R12

Question:

What happens if a student has “a fixed mindset” as mentioned in Dweck’s article, as instead of the teacher? Would that “fixed” learner create a more difficult challenge for any teacher, one that has a fixed or growth mindset? Especially when considering students with certain disabilities, like ASD, and may have a fixed mindset, what strategies might work best?

Quote:

“To build a better world we need to replace the patchwork of lucky breaks and arbitrary advantages that today determine success—the fortunate birth dates and the happy accidents of history—with a society that provides opportunities for all” (Gladwell, 2008, p. 268).

Connection:

Gladwell’s quote above made me think about the United States’ track record of offering opportunity to its citizens. If Gladwell’s conclusion is true, doesn’t the United States provide conditions for opportunity better than most other countries? Although the country is not perfect, its forefathers seemed to understand and value this idea given its previous dependence on Great Britain. For students in America, having the strength and presence of mind to seize those opportunities, as Gladwell mentioned later, should be the focus. In social cognitive theory, the mindset of the student plays a key part in success. Potentially the education reform should be organized around helping students learn how to recognize and seize the opportunities that living in America affords them. Somehow immigrant students have learned how to do this part (seizing the opportunity) much better than American students.

Connection:

When Gladwell described the schedule of the KIPP student, it reminded me of the film, Race to Nowhere. This description suggested that students who spend more hours in school became better learners, but in Race to Nowhere the opposite seemed to be true. As students work harder and longer, do they ultimate hurt or help themselves to learn more? One main difference between the two scenarios is that students at KIPP seem to receive an amazing amount of support and specific guidance from teachers.

R11

Quote and Questions:

“A discovered problem, however, is one that must be recognized. Such a problem already exists, but it has not been clearly stated to the problem solver” (Pretz, Naples, & Sternberg, 2003, pp. 5-6). This quote stood out because it helps illustrate how important it is to focus on identifying the actual problem before attempting to solve it. It takes a certain amount of patience to do this. In addition, people must be aware of their tendencies of thought. The prior knowledge they have can easily hinder their ability accurately identify a problem in the first place. For some reason, this article makes me feel a bit pessimistic. Given the many ways we may have developed our thinking, it seems that when solving a problem, it is best to either not use those adaptations or prior knowledge, unless it is absolutely appropriate to do so. However in the moment, how do we avoid incorrectly categorizing information? How can we make this process more of an active task, rather than a passive one? More specifically and related to education, how do teachers teach students how to be more aware of their own cognition, especially if teachers may or may not aware their thought processes themselves? As I mention later in this response, many students who receive special education services have the opportunity to learn about their metacognitive knowledge and ways of thinking through goals in their IEP, but how can other students have an opportunity to gain this experience as well?

Connection:

“The shared language and discourse about cognition and learning among peers and between students and teachers helps students become more aware of their own metacognitive knowledge as well as their own strategies for learning and thinking. As they hear and see how their classmates approach a task, they can compare their own strategies with their classmates' and make judgments about the relative utility of different strategies. This type of discourse and discussion helps makes cognition and learning more explicit and less opaque to students, rather than being something that happens mysteriously or that some students "get" and learn and others struggle and don't learn” (Pintrich, 2002, p. 223). When I think back to my earlier experiences in school, I don’t recall spending time thinking about how I think, or how other students think. Making these types of strategies explicit would be beneficial so that students have a diverse set of thinking strategies in their repertoire. Many times I recall individual, spontaneous conversations with others about their thinking strategies, but there was no systematic way of capturing this knowledge for future use.

Connection:

“Rather than educate others to become followers, it is in our best interest to encourage problem solvers to become active problem finders, to stay curious so that they discover and create novel problems, and to think flexibly in the process of solving those problems” (Pretz, Naples, & Sternberg, 2003, p. 27). This particular quote reminds of recommendations found in the article by Kirschner, Sweller and Clark (2006) we read last week for class. In that article the authors suggested that students should be followers to a certain extent and that teachers be effective guides. In terms of creating great problem solvers, how can teachers guide while allowing the students to be active and curious as the quote above suggests? Kirschner, Sweller and Clark do a good job of outlining the different needs for novices and experts, but how does one know when this line is crossed? When (if ever) should teachers begin to fade the level of guidance, to ensure their student’s proper growth? Should be based on grade level, years of experience, or simply capability? This is a larger question for our education system as well. Should students be restricted based on their age, as they are now or should they be allowed more freedom to move at a faster pace? We tend to focus on helping the lowest achieving students, but what about the students who are high achieving and potentially limited? The purpose of our current system is fuzzy, so solving the actual problem is even more challenging, given some of the information from the Pretz, Naples & Sternberg article.

