via mitworld.mit.edu
Here's cute little piece about multitasking and the executive system. There are a few ideas that get mixed around in this article, so let me try to tease them out...
1) The executive system is the theorized cognitive system that performs executive tasks such as planning, goal-maintenance, and switching. The article does a pretty good job of giving examples of these types of tasks (the short-order cook is a particularly good example), however it should be noted that while these functions are grouped together under the umbrella of "executive function", there are some distinctions among these tasks.
2) The executive system is thought to "reside" in the prefrontal regions of the brain (above your eyebrows). While lesion / brain damage and fMRI studies provide evidence for this, researchers are still figuring out how this part of the brain is capable of conducting these processes. We can't assume that other parts of the brain aren't also involved.
3) People tend to talk about the executive system in terms of a "humonculus" - the little human inside the brain. People in philosophy and psychology will tell you that this type of argument is always fallacious because it does not provide an adequate theory of mind; that is, if you use a little mind to explain a big mind, how do you explain the little mind?
I bring this up for two reasons. First, I just saw Inception (and you should too, if you want a way meta experience). Second, because the NPR piece uses an analogy of a cartoon conductor to describe the executive system. It may be a good analogy for the layperson, but it's not good science.
I'm working on some research that investigates how executive processes relate to science concept learning in order to better understand why some concepts are hard for kids (and even adults) to learn, as well as how instruction can be designed to overcome these difficulties. More to come...
« Reports Offer Good News on Adolescent Reading Front | Main
-->Study Finds NAEP Scores Rise When Students Are Paid
-->-->
A new study has hit on one possible way to improve 12th graders' dismal scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress: Pay them to take the test.
Of all the grades that are regularly tested as part of the congressionally mandated NAEP program, the 12th grade results have long been the most disappointing. That has led some experts to wonder whether the problem stemmed from poor quality instruction in high schools or whether the older and more-savvy high school seniors just weren't trying as hard as the younger test-takers.
Though the testing program is considered a national barometer of student achievement, there really isn't much of an incentive, after all, for students to do well. Scores from NAEP assessments don't show up on a report card or count toward graduation requirements. Likewise, colleges never see NAEP scores when students apply for admission.
To explore what might happen if students had a little incentive to try harder, a trio of researchers focused on a sample of 2,600 students from 59 schools in seven states who were taking NAEP tests in reading. Within each school, the students were randomly assigned to one of three test-taking conditions. Under the first condition, the seniors were paid $20 at the start of the test-taking session. Another group was offered $5 in advance and $30 at the end of the session if they correctly answered two randomly chosen questions on the test. The control group received no special incentives.
The results of the experiment were posted today in the online version of Teachers College Record. The authors are Boston College's Henry Braun and Irwin Kirsch and Kentaro Yamamoto of the Educational Testing Service.
In the end, the study found, both of the monetary incentives spurred students to do better than they might have otherwise, although the second condition, in which part of the payout hinged on the students getting answers correct, proved to be the stronger incentive. Under both conditions, though, scores for both male and female students were, on average, at least 5 points higher than the scores for the no-incentive group.
Researchers said that's a sizeable and significant gain. For instance, it's one quarter of the difference between 8th graders' and 12th graders' average scores on the tests.
Students who knew they were being paid also were more likely to report, in survey questions, that they were trying hard on the tests and that it was important to them to do well.
"There is now credible evidence that NAEP may ... underestimate the reading abilities of students enrolled in 12th grade," the authors write. On the other hand, the black-white achievement gap was larger when monetary incentives were offered, according to the study.
Does that mean the U.S. Department of Education ought to start paying high school seniors to take NAEP tests?
Not according to these researchers. They say that would be prohibitively expensive. But they write that it does suggest there might be other, less costly, strategies test-givers could use to motivate students and maximize results at the 12th grade level.
If only we knew what they were...
-->Categories:
|
-->
The explanation is that it is evolutionarily advantageous to have a faster 'reaction time' that 'initiation time', not that it is advantageous to get involved in a shootout.
I'm currently taking a class with Misti Sato entitled "Teaching Theory and Research" (along with 4 other courses and 3 research projects, ugh). One of this week's readings was a Lee Shulman piece that has really helped me conceptualize my research priorities (citation below).
My training straddles two departments: Curriculum & Instruction and Educational Psychology. The research paradigms/agendas in each take different approaches to educational research and I've been struggling to choose between (or bridge) them. Here, Shulman's thinking (while always extremely lucid) is quite helpful, even more than 20 years removed from the original publishing.
The synoptic model that he uses to describe research programs has allowed me to do two things: (1) determine where in the "world" of research on teaching my interests lie, and (2) see what other aspects of teaching research I can consider (or ignore).
My interests really lie in what Shulman calls the "Student Mediation" research paradigm. With ideological roots in cognitive and social psychology, this approach is concerned with how and why students learn from the curriculum and instruction presented to them. On this model, it focuses on how students' thoughts and feelings are related to teacher actions and students' subsequent behavior and capacities. My interests in particular are about how students make sense of science curriculum and instruction, how aspects of science content and reasoning interact with this sense-making, and how we can measure the capacities that we intend to teach to students.
I've been rather fortunate in my graduate school selection to have Keisha and Sashank Varma come to the University of Minnesota the same year as me. Their research interests are greatly shapin how I think about my own career and what is possible in this field.
I'd highly recommend this article to anyone in the field of educational research, especially if, like me, you are still trying to grasp what your research is really about.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. Handbook of research on teaching, 3, 3–36.
