Teaching Problem Solving

A technique is available, however, which provides prob1em-solving practice for an entire class. It is called Thinking Aloud Pairs Problem Solving (TAPPS).  This method evidently was first explored by Claparede (described in Woodworth, [10]), and was later used by Bloom and Broder [2] in their study of the problem-solving processes of college students.  Art Whimbey and Jack Lochhead [6, 7] have further expanded the technique in their attempts to improve the teaching of reading, mathematics, and physics.  In the method a class is divided into a number of teams, each team consisting of two students, with one student being the Problem Solver (PS) and the other being the Listener (L).  Each member of the team has a definite role to play, and both must adhere strictly to some rules.

In an article Lochhead [4] has elaborated some of these rules.  PS reads the problem aloud and then continues to talk aloud as much as possible about everything he/she is thinking while attempting to solve the problem.  L listens, and has the more difficult role.  L must try to keep PS talking; a short silence should be met with, “Tell me what you’re thinking.”  More, L must understand in detail every step made by PS.  Thus L should ask questions whenever PS says anything that is in the least mysterious. “Why do you say that?” “I don’t understand.  Would you explain that to me?” “Run that by again.” are some of the questions/comments L may use.  L must avoid solving the problem herself, and must not ask questions which are actually intended as hints to PS.  In fact, it isn’t necessary that L be able to solve the problem; her role is to help PS solve it.  When students are first learning the method L perhaps can point out that PS has made an error, but should not tell him where it is.  With more advanced students it is probably better to let PS find the error on his own.  PS and L should switch roles after every problem, but they should never change roles within a problem.

via wwwcsi.unian.it

Quality v. Quantity « The Practice of Practice

Some research shows that the amount of time doesn’t really matter, although it does matter a little since if you spend zero hours doing something, you’re not going to get better at all. But it turns out that the number of hours practiced doesn’t really matter, it’s all about the quality of your practice. What you do is important, but not how much you do. Duh, right?

This seems like a no-brainer issue, but researchers are notoriously skeptical about common-sense issues. We want to know for sure whether things are true. That’s one of the reasons behind a study by Duke, Simmons, & Cash (2009), titled It’s not how much; it’s how: Characteristics of practice behavior and retention of performance skills. These researchers had 17 graduate and advanced undergraduate piano players practice a 3-measure excerpt of Shostakovich’s Concerto No. 1 for Piano, Trumpet and String Orchestra

Here’s what they found:

  1. A few things didn’t seem to affect how well the players did (no statistical significance): practice time; total number of practice trials, and number of complete practice trials.
  2. What did separate the better pianists (statistically significant), was:  the percentage of all performance trials that were correct; the percentage of complete performance trials that were correct; and the number of trials performed incorrectly during practice (this was a negative relationship, or the less mistakes the better the player ranked).

So what does this mean? In a nutshell, you have to practice slow enough to get things right as soon as possible. Playing anything incorrectly ever is teaching your motor neurons to play incorrectly. They don’t know any better and this is a great example of the GIGO principle: Garbage In, Garbage Out. What separated the top-ranked players from the others was how they treated errors when they occurred (p. 318):

via intentionalpractice.wordpress.com

From here:

http://intentionalpractice.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/quality-v-quantity/

‘Thirst for knowledge’ may be opium craving

Neuroscientists have proposed a simple explanation for the pleasure of grasping a new concept: The brain is getting its fix.

The “click” of comprehension triggers a biochemical cascade that rewards the brain with a shot of natural opium-like substances, said Irving Biederman of the University of Southern California. He presents his theory in an invited article in the latest issue of American Scientist.

“While you’re trying to understand a difficult theorem, it’s not fun,” said Biederman, professor of neuroscience in the USC College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.

“But once you get it, you just feel fabulous.”

The brain’s craving for a fix motivates humans to maximize the rate at which they absorb knowledge, he said.

“I think we’re exquisitely tuned to this as if we’re junkies, second by second.”

Biederman hypothesized that knowledge addiction has strong evolutionary value because mate selection correlates closely with perceived intelligence.

Only more pressing material needs, such as hunger, can suspend the quest for knowledge, he added.

The same mechanism is involved in the aesthetic experience, Biederman said, providing a neurological explanation for the pleasure we derive from art.

“This account may provide a plausible and very simple mechanism for aesthetic and perceptual and cognitive curiosity.”

via eurekalert.org

Posted via web from crasch’s posterous

Exceptional memories

Nature Neuroscience 6, 90 – 95 (2002)
Published online: 16 December 2002; | doi:10.1038/nn988
Routes to remembering: the brains behind superior memory
Eleanor A. Maguire1, Elizabeth R. Valentine2, John M. Wilding2 & Narinder Kapur3

1 Wellcome Department of Imaging Neuroscience, Institute of Neurology, University College London, 12 Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, UK

2 Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, UK

3 Department of Clinical Neuropsychology, Wessex Neurological Centre, Southampton General Hospital and Department of Psychology University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK
Correspondence should be addressed to Eleanor A. Maguire [email protected]
Why do some people have superior memory capabilities? We addressed this age-old question by examining individuals renowned for outstanding memory feats in forums such as the World Memory Championships. Using neuropsychological measures, as well as structural and functional brain imaging, we found that superior memory was not driven by exceptional intellectual ability or structural brain differences. Rather, we found that superior memorizers used a spatial learning strategy, engaging brain regions such as the hippocampus that are critical for memory and for spatial memory in particular. These results illustrate how functional neuroimaging might prove valuable in delineating the neural substrates of mnemonic techniques, which could broaden the scope for memory improvement in the general population and the memory-impaired.

An abused mule responds to clicker training