R10

Quote:

“When people do their work only in the “interstices of their mind-wandering,” with crumbs of attention rationed out among many competing tasks, their culture may gain in information, but it will surely weaken in wisdom” (Rosen, 2008, p. 110).

The two articles assigned this week were so interesting and full of useful information I found it difficult to choose one quote to post. The last quote of the Rosen article spoke to me because I wonder if we focus on knowledge so much so that we forget the idea of wisdom. Although knowledge may be important and easier to measure, I wonder if wisdom, in terms cognitive structures and processing, would be a valuable focus of study.

Question:

“When we talk about multitasking, we are really talking about attention: the art of paying attention, the ability to shift our attention, and, more broadly, to exercise judgment about what objects are worthy of our attention” (Rosen, 2008, p. 109). This particular quote leads me again to the idea of wisdom, due to its inclusion of judgment. I wonder, “How does one really learn judgment? Can increased time and exposure lead to better judgment? If so, how could multitasking actually improve, instead of hinder its growth?”

Connections:

One specific connection I would like to make to the Kirschner, Sweller and Clark (2006) article relates to my six-year-old niece. When helping her with homework sometimes I (along with my sister) have noticed that when she does not know the answer to a problem, she attempts to guess the answer. Although it is great to see her take initiative, it is problematic because she sometimes learns the wrong way to solve a problem in the process. In these types of situations, guidance is essential. It does not seem to be beneficial for her to figure things out on her own, putting a high demand on her working memory, and leading to negative results.

This idea makes me think of an outside connection as well. This involves, errorless learning, a method introduced by Herbert Terrace which provides so much guidance to the student that errors are minimized and the likelihood of future errors is also minimized. In the Kirschner, Sweller and Clark (2006) article, they mention worked examples and process worksheets, which can be related to errorless learning. The idea here is that so many prompts are available the student has less chance to practice errors. This type of learning could be effective for novices, as the article outlines, but also for students with certain disabilities including an autism spectrum disorder.

Memory vs. Experience in Happiness

This was an interesting lecture about how we experience and remember situations in terms of happiness. I thought it was interesting because he talks about how we make decisions based on what we remember, not necessarily on how we experience situations in the moment. It reminds of the idea behind scripts or schemas we use to store information in our long term memories. This lecture makes me wonder if this has implications for CBT and other types of therapy, where clients are instructed to change their thoughts and beliefs for improvement.

Module 6

http://theinvisiblegorilla.com/blog/

This is a blog maintained by Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris, both psychologists who designed the famous Invisible Gorilla experiment. It offers timely information about cognition, perception, and memory, along with connections to the gorilla experiment. I like the blog because it has a diverse content including videos, summaries of scholarly research, book reviews and anecdotes that can help audiences better understand how people learn and perceive...beyond the famous experiment.

R9

Quote:

“They believe that Galton’s wall often has much less to do with our innate limits than with what we consider an acceptable level of performance. They’ve found that top achievers typically follow the same general pattern. They develop strategies for keeping out of the autonomous stage by doing three things: focusing on their technique, staying goal-oriented and getting immediate feedback on their performance” (Foer, 2011).

Question:

When we think about an “acceptable” level of performance, who sets that for our students and why? Are they qualified to make that type of decision?

Connection:

“In other words, regular practice simply isn’t enough. To improve, we have to be constantly pushing ourselves beyond where we think our limits lie and then pay attention to how and why we fail… More than anything, what differentiates top memorizers from the second tier is that they approach memorization like a science. They develop hypotheses about their limitations; they conduct experiments and track data” (Foer, 2011).

Given this quote, I wondered about my practice of developing intervention plans for students. Typically I create goals that are attainable so that students can feel a sense of success and hopefully continue to be a part of the intervention. So the idea is to take things slowly and build. I’ve once heard something similarly described as “go slow to go fast”. I wonder, when dealing with students that need to overcome considerable challenges, would Foer’s suggestions work for their improvement too?

