Final Blog Post
I will remember how James instructs teachers to spark interest in their students. I only hope that I can be successful in the "teacher's art", as James calls it.
"The ingenuity in meeting and pursuing the pupil, that tact for the concrete situation, though they are the alpha and omega of the teacher's art, are things to which psychology cannot help us in the least," (18).
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Activity 7.5
I don't believe that Gladwell agrees with the term "recipe for success". A recipe, by definition, means that written every step has to be followed dutifully in order for the end product to be deemed a success. The metaphor also seems to say that if a person doesn't have, say, all the right ingredients, then success is out of reach.
Rather agree with the recipe metaphor, Gladwell advocates that, while a person can better set up success than others (more opportunity, more money, easier access to education), anybody can be successful by devoting all their time, effort and resources onto their craft. There does not seem to be a particular plan or recipe that will lead to success without fail.
It would seem that Gladwell would agree with Dwek and her theory of malleable vs. fixed mindsets. If a person were to be confined by a fixed mindset, then Gladwell would say that success might be out of her reach. There is no growth there, no striving to complete the her goal. Gladwell would say that a malleable mindset is needed; there needs to be the desire to grow, to continuously learn. This is evidenced by Gladwell's comparison between the Russian proverb ("If God does not bring it, the earth will not give it"), which he describes as "the kind of fatalism and pessimism typical of a repressive feudal system, where pheasants have no reason to believe in the efficacy of their own work", and the Chinese proverb "No one who can rise before dawn three hundred and sixty days of the year fails to make his family rich" (237-238).
He writes, "Virtually, every success story...so far involves someone or some group working harder than their peers," (239). This seems to support the idea that one has to have the desire to continually get better at their craft in order to be successful.
Gladwell would also agree that a strong sense of self-efficacy is necessary for success.
Gladwell's main points:
I don't believe that Gladwell agrees with the term "recipe for success". A recipe, by definition, means that written every step has to be followed dutifully in order for the end product to be deemed a success. The metaphor also seems to say that if a person doesn't have, say, all the right ingredients, then success is out of reach.
Rather agree with the recipe metaphor, Gladwell advocates that, while a person can better set up success than others (more opportunity, more money, easier access to education), anybody can be successful by devoting all their time, effort and resources onto their craft. There does not seem to be a particular plan or recipe that will lead to success without fail.
It would seem that Gladwell would agree with Dwek and her theory of malleable vs. fixed mindsets. If a person were to be confined by a fixed mindset, then Gladwell would say that success might be out of her reach. There is no growth there, no striving to complete the her goal. Gladwell would say that a malleable mindset is needed; there needs to be the desire to grow, to continuously learn. This is evidenced by Gladwell's comparison between the Russian proverb ("If God does not bring it, the earth will not give it"), which he describes as "the kind of fatalism and pessimism typical of a repressive feudal system, where pheasants have no reason to believe in the efficacy of their own work", and the Chinese proverb "No one who can rise before dawn three hundred and sixty days of the year fails to make his family rich" (237-238).
He writes, "Virtually, every success story...so far involves someone or some group working harder than their peers," (239). This seems to support the idea that one has to have the desire to continually get better at their craft in order to be successful.
Gladwell would also agree that a strong sense of self-efficacy is necessary for success.
Gladwell's main points:
- That a person's willingness to put in the work (his 10,000 hours of effort) into a craft supersedes "talent" or "natural ability". How much effort an individual puts into their circumstances can directly lead to their success or their failure (ie. "the miracle of meaningful work") (269).
- Also, family background and a person's cultural legacy plays a significant role in figuring a person's propensity for success. Environment is a big part of success, even though it is not the only part.
The importance of the environment on learning fits into social cognitive theory. What information comes to a people flows from their surroundings, whether it be what type of schools students are exposed to, which teachers they receive, how their friends and families act, what opportunities are in store, etc. This is what people model their behavior of, according to social cognitive theory. Likewise, it plays a significant role in Gladwell's recognition of achievement. Social cognitive theory and Gladwell's understanding of success are analogous in this respect.
Activity 7.3
I have always been interested in the role of creativity and innovation in the learning processes. It sometimes feels to me like originality or creativity is not as prized as a student's ability to mimic the teacher's lesson strategies or produce vocal or written repetition of material. If a student is supposed to model his thoughts after what material has been presented to him, where lies the possibility for originality? This thought has worried me.
In his article, "But What About that Gigantic Elephant in the Room?", Albert Bandura addresses my fears: "Another misconception requiring retirement claimed that modeling is antithetical to creativity. Quite the contrary. There are several ways in which modeling promotes innovativeness. Modeling novel ways of thinking and doing things fosters innovativeness in others, whereas modeling conventional styles curtails it," (3).
Bandura goes on to describe that students who are exposed to several different models of thought can in fact come up with new, original ideas (3). He credits this process to "selective hybridization", or the ability of a student to select pertinent information from several different models and mold the information into a new existence that fits the individual's purpose (3). This sounds optimum to me, and I would agree that this theory sounds like it fosters creativity; my only problem is that Bandura does not list any examples of this process in practical terms. Can anyone think of one based on their experiences? I can think of a few based on movies, but no real life success stories are coming to me.
Looking unbiasedly, it seems like I am highly influenced by whatever mode of thought is presented to me at the time. For example, when I was introduced to the idea of "new historicism", I believed that all literature should in fact, be discussed in the context in which the author wrote it. I held that view until I came across a professor who believed that literature should be addressed solely as its own entity, separate from the author or the context of the time. I then adopted that belief (this makes me sound a little wishy-washy, though, doesn't it?). After coming across more new-historians, I have found my beliefs to have shifted back to that frame of mind. After making this observation about myself, I am determined to make an effort to discern what I think; I'd like to think that while I prize creativity and originality, it is not out of reach for me.
This reminds me again of the Good Will Hunting clip I posted on my Activity 5.2 blog post. (I'll post it again - watch from 1:10 to see the interaction). The graduate student at the bar with Will (Matt Damon) was doing exactly as I was; he merely encountered a thought process and adopted it as his own. As Bandura would say, the graduate student exemplifies the misconception "that modeling is antithetical to creativity" (3). Will, then, provides the opposition - he represents the possibility to form one's own thoughts based on the provisions of others, the opportunity for originality.
I have always been interested in the role of creativity and innovation in the learning processes. It sometimes feels to me like originality or creativity is not as prized as a student's ability to mimic the teacher's lesson strategies or produce vocal or written repetition of material. If a student is supposed to model his thoughts after what material has been presented to him, where lies the possibility for originality? This thought has worried me.
