult with neuro-psychologist in the field of brain trauma to become enlightened.

I am also still struggling with thinking of certain technologies that can be used to help us recognize patterns. I think that many tools are available that do aid the process, but is there a possibility for something to be developed that exclusively applied to this idea. Something that can be used just for the purpose of recognizing and organizing these patterns and experiences. I wonder if we could better track how we remember things, the connections we make in our brains, or how we mentally store information, if that would make us more aware of what we learn, how we learn, and how we can learn better. I know this seems like a slightly crazy though, but I like to dream.

I truly enjoyed reading "On Intelligence" these past couple of weeks and even filled out the survey. I think it's a something that has more unique ideas than just theories/theorists, tools, technology, etc. I can see myself continuing reading this book outside of class because it really is interesting and is written in a way that's easily understandable. I'm happy that we got the opportunity to read this and take a break from all of the articles. :P

I know that we've talked about UDL all throughout LRND courses, but I feel as if this is an important and relevant topic that could almost be it's own course. Learning how to properly evaluate needs of students, selecting proper tools, and creating a UDL friendly module would be a great experience for LRND students.

We may understand how the brain is SUPPOSED TO WORK, but will we ever be able to understand all of the factors and variables that make us each unique?

A two and a half hour professional development, two times, a year apart, did not do this research and model justice. It was also not intense enough to be training for teachers to successfully implement her design

I have located a few more articles on the subject that I found relevant to the issue.

3)Affective Networks-The “why” of learning. —How learners get engaged and stay motivated. How they are challenged, excited, or interested. These are affective dimensions.

I do not believe that UDL is the answer to everything, however I would say it will be a great tool and measuring stick to allow us to proceed effectively in the future.