Connection:

“Classroom teachers face the challenge of making the encoding of the information and skills that we are attempting to teach students as elaborate and deep as possible” (King-Friedrichs, 2001, p. 77). This quote makes me think of James’ idea that students need diverse opportunities and build strong connections to learn best. I wonder if this is at odds with teaching elaborate and deep information to students. Just as Foer (2011) also suggested, there is a delicate “balance between moving quickly and forming detailed images,” in practicing the art of memorization. I wonder how teachers can be efficient and offer diverse experiences, but also offer deep study to students.

R8

Quote: “The mechanisms of perception go to a lot of trouble to ensure that what we see corresponds to what is usually out there” (Pinker, 2002, p. 200). The idea of what is “usually out there” depends on a number of variables, so I’m not sure this is particularly helpful.

Question: Although Pinker managed to argue that cognition is not framed effectively by relativists nor naïve realists, I wonder how underlying beliefs and meaning fit into his “third alternative” theory? For instance, he mentioned that our experiences lead to more accurate perceptual systems. In this case, what is accurate? Must people not have beliefs about what “is usually out there” in the first place to determine accuracy? As Pinker mentioned, this is not arbitrary, but based on survival and our assumptions about the world. Isn’t it possible that our survival needs and assumptions about the world could create skewed beliefs, which are then later confirmed over and over again based on accuracy?

Connection: “People are not helplessly programmed with images; they can evaluate and interpret what they see using everything else they know, such as credibility and motives of the source” (p. 216). This idea is very questionable, based on experiences I have had working with children and students with disabilities. In every case, I must consider the development of the person and their capabilities. In working with a teenager who may be depressed, I cannot assume that they are able to evaluate and interpret images using credibility and motives. Actually, I might consider the exact opposite. They may not have a sufficient knowledge base or cognitive ability to assess reality or at least an adaptive reality for survival.

Connection: In reading Pinker’s article, I think about Piaget’s theory of cognitive constructivism. Since that theory seems to address individual meaning making and active participation, I wonder how Pinker would critique it. Although he manages to address social constructivism and its limitations, how would he address individual construction of reality? Would that be considered mature realism or relative truth?

Module 4 responses

Q1. Piaget’s cognitive constructivist theory contributed stages of development in learning. These stages show a progression from concrete to formal operations. His theory also introduced the learner (individual) as a key component that affects learning in addition to the environment.

1. Key questions

a. In his theory, is the learner a more important factor than the environment?

b. Is the learner distinctly different than the environment? How can one tell?

c. How does Piaget use the term logical…too freely? Are some pieces of knowledge constructed in ways that are not logical?

d. How is that individuals are born without mind?

e. How does a student with disabilities fit into this model?

Q2. In Piaget’s stages of development, a learner is actively constructing knowledge in dynamic process, building “differentiated and comprehensive cognitive structures” (slide 16 of 98). In the same way James discusses how the learner forms relationships between ideas, and the mind forms conceptions based on these relationships (James, 1969, p. 69). James goes on to state that the process of education is about gaining ideas, with “the best educated mind which has the largest stock of them, ready to meet the largest possible variety of the emergencies of life” (James, 1969, pp. 69-70). In terms of specific order, James discussed how teachers should be aware of the proper order of thinking: from concrete, object-relations learning, typically in childhood to abstract learning in adolescence (James, 1969, p. 73).

Q3. The authors of the article would probably refer to one of their cautions, “Do not believe that the opposite of “one-right-answer” reductionism is “anything-goes” construcvism” (Airasian & Walsh, 1997, p. 448). In the Simpsons episode, the teacher does not provide appropriate standards or criteria for learning. The teacher says that the only rule for students is to make up their own rules. In this case, there was little emphasis on fact and checks for understanding. In the end this proved problematic, when Bart blew up the lab. In a certain way is based on constructivism but it is a bad application of it. Although students constructed their own meaning, their prior knowledge was never questioned, nor was the knowledge acquired while in the classroom.

Constructivism would be very difficult to apply purely in the classroom setting. Each learner proceeds at their own pace and balancing the influence of a teacher (or other parts of the environment) and the learner could become cumbersome and eventually impractical.

R7

Question: Should schools and curriculum be designed differently, based on the information about constructivism in this article? If so, how?