In his article, "But What About that Gigantic Elephant in the Room?", Albert Bandura addresses my fears: "Another misconception requiring retirement claimed that modeling is antithetical to creativity. Quite the contrary. There are several ways in which modeling promotes innovativeness. Modeling novel ways of thinking and doing things fosters innovativeness in others, whereas modeling conventional styles curtails it," (3).
Bandura goes on to describe that students who are exposed to several different models of thought can in fact come up with new, original ideas (3). He credits this process to "selective hybridization", or the ability of a student to select pertinent information from several different models and mold the information into a new existence that fits the individual's purpose (3). This sounds optimum to me, and I would agree that this theory sounds like it fosters creativity; my only problem is that Bandura does not list any examples of this process in practical terms. Can anyone think of one based on their experiences? I can think of a few based on movies, but no real life success stories are coming to me.
Looking unbiasedly, it seems like I am highly influenced by whatever mode of thought is presented to me at the time. For example, when I was introduced to the idea of "new historicism", I believed that all literature should in fact, be discussed in the context in which the author wrote it. I held that view until I came across a professor who believed that literature should be addressed solely as its own entity, separate from the author or the context of the time. I then adopted that belief (this makes me sound a little wishy-washy, though, doesn't it?). After coming across more new-historians, I have found my beliefs to have shifted back to that frame of mind. After making this observation about myself, I am determined to make an effort to discern what I think; I'd like to think that while I prize creativity and originality, it is not out of reach for me.
This reminds me again of the Good Will Hunting clip I posted on my Activity 5.2 blog post. (I'll post it again - watch from 1:10 to see the interaction). The graduate student at the bar with Will (Matt Damon) was doing exactly as I was; he merely encountered a thought process and adopted it as his own. As Bandura would say, the graduate student exemplifies the misconception "that modeling is antithetical to creativity" (3). Will, then, provides the opposition - he represents the possibility to form one's own thoughts based on the provisions of others, the opportunity for originality.
Activity 7.2
English was my thing. All throughout my undergraduate career and high school before that, I was always extremely successful in English and Literature classes. Nothing but A's. And more so, I knew I was always successful and believed that I always would be.
That's why it was an earth-shattering blow, when, in Spring Semester 2011, I received a C in ENG 335. I still feel a little angry when I think about that class. I couldn't believe it when I got my grade. I got a C?!? My confidence was bruised; I didn't want to tell anyone about this horrible C on my transcript. (I was also a bit dramatic). My self-efficacy was not broken, merely momentarily winded. I came back the next semester with a renewed sense of determination. I made sure that I would not receive a C in an English class again; I knew that it was within my power to succeed. My sense of self-efficacy rallied and I succeeded the next three semesters.
However, this is not the first C I'd received at the University. The semester before I took that ill-fated ENG 335, I received a C in Statistics. And I was fine with it. I hate math and I have never believed that I was good at it. The C in that class, one that I actually struggled to attain, was not a beacon of failure like the C in ENG 335, but rather, a goal achieved. It was a check off the list; no more math in college! I had a weak sense of self-efficacy in this regard and was happy that I passed the class by the skin of my teeth.
My two C's held two drastically different meanings: one stood for devastating failure and the other, happy success. What made the difference? Context. My situation was very similar to the situation Frank Parajes depicts in his chapter "Self-Efficacy During Childhood and Adolescence":
"A student accustomed to receiving As on exams in [a] class and subject and who worked hard throughout the term and studied for the exam will view the B in ways quite dissimilar from that of a student accustomed to receiving Cs and who worked equally hard. For the former, the B will be received with distress; for the latter, the B is likely to be received with elation. The student accustomed to receiving As is likely to have her academic confidence bruised; the C-acquainted student is sure to have her confidence boosted. Context is not always everything, but it colors everything," (342).
Because of my strong sense of self-efficacy in one subject and my weak sense in the other, the two identical grades had vastly different meanings and effects on me. The context of each situation "colored" my response to each C.
English was my thing. All throughout my undergraduate career and high school before that, I was always extremely successful in English and Literature classes. Nothing but A's. And more so, I knew I was always successful and believed that I always would be.
That's why it was an earth-shattering blow, when, in Spring Semester 2011, I received a C in ENG 335. I still feel a little angry when I think about that class. I couldn't believe it when I got my grade. I got a C?!? My confidence was bruised; I didn't want to tell anyone about this horrible C on my transcript. (I was also a bit dramatic). My self-efficacy was not broken, merely momentarily winded. I came back the next semester with a renewed sense of determination. I made sure that I would not receive a C in an English class again; I knew that it was within my power to succeed. My sense of self-efficacy rallied and I succeeded the next three semesters.
However, this is not the first C I'd received at the University. The semester before I took that ill-fated ENG 335, I received a C in Statistics. And I was fine with it. I hate math and I have never believed that I was good at it. The C in that class, one that I actually struggled to attain, was not a beacon of failure like the C in ENG 335, but rather, a goal achieved. It was a check off the list; no more math in college! I had a weak sense of self-efficacy in this regard and was happy that I passed the class by the skin of my teeth.
My two C's held two drastically different meanings: one stood for devastating failure and the other, happy success. What made the difference? Context. My situation was very similar to the situation Frank Parajes depicts in his chapter "Self-Efficacy During Childhood and Adolescence":
"A student accustomed to receiving As on exams in [a] class and subject and who worked hard throughout the term and studied for the exam will view the B in ways quite dissimilar from that of a student accustomed to receiving Cs and who worked equally hard. For the former, the B will be received with distress; for the latter, the B is likely to be received with elation. The student accustomed to receiving As is likely to have her academic confidence bruised; the C-acquainted student is sure to have her confidence boosted. Context is not always everything, but it colors everything," (342).
Because of my strong sense of self-efficacy in one subject and my weak sense in the other, the two identical grades had vastly different meanings and effects on me. The context of each situation "colored" my response to each C.
Activity 7.1
These are the factors that I believe are most influential to learning. When I was brainstorming, I couldn't help but think about the story of Johnny from Module 1. As a class, we listed several reasons (formalisms, I now know them to be called, since we had no basis for them) for why he was experiencing difficulties. These listed reasons, even if they didn't apply in the Johnny situation, did, however, illustrate our understanding of the factors believed to be most influential to learning. I found it slightly difficult to distinguish personal factors from behavioral factors.
