Tag Archives: cognition/learning/understanding

Term of Art: Double Bind

“Double bind: An inescapable dilemma involving conflicting demands that allow no right or satisfactory response. An influential theory of the etiology of schizophrenia was put forward by the English-born US anthropologist Gregory Bateson (1904-1980) and several co-authors in an article in the journal Behavioral Science in 1956, according to which schizophrenia is caused by parenting styles that create double binds for children, as when a mother complains to her son for not giving her a kiss but recoils physically whenever the child does kiss her. This theory was enthusiastically adopted by the Scottish psychiatrist Ronald D(avid) Laing (1927-89) and others during the 1970s and 1980s, but empirical evidence has not been forthcoming in support of the theory, despite its attractiveness.”

Excerpted from: Colman, Andrew M., ed. Oxford Dictionary of Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Schizophrenia

It’s a gorgeous August day in southwestern Vermont. Here, if you can use it (I did more than once, for students dealing with schizophrenia in their families), is a reading on schizophrenia along with its vocabulary-building and comprehension worksheet. The reading is relatively straightforward, nonetheless it contains abstractions (e.g. “delusions of grandeur”) with which some learners may struggle. As with just about everything else at Mark’s Text Terminal, this document is formatted in Microsoft Word, so you can alter it to your student’s needs.

If you find typos in these documents, I would appreciate a notification. And, as always, if you find this material useful in your practice, I would be grateful to hear what you think of it. I seek your peer review.

Term of Art: Cultural Determinant

“A factor arising from racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic background that may systematically influence test performance on a specific assessment instrument.”

Excerpted from: Turkington, Carol, and Joseph R. Harris, PhD. The Encyclopedia of Learning Disabilities. New York: Facts on File, 2006.

Term of Art: Analogy

analogy: A comparison between two different but related things. The ability to comprehend and create analogies is an important component of critical reasoning capabilities. For example, an analogy might compare the biological process of a tree growing from a small seed to a tall oak, to the human process of development from infancy to adulthood. This analogy would be written;

SEED : OAK AS INFANT : ADULT

Another type of analogy is the visual analogy. For example, in a 2 X 2 cell grid, the two cells on the left might contain blue strs, and the top cell on the right might contain a green square. The person taking the test must then select which of several presented figures (including the correct green square) mts go in the empty cell.

For some students with learning disabilities, understanding analogies may be very difficult. They may process information in fairly concrete ways, and miss more subtle connections between dissimilar things.

Often, however, the ability to reason analogically is a relative strength for students with learning disabilities.”

Excerpted from: Turkington, Carol, and Joseph R. Harris, PhD. The Encyclopedia of Learning Disabilities. New York: Facts on File, 2006.

Term of Art: Prior Knowledge

“prior knowledge: The totality of an individual’s experience and knowledge at any given time—that is, what a student brings as background information to a new learning experience. The more prior knowledge a person has, the more prepared he or she will be to learn new ideas. Almost everything that a person learns or can learn depends on the extent of his or her prior knowledge. One of the major missions of school is to build students’ fund of background knowledge so they have a foundation for future learning.”

Excerpted from: Ravitch, Diane. EdSpeak: A Glossary of Education Terms, Phrases, Buzzwords, and Jargon. Alexandria, VA: ASCD, 2007.

Chapter 7 of The Reading Mind: “Reading After the Digital Revolution” Summary, Implications and Discussion Questions

“Chapter 7: “Reading After the Digital Revolution” Summary, Implications and Discussion Questions

Summary

  • Software designed to teach reading has been variable in its success. Some applications work well, others do not. Advantages that software could theoretically bring to the teaching of reading have been harder to exploit than anticipated.
  • There is a small cost to reading on a screen compared to reading on paper. That cost will likely decline and may well disappear in the coming years, as engineers find better ways to design ebooks.
  • Students can access information at unprecedented scale and with unprecedented speed, but there is little evidence that this access is influencing reading or learning.
  • There’s also little evidence that digital gadgets have displaced reading in students’ lives, but that may mostly be that students have never read much.