Quote: “The vision of the constructivist student is one of activity, involvement, creativity, and the building of personal knowledge and understanding” (Airasian & Walsh, 1997, p. 446).

Connection: “ It describes in the broadest of strokes the human activity of knowing and nowhere specifies the detailed craft of teaching” (Airasian & Walsh, 1997, p. 444). This quote clearly relates to James’ writing within Talks To Teachers. It seems that some theories about knowledge and learning are not easily to transferred directly to the complicated practice of teaching in a classroom.

Connection: When this week’s article addresses student learning as opposed to instruction, this make me think of all of the innovations and reforms that are currently being introduced into education. Although learner involvement is important, I connect this to my experiences observing special education students. Can constructivism be applied to teaching students with certain disabilities? Does a teaching approach that stresses constructivism actually help students with disabilities more?

R6

Question: What is the difference between a reinforcer and a reward? Do Chance and Kohn agree on this? It seems that these terms are used interchangably, but from my understanding they are different things.

Quote: “Reinforcement is powerful stuff, and its misuse can cause problems” (Chance, 1992, p. 117). I think of it as a tool to be used, but only when there is solid knowledge behind it. Otherwise, it can be detrimental to everyone involved: teachers and students.

Connection: These articles remind me of my love of reading. Sometimes I wonder if this was intrinsically rewarding or extrinsically rewarding for me from the start. I wonder how my teachers and school played a role in this, as Chance described. For example, I remember the Pizza Hut “Book-It” program for reading in elementary school. Although I remember liking books, however once this program was started, I made sure to read more books so that I could get my personal pan pizza at the end of the week. I don’t remember exactly when the program ended, but after the fact I know that I didn’t read as many books as I did previously. I wonder sometimes if that program helped or hurt my interest in reading.

Connection: In learning about behavior management in classrooms, Lee and Axelrod (2005) describe the different types of reinforcement schedules including, ratio and interval schedules. When Chance and Kohn discuss the long term effects of rewards in their articles, it reminds me of how variable interval or variable ratio schedules of reinforcement help behaviors persist and last over time. In addition, Lee and Axelrod (2005) suggest that reinforcers in a person’s natural environment also help to make the behaviors last. However, there is not schedule to ensure that the behaviors will last forever. Certain types of reinforcement can make behaviors resistant to extinction, but not completely immune to it.

Lee, D. L., & Axelrod, S. (2005). Behavior Modification: Basic Principles (3^rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-ed.

behaviorism

In this clip, good examples of positive and negative reinforcement from Family Guy are included. It is useful because it clearly illustrates how both types of reinforcement work. Considering this can sometimes be confusing, using funny clips from Family Guy make it easier to keep straight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_9ZZaPDtPk

In the clip below, Dr. Viktor Frankl, who developed logotherapy, describes how behaviorism is somewhat limited. He claims that Skinner restricted his research, where only animalistic characteristics were studied. Frankl does not disagree with the fact that human behavior has rules, yet he claims the human dimension (e.g. consciousness) is an important part missing from behaviorism. He uses the metaphor of a plane on the ground to explain his point. He says that just because a plane moves on the ground in the same way as a car does, it does not mean that it is the same as a car or that it can not fly. If humans are like planes, Skinner restricted his research to a plane while on land, but never studied the distinguishing feature of a plane:its ability to fly.

This clip was useful because it helped me to see (although Skinner does admit this in his writing), that behaviorism is restricted. It does not attempt to explain phenomenon that is beyond being observed and/or measured. It is important to keep this piece of the puzzle in mind, while appreciating its fundamental contributions to psychology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luONY67yr2w&feature=related

R5

Reading Skinner was a shock to my system. Maybe my mind had become comfortable in the stream of James’ words; but Skinner’s words were like boulders in that stream. His points were solid, direct, and made a heavy impact. While James offered food for thought and lines for teachers to be artists in their work, Skinner outlined specific solutions to problems within education. His point of view was clear, sarcastic and unapologetic.

I wonder if Skinner’s goal was to be shocking to the reader. Even the title “The Shame of American Education” is powerful. The more I read, however, some of this shock wore off. The turning point was when he began to criticize humanistic and cognitive psychology to better prove his points. The tone did not help me to truly hear what Skinner was trying to convey. Potentially he was trying to get my voluntary attention, as James (1899) mentioned but it was not working. After reading so many articles about the problems in education, with out solutions, my mind seemed to connect Skinner’s voice with the many voices I hear daily. It had become a broken record. For instance, although documentaries like Race to Nowhere do a great job of pointing to the problem, I wish more time was devoted to creating solutions.