Environmental Factors
These are the factors that I believe are most influential to learning. When I was brainstorming, I couldn't help but think about the story of Johnny from Module 1. As a class, we listed several reasons (formalisms, I now know them to be called, since we had no basis for them) for why he was experiencing difficulties. These listed reasons, even if they didn't apply in the Johnny situation, did, however, illustrate our understanding of the factors believed to be most influential to learning. I found it slightly difficult to distinguish personal factors from behavioral factors.
Environmental Factors
- Primary needs - Food, water, shelter, etc.
- Family Support/ Parents - Absent or abusive parents may prove detrimental to learning, while caring, involved parents may foster learning
- Family Environment
- Socioeconomic level - If the student is worried about money issues at home, then her ability to learn may be jeopardized. Likewise, if the student does not have to worry about money issues, her focus can be shifted entirely to learning.
- Peers - Students are strongly influenced by their peers; if a student's peers view learning as stupid, there is a good chance that the student could be persuaded to believe that as well.
- School Philosophy - Whatever the school's philosophy or thought process on learning is, it is bound to affect the learning processes of its students.
- Comforting Learning Environment - if the student feels comfortable, then she may learn easier.
- Teachers - Teachers are part of the learning environment. Simply put, some teachers are better than others; teachers students come into contact with are going to influence their learning process.
Behavioral Factors
- Determination
- Self-Regulation
- Attention
- Perseverance
- Attendance - If a student chooses not to attend school, his ability to learn from the classroom is greatly effected.
Personal Factors
- Intelligence
- Personality traits
- Motivation/Determination
- Self-Regulation
- Attitude/Willingness to learn
- Information Storage/Recall
Monday, July 16, 2012
Activity 6.4
I like Kegan's assertion in his chapter about Jackie, a woman featured in Kathleen Taylor's study of adults reentering schools. Jackie, who professed new found confidence and self-assurance after returning to school, developed what Kegan termed as "self-authorship, of becoming the definer of one's acceptability," (301). I would very much like to become the definer of my own acceptability - to be perfectly happy with my own existence separate from any other individual. However, I'm having a hard time believing that this state of "self-authorship" is a permanent position; it would seem to me that some people would feel more confident or self-assured in some situations or years of their life than others.
I can't imagine that once achieved, self-authorship is unchangeable. It is not a permanent characteristic, like the color of your eyes, but an active choice of world perception. Certain issues will appear, as issues always do, but it will be an active choice to remain confident and stable in my own shoes. But no matter how self-accepting I wish to be, I want to allow those around me (if they choose ) to lend a helping hand in my life. After all, being self-accepting and owning self-authorship doesn't mean advocating self-isolation.
As for Power's chapter, it reminded me strongly of Rosen's article from Week 4, The Myth of Multitasking. All of the busy, busy, busy modern day problems (and modern day solutions: multitasking) can be eased by simply relaxing. Chilling. Taking a walk out doors without the cell phone. My boyfriend is an RA at a state sponsored camp that requires that all campers give up their cell phones during the entire day. The campers may use them at night and only in their rooms. I thought that the rule was oppressive and was happy that my boyfriend was still allowed to use his cell phone whenever he wants. But, when I said that to him, he merely shrugged and said, "It's not really a big deal. By the third day, the campers never even miss them."
I was slightly shocked. Not because of the fact that their cell phones weren't missed, but because the opportunity to call anyone at anytime was not missed. The connectivity to everyone in their contact lists was not missed. Whoa. What?
"Wouldn't they want to be able to call the people they miss at anytime?"
My boyfriend replied, "We are trying to teach them to experience what is happening right now."
And apparently, after three days, the campers love it.
I like Kegan's assertion in his chapter about Jackie, a woman featured in Kathleen Taylor's study of adults reentering schools. Jackie, who professed new found confidence and self-assurance after returning to school, developed what Kegan termed as "self-authorship, of becoming the definer of one's acceptability," (301). I would very much like to become the definer of my own acceptability - to be perfectly happy with my own existence separate from any other individual. However, I'm having a hard time believing that this state of "self-authorship" is a permanent position; it would seem to me that some people would feel more confident or self-assured in some situations or years of their life than others.
I can't imagine that once achieved, self-authorship is unchangeable. It is not a permanent characteristic, like the color of your eyes, but an active choice of world perception. Certain issues will appear, as issues always do, but it will be an active choice to remain confident and stable in my own shoes. But no matter how self-accepting I wish to be, I want to allow those around me (if they choose ) to lend a helping hand in my life. After all, being self-accepting and owning self-authorship doesn't mean advocating self-isolation.
As for Power's chapter, it reminded me strongly of Rosen's article from Week 4, The Myth of Multitasking. All of the busy, busy, busy modern day problems (and modern day solutions: multitasking) can be eased by simply relaxing. Chilling. Taking a walk out doors without the cell phone. My boyfriend is an RA at a state sponsored camp that requires that all campers give up their cell phones during the entire day. The campers may use them at night and only in their rooms. I thought that the rule was oppressive and was happy that my boyfriend was still allowed to use his cell phone whenever he wants. But, when I said that to him, he merely shrugged and said, "It's not really a big deal. By the third day, the campers never even miss them."
I was slightly shocked. Not because of the fact that their cell phones weren't missed, but because the opportunity to call anyone at anytime was not missed. The connectivity to everyone in their contact lists was not missed. Whoa. What?
"Wouldn't they want to be able to call the people they miss at anytime?"
My boyfriend replied, "We are trying to teach them to experience what is happening right now."
And apparently, after three days, the campers love it.
Activity 6.3 William's Will
I really enjoyed the chapter on the will. I was interested by one point James brings up; he provides an insight into the idea of the teacher's will superseding the will of the student's, thus "breaking" the student's will. He says instead of breaking a child's will (I'm assuming he means corporeally), that a teacher must give the child a brief hiatus from the subject and then resume the task later (110-11). My question is, would James ever endorse the "breaking of someone's will"? (I hate that phrase - its so animalistic).
Also, a brief fun fact: the John Wesley that James quotes in this section on 'the balky will' is the same man who founded the Methodist Church (110). Since I was raised in the Methodist Church, it was an interesting connection for me. Though Wesley meant well with his fervent call to will-breaking, it does make me feel a little grateful that I survived my childhood with my will intact. My parents took an approach similar to the one James advocates: when I simply could NOT grasp a concept or task, instead of making sure that their will dominated mine, they decided to distract me with another task. When I was ready to tackle the formerly difficult task again, I was more capable because of the way my parents handled the situation. For example, when I was young, I could not understand the differences between all the various cleaning products. I would use glass cleaner to polish wood and such. Instead of punishing me for continually getting the products mixed up, they gave me a new task; I was appointed to sweeping and mopping patrol. Eventually, I got the hang of all the products but it came much easier than if I had been punished and forced to continually try to understand.
