01.31.2006 - Language affects half of what we see UC Berkeley Press Release Language affects half of what we see By William Harms, University of Chicago, and Robert Sanders, UC Berkeley Media Relations | 31 January 2006 BERKELEY – The language we speak affects half of what we see, according to researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Chicago. Scholars have long debated whether our native language affects how we perceive reality - and whether speakers of different languages might therefore see the world differently. A paper published this month in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences supports the idea - but with a twist. The paper, "Whorf Hypothesis is Supported in the Right Visual Field but not in the Left," is by Aubrey Gilbert, Richard Ivry and Paul Kay at UC Berkeley and Terry Regier at the University of Chicago. This new finding is suggested by the organization of the brain, the researchers say.
Chapter 1 Chapter 1 Foundations of Educational Theory for Online Learning Mohamed Ally Athabasca University There is ongoing debate about whether it is the use of a particular delivery technology or the design of the instruction that improves learning (Clark, 2001; Kozma, 2001). According to Bonk and Reynolds (1997), to promote higher-order thinking on the Web, online learning must create challenging activities that enable learners to link new information to old, acquire meaningful knowledge, and use their metacognitive abilities; hence, it is the instructional strategy and not the technology that influences the quality of learning. Online learning allows for flexibility of access, from anywhere and usually at anytime—essentially, it allows participants to collapse time and space (Cole, 2000)—however, the learning materials must be designed properly to engage the learner and promote learning. top For learners, online learning knows no time zones, and location and distance are not an issue. 1. 2. 3.
Bloom's and ICT tools Many teachers use Bloom's Taxonomy and Bloom's Revised Taxonomy in developing and structuring their teaching & learning experiences. Bloom's Digital taxonomy is an attempt to marry Bloom's revised taxonomy and the key verbs to digital approaches and tools. This is not a replacements to the verbs in the revised taxonomy, rather it suppliments and supports these by including recent developments, processes and tools. This page looks at some specific examples of tools and match them to Bloom's Digital Taxonomy Many of these tools that are FOSS (Free or Open Source Software). These are in italics. Files Web 2.0 Tutorials Without a doubt one of the best resources on the web for web2.0 Technologies is the commoncraft show.
MSNBC - How to Think About the Mind How to Think About the MindNeuroscience shows that the 'soul' is the activity of the brain Sept. 27 issue - Every evening our eyes tell us that the sun sets, while we know that, in fact, the Earth is turning us away from it. Astronomy taught us centuries ago that common sense is not a reliable guide to reality. Modern neuroscience has shown that there is no user. This resistance is not surprising. The disconnect between our common sense and our best science is not an academic curiosity. Prozac shouldn't be dispensed like mints, of course, but the reason is not that it undermines the will. To many, the scariest prospect is medication that can make us better than well by enhancing mood, memory and attention. In Galileo's time, the counter-intuitive discovery that the Earth moved around the sun was laden with moral danger. Pinker is the Johnstone Family Professor in the psychology department at Harvard. © 2004 Newsweek, Inc.
9 Characteristics Of 21st Century Learning The label of “21st Century learning” is vague, and is an idea that we here at TeachThought like to take a swing at as often as possible, including: –weighing the magic of technology with its incredible cost and complexity –underscoring the potential for well thought-out instructional design –considering the considerable potential of social media platforms against its apparent divergence from academic learning Some educators seek out the ideal of a 21st century learning environment constantly, while others prefer that we lose the phrase altogether, insisting that learning hasn’t changed, and good learning looks the same whether it’s the 12th or 21st century. At TeachThought, we tend towards the tech-infused model, but do spend time exploring the limits and challenges of technology, the impact of rapid technology change, and carefully considering important questions before diving in head-first. The size of the circles on the map are intended to convey priority. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Does Language Shape What We Think? My seventh-grade English teacher exhorted us to study vocabulary with the following: "We think in words. The more words you know, the more thoughts you can have." This compound notion that language allows you to have ideas otherwise un-haveable, and that by extension people who own different words live in different conceptual worlds -- called "Whorfianism" after its academic evangelist, Benjamin Lee Whorf -- is so pervasive in modern thought as to be unremarkable. Eskimos, as is commonly reported, have myriads of words for snow, affecting how they perceive frozen percipitation. For all its social success, Whorfianism has fared less well scientifically. Oh, and Eskimos don't have all that many words for snow. In fact, scientists have had so much difficulty demonstrating that language affects thought that in 1994 renown psychologist Steven Pinker called Whorfianism dead. The lack of number words had a profound and surprising effect on what the Pirahã could do. But the Pirahã can't count.
Enhancing Brains Editor’s note: In 2008, Henry T. Greely, a professor at Stanford Law School, co-authored a commentary in Nature; it concluded that “safe and effective cognitive enhancers will benefit both the individual and society.” The article inspired an impressive number of responses from readers, and the debate has continued in scholarly journals and the mainstream media in the years following publication. Here Professor Greely builds on that momentum, arguing that only some concerns about cognitive enhancements are justified and proper attention is needed to address such issues. In December 2008, I was the first author on a paper in Nature called “Towards Responsible Use of Cognitive-Enhancing Drugs by the Healthy.”1 We argued that there was nothing inherently wrong with the use of drugs for cognitive enhancement, although issues of safety, fairness, and coercion will require attention. Probing that question is my ultimate aim in this article, but we will get there somewhat indirectly.
Dunning–Kruger effect Cognitive bias about one's own skill The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities. It was first described by Justin Kruger and David Dunning in 1999. Numerous similar studies have been done. There is disagreement about the causes of the Dunning–Kruger effect. There is also disagreement about where the effect applies and about how strong it is, as well as about its practical consequences. The Dunning–Kruger effect is defined as the tendency of people with low ability in a specific area to give overly positive assessments of this ability. Not knowing the scope of your own ignorance is part of the human condition. David Dunning Some researchers include a metacognitive component in their definition. Among laypeople, the Dunning–Kruger effect is often misunderstood as the claim that people with low intelligence are more confident in their knowledge and skills than people with high intelligence. [edit]