Nearing the end of the “shame” article, my attention was grabbed again when he mentioned solutions. I was happy to see that although he was able to outline the problems, he gave as much effort in offering solutions. What stood out most was his opinion that society sometimes confuses causes with effects in education. When he spoke of the respect of teachers by saying, “Let them teach twice as much in the same time and with the same effort, and they will be held in greater respect” (Skinner, 1984, p. 952), it struck me as very truthful. His quote about learning was equally impressive, “What is reinforcing is successful play, and in a well-designed instructional program students gobble up their assignments” (Skinner, 1984, p. 952). These solution oriented quotes helped me to see that he was concerned with the root of the problem and not simply dealing with the symptoms. As he mentioned in the article about psychology as a science, Skinner (1987) said, “Behavior modification, in contrast, is more often preventive than remedial. In both instruction and therapy, current reinforcers (often contrived) are arranged to strengthen behavior that student and client will find useful in the future” (p. 785).

"Eventually some students behave in creative ways, but they must have something to be creative with and that must be taught first" (Skinner, 1984, p. 951). This particular quote reminds me of something a former professor of mine used to say all the time. She said that great writers must always learn the rules, so that they know how to effectively break them. The connection here is that we must have a foundation of knowledge to work with before we can begin to manipulate it to create something new.

R4

The final chapter on Talks to Teachers on Psychology helped make the most profound connections in the story James intended to construct for teachers. Although he touched on it throughout the book, James provided a cumulative directive for teachers: “your task is to build up a character in your pupils; and a character, as I have said often, consists in an organized set of habits of reaction” (p. 90). In more detail, he explained that building character consisted of teaching a student who “takes the whole field into consideration” (p. 88) in complex circumstances. This reminds me of the professional training I receive now to become an ethical psychologist. Although I am being trained with a set of knowledge and skills, I am also learning how to exercise professional judgement. Given the nature of professional psychology, this skill is essential.

The next point in the chapter showcased the importance of the learner in the education process. He suggested that after a teacher’s best efforts “it will probably remain true that the result will depend more on a certain native tone or temper in the pupil’s psychological constitution than on anything else” (p. 89). This was noteworthy because throughout his writing James was careful not to use extreme terms to describe ideas, unless he made sure to include an exception to a rule. However, the strong words of “anything else” only modified by “probably true” stood out in mind. The point here was to make sure teachers understood the limitations of their efforts in educating students, and how important it is to focus their efforts of educating the will of the student.

“To think, in short, is the secret of will, just as it is the secret of memory (p. 91). This quote resonated with me because this idea represents something my father taught be many times throughout my life. He instructed me to avoid believing conventional wisdom, specifically that “hindsight is 20/20”. He constantly told me that in actuality, foresight is 20/20. I will never get that idea out of my head. He explained further that it takes some effort, but it is important to consciously think before you act and therefore produce reliable results over the course in your life. So his view on life is to take responsibility and use your faculties to make decisions and chart a course that you can see even before you take the first step. Just as James (1962), maybe my dad would describe himself as a “free-willist” (p. 93). He is a person who believes in power of the individual to think, plan and build effective habits that lead to a particular character or destiny over time.

After reading the section where James discussed inhibition by repression or negation and inhibition by substitution, I was reminded of a quote I read by Mother Teresa. She said, "I was once asked why I don't participate in anti-war demonstrations. I said that I will never do that, but as soon as you have a pro-peace rally, I'll be there." This is a clear example of inhibition by substitution rather than inhibition or negation. From what I gather, James was conveying the power and strength of being in support of something instead of against something. As he said, “it is clear that in general we ought, whenever we can, to employ the method of inhibition by substitution” and that inhibition by negation “is in an inferior situation in every respect to what he [a person] would be if love of truth and magnanimity possessed him from the outset” (p. 94). Given Mother Teresa’s quote and James’ ideas, I believe there is more power in giving energy to a cause you support, rather than giving energy to a cause you do not support. It is more effective in producing the results you wish to see happen.