I was also interested in the passage in which James describes the "expulsive power of higher emotion" (106).
He writes, "Fear arrests appetite, maternal love annuls fear, respect checks sensuality, and the like; and in the more subtle manifestations of the moral life, whenever an ideal stirring is suddenly quickened into intensity, it is as if the whole scale of values of our motives changed its equilibrium. The force of old temperatures vanishes, and what a moment ago was impossible is now not only possible, but easy, because of their inhibition," (106). I would be interested in discussing this "power of higher emotion" in class.
I have found an example of this effect in yet another youtube clip:
Yes, I'm bring Pride and Prejudice into the conversation. In this clip, Mr. Darcy proclaims that his sudden passionate feelings for Elizabeth Bennett trumps all of his previously valid reasons for denying his emotions. Because of the gravity of his feelings, his former inhibitions fall away "and what a moment ago was impossible is not only possible, but easy".
I really enjoyed the chapter on the will. I was interested by one point James brings up; he provides an insight into the idea of the teacher's will superseding the will of the student's, thus "breaking" the student's will. He says instead of breaking a child's will (I'm assuming he means corporeally), that a teacher must give the child a brief hiatus from the subject and then resume the task later (110-11). My question is, would James ever endorse the "breaking of someone's will"? (I hate that phrase - its so animalistic).
Also, a brief fun fact: the John Wesley that James quotes in this section on 'the balky will' is the same man who founded the Methodist Church (110). Since I was raised in the Methodist Church, it was an interesting connection for me. Though Wesley meant well with his fervent call to will-breaking, it does make me feel a little grateful that I survived my childhood with my will intact. My parents took an approach similar to the one James advocates: when I simply could NOT grasp a concept or task, instead of making sure that their will dominated mine, they decided to distract me with another task. When I was ready to tackle the formerly difficult task again, I was more capable because of the way my parents handled the situation. For example, when I was young, I could not understand the differences between all the various cleaning products. I would use glass cleaner to polish wood and such. Instead of punishing me for continually getting the products mixed up, they gave me a new task; I was appointed to sweeping and mopping patrol. Eventually, I got the hang of all the products but it came much easier than if I had been punished and forced to continually try to understand.
I was also interested in the passage in which James describes the "expulsive power of higher emotion" (106).
He writes, "Fear arrests appetite, maternal love annuls fear, respect checks sensuality, and the like; and in the more subtle manifestations of the moral life, whenever an ideal stirring is suddenly quickened into intensity, it is as if the whole scale of values of our motives changed its equilibrium. The force of old temperatures vanishes, and what a moment ago was impossible is now not only possible, but easy, because of their inhibition," (106). I would be interested in discussing this "power of higher emotion" in class.
I have found an example of this effect in yet another youtube clip:
Yes, I'm bring Pride and Prejudice into the conversation. In this clip, Mr. Darcy proclaims that his sudden passionate feelings for Elizabeth Bennett trumps all of his previously valid reasons for denying his emotions. Because of the gravity of his feelings, his former inhibitions fall away "and what a moment ago was impossible is not only possible, but easy".
Activity 6. 2
While I watched and was interested by the Marshmellow video, I was very interested in Dan Meyer's video on teaching mathematics. I now know that I can blame all my mathematical deficiencies on the text book. It makes me feel better.
On a different note, I was pleased that one of Meyers "to-do's" in his classroom (#1 in fact) was multi-media teaching. I am a huge proponent of multimedia teaching and have planned many of my future units around the concept of integrating several different mediums of information into my class curriculum. I would consider multimedia teaching as the modern day exemplification of how James hopes teachers will stimulate interest in their students.
James writes in his compilation Talks to Teachers on Psychology that "one teacher's mind will fairly coruscate with points of connection between the new lesson and the circumstances of the children's other experience. Anecdotes and reminiscences will abound in her talk; and the shuttle of interest will shoot backward and forward, weaving the new with the old together in a lively and entertaining way, " (67).
With the interest and experience of students existing more than ever in the technological realm, it seems dangerously erroneous to continue teaching in the same format as decades past. Teachers can embrace the interests of their students, and then direct their attention to the necessary curriculum based on those interests.
As for multimedia teaching, I often choose books for my units that have film or musical counterparts. You could even analyze book covers and movie posters. Everything is fair game. This engages the students, allowing them to interact with different versions of the same story. For example, if I were to teach a unit on utopias and dystopias, I could assign The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins. (There has been a big push for the use of popular literature in classrooms to stimulate interest among students. Very Jamesian of them. ) Since The Hunger Games has a movie adaptation, that allows for many more avenues of discussion and interpretation, even among formally timid readers. I would ask questions like:
(for character analysis)
Are the characters in the books portrayed the same way in the movie? What's different? How can you tell?
(for discussions on intended audiences and tone)
Why do you think the film makers chose to make those differences? How do those differences change the tone? Do you think the film makers had the same intent as Suzanne Collins when writing the book? What can you tell about the film maker's intent by evaluating the casting choices?
And so on...
I could go further about my classroom decisions (I have A LOT of ideas on how to use art work, music, non fiction elements) but I won't write them all down.
While I watched and was interested by the Marshmellow video, I was very interested in Dan Meyer's video on teaching mathematics. I now know that I can blame all my mathematical deficiencies on the text book. It makes me feel better.
On a different note, I was pleased that one of Meyers "to-do's" in his classroom (#1 in fact) was multi-media teaching. I am a huge proponent of multimedia teaching and have planned many of my future units around the concept of integrating several different mediums of information into my class curriculum. I would consider multimedia teaching as the modern day exemplification of how James hopes teachers will stimulate interest in their students.
James writes in his compilation Talks to Teachers on Psychology that "one teacher's mind will fairly coruscate with points of connection between the new lesson and the circumstances of the children's other experience. Anecdotes and reminiscences will abound in her talk; and the shuttle of interest will shoot backward and forward, weaving the new with the old together in a lively and entertaining way, " (67).
With the interest and experience of students existing more than ever in the technological realm, it seems dangerously erroneous to continue teaching in the same format as decades past. Teachers can embrace the interests of their students, and then direct their attention to the necessary curriculum based on those interests.