 Implications

  • Although the comprehension cost associated with e-textbooks is modest, it’s large enough that most students don’t want to use them. Schools and districts should be cautious in adopting them until they improve.
  • “Digital literacy” (defined as learning how to navigate common applications) seems to be mostly overblown. Common applications and platforms are written to be easy to use, and most students gain familiarity with them at home. The exception is disadvantaged students who do not have the access to digital technologies that wealthier students do. For these students, the idea of gaining this sort of digital literacy at school makes sense.
  • Although there’s little evidence that digital amusements are displacing reading, I still favor limits on screen time. I believe the lack of evidence is due to what statisticians call a “floor effect”: reading didn’t decline with the introduction of digital technologies because it couldn’t go much lower. Limiting screen time will not only make time for reading, it removes choice from the environment for part of a kid’s day, and that may make reading the most attractive choice available, as described in Chapter 6.
  • If I’m right about children today having a lower threshold for boredom than children a generation ago, then limits on screen time might help. If children are more often left to entertain themselves, we would expect that they will not only learn to do so, they will learn that sometimes one is bored for awhile before there’s a payoff. Sometimes a book starts slowly, but builds in excitement. A flower or an ant hill initially may seem mundane, but sustained attention reveals more there then was first appreciated. There are, as far as I know, no data on whether this supposition is true.

 Discussion Questions

  • Many parents I speak to express a sense of helplessness about screen time. They feel the digital revolution makes technology ubiquitous and they cannot keep their children removed from it. What would you say to such a parent?
  • As noted, students are often too trusting of information they find on the Web. Researchers are trying to develop training regimens to help students learn the skills to evaluate what they find, but progress has been halting. What should parents and teachers do? Limit the sites that students visit for research to list of trusted sources? Let students roam the Web, but follow them and provide feedback?
  • Data indicate that children spend most of their digital time on activities we would not say are especially enriching: Instagramming selfies, shooting zombies in virtual worlds, and so on. Most parents would prefer they were getting some fresh air, or seeing friends face to face. The obvious strategy is to limit screen time. But doing so surrenders the possibility that children will take advantage of other great opportunities a computer affords to learn, or to build, or to meaningfully connect with others. Is there not a strategy by which we can nudge students toward doing more of the digital activities we think are enriching, rather than cutting them off entirely?
  • I suggested that children today read more than ever, but the big increase comes for texting, reading within computer games, and the like. I noted that this type of reading is unlikely to improve comprehension, but would improve fluency. There’s no data on whether or not it would actually work, but would you be willing to take the plunge? Should increased access to text-heavy gaming be a routine part of reading instruction (presumably used as children are developing fluency)?
  • Have you ever cut yourself off from digital devices for a significant period of time, say 48 hours or more? How did you react? Did you feel differently in the 48th hour compared to the first hour? Would this be a useful exercise for students?”

Excerpted from: Willingham, Daniel T. The Reading Mind: A Cognitive Approach to Understanding How the Mind Reads. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2017.

Chapter 6 of The Reading Mind: “Becoming a Reader”: Summary, Implications, and Discussion Questions

“Chapter 6: “Becoming a Reader” Summary, Implications and Discussion Questions

Summary

  • Reading attitudes are largely emotional. They are derived from past reading experiences and from emotions connected to things associated with reading. Motivation to read is a product of the value one expects to derive from reading, and the expectation that the value will actually be obtained if one reads. Reading self-concept comes from the sense that you read more than your peers.
  • To change reading attitudes, reading motivation, or reading self-concept, kids must read. That sound like a catch-22. But there are ways of getting kids to read even if they do not currently have strong reading attitudes, motivations, or self-concepts.
  • Rewards should not be the first strategy to get reluctant kids to read, because they have the potential to depress reading attitudes once the rewards stop.
  • Changes to the environment that can boost reading include: making books very readily available—that is, visible in the environment—and restricting access to other choices, especially screen-based entertainment.