Module 1: Implicit Associations

I took the Presidents and Gender-Science tests. Taking the tests was difficult for me, and my brain. I found myself wanting to take the time to get the answers right, and override my initial reactions. As psychologists and scientists, we have often been taught to take a step back, gather information, make observations, and ultimately ask more questions before making decisions or acting. So I found myself fighting the urge to make quick decisions. I assume this could have made my results less valid. In any event, I was not particularly surprised with the results, but the level of intensity associated with them. For instance, the Gender-Science test showed that I highly associated women with liberal arts and men with the sciences. I had a feeling I might think this way, but it was interesting to see how much I did.

The Dateline video on IAT tests caused me to wonder about participants backgrounds, based on the results featured in the segment. Although we (the audience) was privy to the current careers of the individuals tested, I would have liked more information about their families, hometowns and past experiences. I wondered what may have been the difference between someone who associated White with good and Black with bad, regardless of the race of the person. What defining moments, if any, may have shaped their lives in terms of race?

Implicit associations have serious implications for learning. It seems, according to James, that we build upon our old associations to learn new things. Moreover, these old associations are continuously reinforced in our minds. In terms of learning, James wrote, “whatever appears in the mind must be introduced; and when introduced, it is as the associate of something already there" (James, 1962, p. 59). James said that education is "the organization of acquired habits of conduct and tendencies to behavior" (James, 1962, p. 15). Therefore, the process of learning is all about associations and connections: they serve as the organizing force in education. This fact makes me wonder if striving for objectivity is futile. Even our cues are many and diversified, as James suggested for teachers to encourage, the fact is that our society and especially family lives play a large part in these cues. The more a cue is introduced and reinforced by society, the less likely a person will be able to resist them, based on sheer numbers. In my mind society is as much of a teacher as the classroom teacher is. Therefore the real process of learning and associations depends on how a student's time and attention is spent over many years.

The new information we take in is connected to our old associations in our memory and habits of thinking. Just as James suggested, “our mind is essentially an associating machine” and memory is “explained as a result of the association of ideas” (James, 1962, p. 58). Because of this, it is probably very difficult to change these associations, once set in our minds.

R3

William James' work was presumably revolutionary for the time period. As I read the pages in this chapters, I thought of several psychological theories that were almost exactly in line with James' thoughts. It made me want to reexamine what I knew and where that knowledge originated. For example, James wrote about different levels of development in childhood which seem to mirror the work of Piaget. In addition, many parts of chapters 10-14 deal with specific aspects of behaviorism. So my question is: Did James ignite interest in these theories? Did he ever develop these more fully before other theorists?

One of the main ideas I took away from chapter 12 was the idea of differentiated instruction. This idea was summed up well, as "the same thing recurring on different days, in different contexts, read, recited on, referred to again and again, related to other things and reviewed, gets well wrought into mental structure" (James, 1899/1962, p. 64). He went even further to explain that "this principle of multiplying channels and varying associations and appeals is important, not only for teaching pupils but for teaching them to understand. It runs, in fact, through the whole teaching art" (James, 1899/1962, p. 68). Both of these passages reminded me of my favorite teacher, who ignited my interest and passion in English in high school. Ms. McCabe was an excellent teacher who understood this principle well. She offered visual, auditory, and other perceptual styles of teaching to make sure lessons were initially accessible and reinforced. She also focused on vocabulary as the basis for most every lesson. One specific example that really stood out is how she acted out the Tell-Tale Heart. Although we read the text independently, she performed it in front of our class, including sound effects and visuals. The passion that she showed was completely unlike any other teacher I had. To this day, things I learned in her class have stayed with me and helped to form a foundation for my writing and love of reading. Her passion for the subject matter was contagious. As James said, "in almost any subject the passion of the subject will save you" (James, 1899/1962, p. 67). In my case, her passion for teaching, saved my learning and love for the subject.

"The old in the new is what claims the attention, -- the old with a slightly new turn" (James, 1899/1962, p. 54). This quote struck me when I first read it because it clearly resonated with me. Just as James mentioned fashion along with this quote, I thought of an interesting documentary I saw on the creative director behind Chanel, Karl Lagerfeld. In this, he described how Chanel is a classic brand with distinct features, yet the challenge each season is to create a new or fresh perspective, while enhancing the classic brand.