As for multimedia teaching, I often choose books for my units that have film or musical counterparts. You could even analyze book covers and movie posters. Everything is fair game. This engages the students, allowing them to interact with different versions of the same story. For example, if I were to teach a unit on utopias and dystopias, I could assign The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins. (There has been a big push for the use of popular literature in classrooms to stimulate interest among students. Very Jamesian of them. ) Since The Hunger Games has a movie adaptation, that allows for many more avenues of discussion and interpretation, even among formally timid readers. I would ask questions like:
(for character analysis)
Are the characters in the books portrayed the same way in the movie? What's different? How can you tell?
(for discussions on intended audiences and tone)
Why do you think the film makers chose to make those differences? How do those differences change the tone? Do you think the film makers had the same intent as Suzanne Collins when writing the book? What can you tell about the film maker's intent by evaluating the casting choices?
And so on...
I could go further about my classroom decisions (I have A LOT of ideas on how to use art work, music, non fiction elements) but I won't write them all down.
Activity 6. 1
Why is problem solving analogous to learning?
Both processes involve heavy emphasis on change in behavior and importance of integrating knowledge gained through experience. Since our class has defined learning as "a process inferred that involves a relatively permanent change in behavior or the capacity to behave that is the result of our direct or indirect experience", we recognize that it is our experiences that changes our behavior. It is unlikely that we would learn anything without experiencing anything in some way. Similarly, authors Pretz, Naples & Sternberg recognize that our experiences play a role in the problem solving process as well.
If, when solving a problem, a person has no previous experience with the situation, her attempt to "develop a solution strategy" (Pretz, Naples & Sternberg, 4) might not successful. However, since she has gained experience from her failed solution (or successful solution - for she would remember what do if the problem arises again), she is more likely to succeed in solving the problem in a future attempt.
So, as a heart and a pump jack (a pump jack is the horse head mechanism for pumping oil from a well into a tank - they are usually seen in the middle of fields) are analogous in that they both pump liquids throughout their systems, problem solving and learning are analogous in that they both capitalize on the importance of cleaving information from experiences.
Is all learning problem solving or do we learn without solving problems?
It seems that while most conscious learning is problem solving, any latent learning or subconscious learning is not problem solving. To bring in a tenet of constructivism, any attempt to correct disequilibrium would be considered problem solving (ie. there is a problem that is causing a dissonance between what you had expected and reality). Even so, spontaneous learning can still happen without the problem or dissonance motivating the process.
Take children, for example. Once a child reaches two or three, he becomes a SPONGE. Literally, everything in his surroundings becomes a valuable tool for learning ("What's that? What's this? Why are you doing that?...". His vocabulary expands drastically and he learns many things - there is no problem solving involved, simply learning.
Connect central concepts in the assigned readings to an important problem that you have recently solved or that you are trying to solve
For another class, I had been attempting to contact a professional in the community for an interview. Now, I've had difficulty contacting people for interviews and such before through my job at Residence Life. This time, in order to be more prepared, I initiated the interview three weeks before it was due to avoid any complications.
However, despite the professional's initial excitement about being interviewed, two weeks went by without a response to my questions. I had sent a preliminary email to gauge her process; I decided to wait on sending another and give her the benefit of the doubt - after all, she is a hard working lady!
Still no response. Obviously, my solution of waiting for a response did not work. The Friday before assignment was due (on that next Tuesday), I began to get nervous. I had to reevaluate my options. I needed to decide whether I had time to contact another professional in the community before the due date or if I should put all hopes in my first interviewee.
I decided to stick with the first interviewee because, not only was I very interested in her program and contribution to society, but there was no time to contact anyone else. I sent her an email on that Friday explaining when my assignment was due and followed that with another email on Saturday and Monday morning. With the assignment being due at midnight the next day, I was getting beyond anxious. Fortunately, Monday afternoon she did come through, emailing me back wonderfully crafted answers to each of my questions. The assignment was saved and my grades were out of immediate peril.
It was essential for my grade that I evaluate the information, and plan a suitable solution to my problem. When my first (slightly weak) decision to wait out the silence failed, I needed to step up, reevaluate the situation and plan accordingly. Using the past experience to bolster my new plan, which was to send prodding emails until she responded, I was successful in my endeavor.
Why is problem solving analogous to learning?
Both processes involve heavy emphasis on change in behavior and importance of integrating knowledge gained through experience. Since our class has defined learning as "a process inferred that involves a relatively permanent change in behavior or the capacity to behave that is the result of our direct or indirect experience", we recognize that it is our experiences that changes our behavior. It is unlikely that we would learn anything without experiencing anything in some way. Similarly, authors Pretz, Naples & Sternberg recognize that our experiences play a role in the problem solving process as well.
If, when solving a problem, a person has no previous experience with the situation, her attempt to "develop a solution strategy" (Pretz, Naples & Sternberg, 4) might not successful. However, since she has gained experience from her failed solution (or successful solution - for she would remember what do if the problem arises again), she is more likely to succeed in solving the problem in a future attempt.
So, as a heart and a pump jack (a pump jack is the horse head mechanism for pumping oil from a well into a tank - they are usually seen in the middle of fields) are analogous in that they both pump liquids throughout their systems, problem solving and learning are analogous in that they both capitalize on the importance of cleaving information from experiences.
Is all learning problem solving or do we learn without solving problems?
It seems that while most conscious learning is problem solving, any latent learning or subconscious learning is not problem solving. To bring in a tenet of constructivism, any attempt to correct disequilibrium would be considered problem solving (ie. there is a problem that is causing a dissonance between what you had expected and reality). Even so, spontaneous learning can still happen without the problem or dissonance motivating the process.
Take children, for example. Once a child reaches two or three, he becomes a SPONGE. Literally, everything in his surroundings becomes a valuable tool for learning ("What's that? What's this? Why are you doing that?...". His vocabulary expands drastically and he learns many things - there is no problem solving involved, simply learning.
Connect central concepts in the assigned readings to an important problem that you have recently solved or that you are trying to solve
For another class, I had been attempting to contact a professional in the community for an interview. Now, I've had difficulty contacting people for interviews and such before through my job at Residence Life. This time, in order to be more prepared, I initiated the interview three weeks before it was due to avoid any complications.
However, despite the professional's initial excitement about being interviewed, two weeks went by without a response to my questions. I had sent a preliminary email to gauge her process; I decided to wait on sending another and give her the benefit of the doubt - after all, she is a hard working lady!