 Implications

  • We tend to focus on getting kids to want to read for the pleasure of reading, but that’s just one positive outcome the child might expect. Another is utility. Parents and teachers can try to exploit situations where reading is useful to the child. Young children can help parents in ways that call for reading: sorting household mail, reading a recipe, helping to find a store by reading signs. When an older child wants something—to be allowed to try out for a sports team, or to own a pet—parents can require they learn something about it by reading first.
  • Because reading attitudes are emotional, there’s not much point in haranguing children with logical reasons to read (for example, saying it will help them later in life). Sure, its worth mentioning because children should know it’s true and you think it’s important, but don’t expect it to influence what kids do.
  • Communicating that reading is a family value is not just about parents modeling good reading habits, although that is, of course important. It’s about intellectual hunger; being the sort of family that likes to learn new things, and likes to have new experiences, for their own sake.
  • As much as access to books should be easy for kids, it should also be easy for parents. Sure, libraries are great, and parents may really intend to visit them, but it’s not always easy to find time. Putting books directly into the hands of parents may help, but research indicates it’s especially important that parents follow up with kids by encouraging them to read the books and by discussing them.
  • If positive associations can rub off one object or activity and onto another (as in the Old Spice example), that offers an opportunity to improve reading attitudes, even in the absence of reading. Books (and other reading material) can be associated with birthdays, Christmas, and other happy occasions via gifts. New reading material can be a regular part of vacations. And if there is a time that reading already holds positive association in the child’s mind—for example, if the child enjoys being read to before bed, or the child has a cozy spot where she reads the same book again and again—that positive association probably shouldn’t be disrupted through parental badgering. For example, a parent might be tempted to practice reading during that bedtime book, or to nag the child to read something else in her cozy chair. Pick another time for these encouragements, and let a happy reading child be happy.

Discussion Questions

  • Research indicates that children’s attitudes toward reading are positive in first grade, but drop off every year thereafter. Attitudes level off in high school, settling around “indifference.” That’s a correlation, of course, and we don’t know that experiences in school are making attitudes toward reading less positive. What’s your take? What do you think contributes to reading attitudes becoming less positive?
  • We elect to do something (or not) based on our estimate of the value of the outcome of making the choice, and the probability that we’ll get the outcome. We typically focus on personal pleasure as the main contributor to the value of the outcome, but as I mentioned, sometimes the social concerns play a role—I might read a book because all my friends are reading it. Teens, as we know, are hyper-social. What might parents and schools do to leverage teens’ social awareness to promote reading.
  • Children are sensitive to the family values their parents communicate, but they are also sensitive to values communicated by other people they respect. Which people in the public eye do students pay attention to? Would they be credible as promoters of reading? Would they be willing to take on the job?
  • Some parents are not interested in reading and do not consider it a family value. Do policymakers and educators have a right to persuade them otherwise? Should anyone be in the business of telling parents how to parent?”

Excerpted from: Willingham, Daniel T. The Reading Mind: A Cognitive Approach to Understanding How the Mind Reads. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2017.

Term of Art: Broca’s Area

“Broca’s area: A part of the brain included in a massive area of damage suffered by an aphasic patient of P. Broca in the mid-19th century. ‘Broca’s aphasia’ is a form characterized by agrammatism and associated in clinical lore with lesions in this area.”

Excerpted from: Matthews, P.H., ed. The Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Appearance and Reality

Last but not least on this hot Saturday afternoon, here is another one-off that I wrote in response to the request of one student, then never used again. Maybe you have a philosophically-minded student whom this reading on appearance and reality and its accompanying vocabulary-building and comprehension worksheet might interest.

If you find typos in these documents, I would appreciate a notification. And, as always, if you find this material useful in your practice, I would be grateful to hear what you think of it. I seek your peer review.

Term of Art: Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test

“Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test: The most widely used intelligence test for measuring the mental skills of children. Binet was the principal author of the original test, designed to identify those French schoolchildren who were in need of special education, in the early twentieth century. He compared the performance of each child with what was average or normal for his or her age. Researchers at Stanford University in the United States later adapted the test, linking it to the concept of an intelligence quotient (IQ), and standardizing test scores round an average IQ of 100. These scores express the alleged intelligence of each child relative to his or her peers in the population. Because they are standardized, it is possible to compare the performance of children in different age-bands, or the same child across time. The items in the test have been subject to periodic revision to allow for socio-economic and cultural change.

A number of other similar intelligence tests are also now in use. However, all such instruments have been subject to criticisms of cultural, class, racial, or sexual bias, and the whole area of intelligence testing remains highly controversial, in both academic and political circles.”

Excerpted from: Marshall, Gordon, ed. Oxford Dictionary of Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.