R2

Chapters 8 and 9 in Talks to Teachers on Psychology were compelling yet confounding. Although James eloquently discussed the laws of habits, these ideas seem difficult to translate into practice for teachers. For instance, I wonder, how a teacher should compete with the habits of the culture and family of the child. One of James’ maxims was “Never suffer an exception to occur till the new habit is securely rooted in your life” (James, 1899/1962, p. 35). Since every minute step in opposition (of the forming habit) has the power to undo a potentially effective habit, what should a teacher do? In this case, it may be reasonable and beneficial to incorporate a child’s culture and family since much of the student’s time is spent outside of the classroom. However, if reinforcement by a child’s family is missing, then the teacher’s plan could fall apart. In essence, the teacher’s intentions for forming effective habits are at the mercy of the child’s expanded environment.

I completely agree that habits should be practiced as often as possible, however what happens when the environment is not conducive to forming that habit? Last year I began exercising at the Johnson Center on UK’s campus. Since I am a night owl, I would exercise around 10 pm, three to four times a week during the spring semester. Then summer break happened. Surprisingly, the center was not open during my normal workout hours. This led me to miss many workouts and eventually quit exercising there. This example makes me wonder how a teacher could help a student practice effective habits, when the teacher is only in control of a small piece of the child’s environment.

It is puzzling to figure out how a teacher could actually use the information that James provided to positively impact students, given the teacher’s constraints. One possible solution would be to teach generalizable habits that are strong enough to withstand environmental forces. In the book Outliers, Gladwell suggested that those at the top of their field practiced at least 10,000 hours or 10 years before they became outliers. James suggested the same type of practice where a student will “find himself one of the competent ones of his generation, in whatever pursuit he may have singled out” (James, 1899/1962, p. 39). The interesting part however, is that Gladwell also highlighted how certain environmental factors, along with hours of practice, undeniably helped to ensure the fate of these experts.

R1

Reading William James’ work was quite a task, but after a few pages it became much easier. The author’s thoughts led me to reflect on a few issues. For instance, in Chapter 1, James juxtaposed teaching with studying child behavior (James, 1899). Are the two mutually exclusive? Does not one contribute to the other, especially given the focus on data-based decision making in schools?

In another section of the book, James suggested,

“You should regard your professional task as if it consisted chiefly and essentially in training the pupil to behavior; taking behavior, not in the narrow sense of manners but in the very widest possible sense, as including every possible sort of fit reaction on the circumstances into which he may find himself brought by the vicissitudes of life” (James, 1899, pp. 13-14).

This passage is noteworthy because of its broad implications for teachers. This could be viewed as an aspiration, but how do teachers realistically apply this? Given the diverse student population in terms of culture, disability, language, and socio-economic status, is this a reasonable expectation? And if so, how do you measure it?

Highlighting another interesting quote, James wrote, “But imagine a child so lifeless as to react in no way to the teacher’s first appeals, and how can you possibly take the first step in his education?” (James, 1899, p. 20). In this passage, he discussed how it is easier to work with a student who has any reaction to teaching. This reminds me of my student client, who shows great apathy although he is in a gifted and talented program. According to many of his teachers and through my experience, he seems unmotivated. It has been a difficult task to determine how to effectively reach this student. An effective intervention for him lies in determining what gets him excited to learn, or generally, what makes him feel alive, just as James suggested. However, it remains a disheartening case because the student has potential, yet the services we provide in the school setting do not offer him what he really needs to engage.

Many of the ideas that James discussed seem timeless. A good example of this is found when he wrote, “It is often said that man is distinguished from the lower animals by having a much smaller assortment of native instincts and impulses than they, but this is a great mistake” (James, 1899, p. 22). This particular passage reminds of ideas found in 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. It compares reactions to responses, and how as human beings we should build effective habits to respond to our environments, not simply react. The author of the book, Stephen Covey, described reactions as impulses, which are less conscious and associated with simply acting in relation to conditions in the environment. Responses are characterized by conscious actions that are led by our higher-level thinking, or executive functioning. Therefore, an effective response takes the environment into account, but is not led by it. His argument is that we are not much different from animals in that we can be led by our impulses to react, but his suggestion is to use our thinking abilities to form good habits and therefore respond to our environment instead.

first thoughts

first night of blogging and I hope that this entry is one of many that I will use to share my thoughts throughout the semester.