Still no response. Obviously, my solution of waiting for a response did not work. The Friday before assignment was due (on that next Tuesday), I began to get nervous. I had to reevaluate my options. I needed to decide whether I had time to contact another professional in the community before the due date or if I should put all hopes in my first interviewee.
I decided to stick with the first interviewee because, not only was I very interested in her program and contribution to society, but there was no time to contact anyone else. I sent her an email on that Friday explaining when my assignment was due and followed that with another email on Saturday and Monday morning. With the assignment being due at midnight the next day, I was getting beyond anxious. Fortunately, Monday afternoon she did come through, emailing me back wonderfully crafted answers to each of my questions. The assignment was saved and my grades were out of immediate peril.
It was essential for my grade that I evaluate the information, and plan a suitable solution to my problem. When my first (slightly weak) decision to wait out the silence failed, I needed to step up, reevaluate the situation and plan accordingly. Using the past experience to bolster my new plan, which was to send prodding emails until she responded, I was successful in my endeavor.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Activity 5.5
One point I thought was interesting about the video portion of our discussion was Kelly's video. It talked about a man known as H.M, who had sustained damage to the part of his brain that allowed him formulate memories. This led to a discussion on the biological functions of each part of the brain in accordance to memory and then to Jennifer's video on synesthesia. Having little background in psychology, it was enlightening to see biological functions described with psychological implications.
Also interesting was Karen's reaction to my description of my video. Once I described that the man featured in my video pinpointed "learning patterns" (ie. associations and habits as James might call them) as the key to learning new languages, Karen provided insight on that point: even though the man in my video seems completely ignorant of James and his grip on educational philosophy, the man is able to, from his own experiences, come to the same conclusion as James on how people learn. This seems to point to an innate understanding of how learning occurs, no?
We also decided that some subject matters do lend themselves more easily to a minimally guided lesson, such as English or literature. The article by Kirshner, Sweller, and Clark, "Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work", did seem to be too final and overreaching with its dismissal of a minimally guided curriculum. They did not research the fact that different subjects can be taught effectively in different fashions: a minimally guided class on literature might be taught successfully, while a science class may flounder.
One point I thought was interesting about the video portion of our discussion was Kelly's video. It talked about a man known as H.M, who had sustained damage to the part of his brain that allowed him formulate memories. This led to a discussion on the biological functions of each part of the brain in accordance to memory and then to Jennifer's video on synesthesia. Having little background in psychology, it was enlightening to see biological functions described with psychological implications.
Also interesting was Karen's reaction to my description of my video. Once I described that the man featured in my video pinpointed "learning patterns" (ie. associations and habits as James might call them) as the key to learning new languages, Karen provided insight on that point: even though the man in my video seems completely ignorant of James and his grip on educational philosophy, the man is able to, from his own experiences, come to the same conclusion as James on how people learn. This seems to point to an innate understanding of how learning occurs, no?
We also decided that some subject matters do lend themselves more easily to a minimally guided lesson, such as English or literature. The article by Kirshner, Sweller, and Clark, "Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work", did seem to be too final and overreaching with its dismissal of a minimally guided curriculum. They did not research the fact that different subjects can be taught effectively in different fashions: a minimally guided class on literature might be taught successfully, while a science class may flounder.
Activity 5.4
I watched Kelly Garringer-Maccabe's video: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/how-memory-works.html
AND
Jordan Sharpe's video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bfhIuaD183I
I watched Kelly Garringer-Maccabe's video: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/how-memory-works.html
AND
Jordan Sharpe's video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bfhIuaD183I
...either you got it or you don't.
Activity 5.2
There is a popular T.V show on USA right now called Suits. It features a man who "consumes knowledge like you've never seen before" (his words, not mine).I posted a link to the trailer because it introduces the title character as person of fantastic talents. My question is this, is this character more successful at "consuming knowledge" because he is capable of storing infinite amounts of information or because he possesses superior skill at retrieving information perceived from memory? What do you think?
This character on the show reminds of the blessed group of people James refers to in Chapter 12: "And, when both memory and philosophy combine together in one person, then indeed we have the highest sort of intellectual efficiency. Your Walter Scotts, your Leibnitzes, your Gladstones, and your Goethes, all your folio copies of mankind, belong to this type," (James, 79-80). This seems to suggest that either you've got the gift to recall information and relate it efficiently (and often times, brilliantly) to the world or you don't. It would seem that we are highly influenced, as James lists, by the people who "got it".
James does go on to mention people who can "work out results or recollect where in the books to find them" (80). I would imagine that most people, including myself, fall into this mass - people who are indeed capable, but just not the most capable. I once had the misfortune of researching for a literature paper alongside of an individual that James would categorize as one with "the highest sort of intellectual efficiency". We had the same topic; I don't remember what it was, but I bet he would. While he was whizzing along, recalling quotes, studies, statistics, criticisms and lectures, I was anxiously flipping through crusty book pages in hopes for a measly reference. Eventually, I did find all the resources I needed (after several more trips to the library and hours on the computer) and did finally complete my paper. However, my classmate had been done for a week, spending no more than a few hours researching and crafting his essay. Both of us received high marks on our papers, but he was much more efficient and economical with his search.
Another individual with "highest sort of intellectual efficiency" is the Matt Damon's character, Will, in the movie Good Will Hunting. In a memorable scene, a pompous graduate student, after being utterly decimated by Will in an intellectual spitting match, predicts while he is successful with his costly educational degrees, Will will be "serving his kids fries". Will's reply is what interests me: "Well, at least I won't be unoriginal". (Watch the clip from 1:10 to see the interaction).
The graduate student could recall with accuracy the information being taught in his Harvard classes; he could recite whole phrases from complex text. But what he lacked was Will's ability to blend his recollection of the subject matter with his own experiences on the matter, thus creating new and original thoughts. The way I see it, the graduate student's education is not serving its full purpose. Now, as teachers, we focus on discovering new ways to make it easier for our students to recall information. My opinion may be cheapened by the fact that I have not yet begun to teach, but it does seem that, if education stops merely at the recollection of information, we are not providing our students with the widest array of possibilities. Students should be encouraged not only to recall information from classes, but to go further, to formulate their own opinions, thoughts and discoveries based on what is learned. Originality should be prized more highly.
There is a popular T.V show on USA right now called Suits. It features a man who "consumes knowledge like you've never seen before" (his words, not mine).I posted a link to the trailer because it introduces the title character as person of fantastic talents. My question is this, is this character more successful at "consuming knowledge" because he is capable of storing infinite amounts of information or because he possesses superior skill at retrieving information perceived from memory? What do you think?
This character on the show reminds of the blessed group of people James refers to in Chapter 12: "And, when both memory and philosophy combine together in one person, then indeed we have the highest sort of intellectual efficiency. Your Walter Scotts, your Leibnitzes, your Gladstones, and your Goethes, all your folio copies of mankind, belong to this type," (James, 79-80). This seems to suggest that either you've got the gift to recall information and relate it efficiently (and often times, brilliantly) to the world or you don't. It would seem that we are highly influenced, as James lists, by the people who "got it".
James does go on to mention people who can "work out results or recollect where in the books to find them" (80). I would imagine that most people, including myself, fall into this mass - people who are indeed capable, but just not the most capable. I once had the misfortune of researching for a literature paper alongside of an individual that James would categorize as one with "the highest sort of intellectual efficiency". We had the same topic; I don't remember what it was, but I bet he would. While he was whizzing along, recalling quotes, studies, statistics, criticisms and lectures, I was anxiously flipping through crusty book pages in hopes for a measly reference. Eventually, I did find all the resources I needed (after several more trips to the library and hours on the computer) and did finally complete my paper. However, my classmate had been done for a week, spending no more than a few hours researching and crafting his essay. Both of us received high marks on our papers, but he was much more efficient and economical with his search.
Another individual with "highest sort of intellectual efficiency" is the Matt Damon's character, Will, in the movie Good Will Hunting. In a memorable scene, a pompous graduate student, after being utterly decimated by Will in an intellectual spitting match, predicts while he is successful with his costly educational degrees, Will will be "serving his kids fries". Will's reply is what interests me: "Well, at least I won't be unoriginal". (Watch the clip from 1:10 to see the interaction).
The graduate student could recall with accuracy the information being taught in his Harvard classes; he could recite whole phrases from complex text. But what he lacked was Will's ability to blend his recollection of the subject matter with his own experiences on the matter, thus creating new and original thoughts. The way I see it, the graduate student's education is not serving its full purpose. Now, as teachers, we focus on discovering new ways to make it easier for our students to recall information. My opinion may be cheapened by the fact that I have not yet begun to teach, but it does seem that, if education stops merely at the recollection of information, we are not providing our students with the widest array of possibilities. Students should be encouraged not only to recall information from classes, but to go further, to formulate their own opinions, thoughts and discoveries based on what is learned. Originality should be prized more highly.
Activity 5.1
Does learning depend on memory? Have we learned a thing if we can't remember it? Why is it that we remember so (seemingly) little of what we have been taught? Can we conclude that we have "forgotten" something if we cannot recall information verbally? On the other hand, why do we often remember (and often so vividly) the very things we wish to forget?
I would imagine that learning does depend on memory, in the way that you have to remember an action or thought process many times before it becomes a habit.
I think that, since we defined learning as a relatively permanent change, it would seem to say that if one can't remember a fact that it wasn't really learned. In that case, it would make more since to say that it was memorized, not learned.
I have heard that facts, once learned, are always floating around in our brains - the problem arises when they cannot be retrieved at will. I have read countless essays over literary criticism (essentially being taught) , but I have trouble recalling any author's opinion at any given time. I think that the reason behind my failure to remember is the fact that the information never made its way to my long term memory bank; really, I just memorized their opinions long enough to reference them in my papers, and then forgot all about them.
I'm not sure if we can count something as "forgotten" if we can still recall what it is that was forgot. I'm famous for answering questions with, "I know the answer, Professor, but I can't formulate it into words. It's like this...". The fact that I can describe the forgotten word or concept in "its like this" terms seems to point out that I do in fact remember the subject matter, if not the accurate verbal description?
I would imagine that the reason horrible things are remembered so vividly is related to the emotion that is sparked upon their conception. It seems, at least to me, that the emotions accompanied by the memory are remembered so much clearer than the actual event; horrible memories refuse to die because of the impression they made on us. For example, I have had horrible dreams since I was a little kid after watching a particular Goosebumps episode about a deranged cat/monster. Yes, really. But I have trouble recalling the actual episode itself; it is far easier for me to remember the feelings I had when watching the video.
Does learning depend on memory? Have we learned a thing if we can't remember it? Why is it that we remember so (seemingly) little of what we have been taught? Can we conclude that we have "forgotten" something if we cannot recall information verbally? On the other hand, why do we often remember (and often so vividly) the very things we wish to forget?
I would imagine that learning does depend on memory, in the way that you have to remember an action or thought process many times before it becomes a habit.
I think that, since we defined learning as a relatively permanent change, it would seem to say that if one can't remember a fact that it wasn't really learned. In that case, it would make more since to say that it was memorized, not learned.
I have heard that facts, once learned, are always floating around in our brains - the problem arises when they cannot be retrieved at will. I have read countless essays over literary criticism (essentially being taught) , but I have trouble recalling any author's opinion at any given time. I think that the reason behind my failure to remember is the fact that the information never made its way to my long term memory bank; really, I just memorized their opinions long enough to reference them in my papers, and then forgot all about them.
I'm not sure if we can count something as "forgotten" if we can still recall what it is that was forgot. I'm famous for answering questions with, "I know the answer, Professor, but I can't formulate it into words. It's like this...". The fact that I can describe the forgotten word or concept in "its like this" terms seems to point out that I do in fact remember the subject matter, if not the accurate verbal description?
I would imagine that the reason horrible things are remembered so vividly is related to the emotion that is sparked upon their conception. It seems, at least to me, that the emotions accompanied by the memory are remembered so much clearer than the actual event; horrible memories refuse to die because of the impression they made on us. For example, I have had horrible dreams since I was a little kid after watching a particular Goosebumps episode about a deranged cat/monster. Yes, really. But I have trouble recalling the actual episode itself; it is far easier for me to remember the feelings I had when watching the video.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Monday, July 2, 2012
Activity 4.4
This leads to my question:
Why is it that women are almost unanimously regarded as the superior mulitaskers?
Multitasking
In the article, “The Myth of
Multitasking”, author Christine Rosen details multitasking as “shorthand for
the human attempt to do simultaneously as many things as possible, as quickly
as possible, preferably marshalling the power of as many technologies as
possible,” (105).
Before this working definition was
presented, I had never thought of “multitasking” as a choice or a conscious
action (least of all an attempt); to me, it was what capable people do, it was how their very “capability”
was manifested. Right now,
I am enrolled in three graduate classes. I thought, “Sure, I can do all these
at the same time,” silently understanding “because I am capable enough to
multitask”. This understanding, meant to convey confidence, was strongly
flavored with hubris. While I am successful enough in each class, it goes
without saying that, if I had afforded myself the opportunity to focus on one
task at a time, the quality of my work would be vastly approved.
Culturally, when asked about multitasking,
it is generally accepted (by accepted, I mean proclaimed by the women and
admitted by the men) that it is ladies, not the fellas, who excel in this
practice. Of course, I am totally impartial... In this humorous clip, a group of men ponder the meaning of
“multitasking” and debate the necessity of their involvement in the practice:
This leads to my question:
Why is it that women are almost unanimously regarded as the superior mulitaskers?
Activity 4.3
I was dumbfounded by the results of the article ("Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence"). Since I plan on being a high school teacher, I have thought extensively on which teaching methods to use in order to have the greatest impact on my students. This being so, I had come across the "meshing hypothesis" before (never by name, though - I simply knew it by application) and heartily agreed with the principle. I referred to the hypothesis as a principle in the previous because, to me, an eager future teacher, that's exactly what the "meshing hypothesis" was: a goal to be established, a principle to be upheld.
"Yes!" I thought. "What better way to help my students learn than to individual cater to each learning style and preference?" I didn't realize the practical implications of that assertion at the time, being as zealous as neophytes generally are. I didn't recognize the time and effort that it would take to individualize lessons or stop to wonder if, in fact, appealing to preferences would actually benefit the student more.
After reading the article, I am still, as I said before, dumbfounded. How could a hypothesis, which is so widely understood (or at least it seemed), be unsubstantiated by evidence? Why is it continuing to be referenced in educational classes and among future teachers?
The answer: the "meshing hypothesis" is so widely referenced because it is so appealing to educators. The very premise gives teachers hope (ie. the willing student + knowledge of preference + right lesson plan = success). It seems to present the teachers a veritable code that, if deciphered in the right order during the right circumstances, should end in success each and every time. Before the article the hypothesis sounded wonderful; it sounded achievable.
But now, after reading the article (multiple times), it just sounds impractical.
I was dumbfounded by the results of the article ("Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence"). Since I plan on being a high school teacher, I have thought extensively on which teaching methods to use in order to have the greatest impact on my students. This being so, I had come across the "meshing hypothesis" before (never by name, though - I simply knew it by application) and heartily agreed with the principle. I referred to the hypothesis as a principle in the previous because, to me, an eager future teacher, that's exactly what the "meshing hypothesis" was: a goal to be established, a principle to be upheld.
"Yes!" I thought. "What better way to help my students learn than to individual cater to each learning style and preference?" I didn't realize the practical implications of that assertion at the time, being as zealous as neophytes generally are. I didn't recognize the time and effort that it would take to individualize lessons or stop to wonder if, in fact, appealing to preferences would actually benefit the student more.
After reading the article, I am still, as I said before, dumbfounded. How could a hypothesis, which is so widely understood (or at least it seemed), be unsubstantiated by evidence? Why is it continuing to be referenced in educational classes and among future teachers?
The answer: the "meshing hypothesis" is so widely referenced because it is so appealing to educators. The very premise gives teachers hope (ie. the willing student + knowledge of preference + right lesson plan = success). It seems to present the teachers a veritable code that, if deciphered in the right order during the right circumstances, should end in success each and every time. Before the article the hypothesis sounded wonderful; it sounded achievable.
But now, after reading the article (multiple times), it just sounds impractical.
Activity 4.1
I found news video reporting on the "vOICe seeing with sound technology". (In case you were wondering, the capital letters OIC in "voice" literally mean, "Oh, I see!").
What interests me about this concept is the aspect of "sensory substitution" - literally, using the input from one sense to replace another malfunctioning or missing sense. As the name of the organization obviously denotes, Seeing with Sound actively manufactures sound equipment for blind patrons, actually allowing each user to experience "sight" through the combination of the equipment and their own ears. Pat Fletcher, the woman featured in the video, claims that the noises generated by the machine "trigger [her] own memories" of sight and, because of these memories, allow her to see the world around her.
The video does admit that the equipment is "hard to master"; to our class, this literally means the input is difficult for the users to receive for reasons relating to the critical characteristics of input.
Also, I had a question about this method:
The woman in the video, Pat Fletcher, was blinded by an freak accident; she was not born without sight. She has memories of images of the world, which she says "the vOICe" system triggers and allows her to see. Would this system work for people who were born without sight and therefore have no prior knowledge of what the world looks like? I know that it would be more difficult, but is it possible? What do you think?
Here is the link to the news video: Seeing with Sound: Pat Fletcher's Story
Here is the link to the Seeing with Sound website: The vOICe
I found news video reporting on the "vOICe seeing with sound technology". (In case you were wondering, the capital letters OIC in "voice" literally mean, "Oh, I see!").
What interests me about this concept is the aspect of "sensory substitution" - literally, using the input from one sense to replace another malfunctioning or missing sense. As the name of the organization obviously denotes, Seeing with Sound actively manufactures sound equipment for blind patrons, actually allowing each user to experience "sight" through the combination of the equipment and their own ears. Pat Fletcher, the woman featured in the video, claims that the noises generated by the machine "trigger [her] own memories" of sight and, because of these memories, allow her to see the world around her.
The video does admit that the equipment is "hard to master"; to our class, this literally means the input is difficult for the users to receive for reasons relating to the critical characteristics of input.
- One, if the user typically has no background "seeing" with this particular machine (or no experience of seeing at all), she has no relation to prior knowledge; quite literally, since this machine is one-of-a-kind, there is no previous experience the user can rest on in order to bolster her understanding of the unique sounds emitted from the machine.
- Two, while the input designated by the machine may be presented clearly (meaning the sounds are easily heard), the pattern for deciphering the meaning behind the sounds is complex and different for each individual stimuli (for example, a sapling may sound different from a sequoia but both are still registered as "tree" to the machine).
Also, I had a question about this method:
The woman in the video, Pat Fletcher, was blinded by an freak accident; she was not born without sight. She has memories of images of the world, which she says "the vOICe" system triggers and allows her to see. Would this system work for people who were born without sight and therefore have no prior knowledge of what the world looks like? I know that it would be more difficult, but is it possible? What do you think?
Here is the link to the news video: Seeing with Sound: Pat Fletcher's Story
Here is the link to the Seeing with Sound website: The vOICe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)