Studies Prove that These Drugs Make Your Brain Stop Working…

Maybe someone will benefit from this site

I found a really great blog online titled "LFE"

I am posting two entries for the 2010 BBSE participants:

First Entry

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Inquiry-Based Learning

 

Inquiry-based learning, its a method capable of reaching into the depths of the mind. It questions what is it that "I" know and how do "I" know what "I" know. Inquiry-based learning is a form of teaching knowledge. It is a free format used by teachers and students to form their own views using the questioning technique to be applied to everything that it is being taught. The technique of inquiring what we know and the technique to think further to what we want to find out. This type of thinking can lead us into unlocking hidden treasures of our universe. Several fundamentals should be applied, they are known as the "ten rational powers": recalling and imagining; classifying and generalizing; comparing and evaluating; analyzing and synthesizing; and deducing and inferring when studying the path of self-questioning.
Students are encourage to apply their critical thinking skills to question what is the meaning of what it is being learned. It is known that self-initiated questioning, should begin to be taught in schools from the lower grades. In 1961 inquiry-based learning was implemented to all grades after the Educational Policies Commission suggested the need for it. They stated that American Education must develop its education by applying the fundamentals called the"ten rational powers". These "ten rational powers" were implemented in the fifties, when the United States government was in a race with Russia's technological and military advancements. The educational board promoted students to think creatively in the search of how to solve problems. Later, in the sixties, the so-called alphabet soup curricula were pushed in the schools (BSCS, CHEM, SCIS, ESS, PSSC). This was an interesting period to use inquiry-based learning, nevertheless it was a very good time for inquiry-based learning to be introduced in the schools for the availability to be used by the masses that were exposed to other way of thinking and it brought the experience for the students to explore their consciousness. Today's education system, is based on a report that was made by President Ronald Reagan called "A Nation At Risk" in 1983 after the American education was viewed to rank below the rest of the world. Currently, our schools priority is to apply reasoning instead of promoting critical thinking and creative process. We can only hope to brake these walls of reasoning and allow our mind to explore into the abyss of discovery.

Second Entry

 

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Philosophy of Education

 

My overall philosophy of life is that human beings are to develop their own identity for the benefit of society. This philosophy is what leads my life, which melts into what I believe my philosophy of educations is ought to be. I do not believe teachers are to impose their own wishes on the students neither believe that facts are to have the last word. I believe factual information can be expanded and be changed by new ideas and theories. I believe teacher’s solely purpose in a classroom should only be a medium between the student and resources needed to expand their own thought. Teachers are to assists inquirers; it is imperative for teacher to think ahead and have guidance questions to the new path. When problems arise, student’s purpose is to think deeper and find a solution. I believe that wisdom in the animal race - human beings, is innate. I believe is a necessity for the schools to find ways of teaching that provides tools for human beings to advance their knowledge to have advantage over any type of situation. As human beings, we need to be inquisitive within our own selves, a form that only may lead to a sort of form of knowledge. With knowledge, a student has the upper hand to dissect principals in the attempt to find their meaning. A student should be thought the basics, and what are meant about basics are writing, reading, math, and natural science; furthermore the curriculum should be designed accordingly to the student’s interests. The importance is for teachers to evoke student’s imagination; for the students to activate their creativity and explore its surroundings. I also believe human beings have a role in society, and the role in society needs to be completely chosen by its author and for it to be executed to the highest form of responsibility for the overall benefit of society’s wellness.

 

 

I knew the mini-lecture given by Professor Grobstein this past Friday to a group of student researchers at Bryn Mawr College was going to be interesting, but I didn't expect it to be so controversial.  Paul invited the students present (not many, only about 15) to participate in an open-ended dialogue about traditional, linear science vs. "loopy" science, a field with anything but definite answers and the acceptance that absolute "truth" is not attainable and therefore non-existent.  Many of the students agreed with him when he said the traditional scientific method is too restricted to allow full discovery because it relies on conclusions that, once reached, are accepted and not questioned further.  They also agreed when he discussed ways in which science can become more "open" by treating it as an ongoing process based on the observations of all, not just the "hard facts" that are "proven" by a few.  

However, the agreement stopped there.  Quickly the students in the audience became defensive when told that the research they are conducting--"hard" research dealing with chemistry, biology, physics, etc.--will not culminate in "truth."  Their projects, the hours of hard work that they have poured into their collection and analysis of data, will not end in an answer that can be considered "the last word."  One student, a chemistry researcher, argued that the process by which she mixes prescribed chemicals in the same proportions every day, always getting the same results, is truth because of its consistency.  When she was told that "truth" as she described it can never actually be attained because it would require infinite proof of consistency.  The sun rises every day, and we take this to be "true."  But just because the sun has risen every day without fail does not mean that the possibility of it not rising tomorrow is not there.  And if it were to not rise tomorrow, well our preconceived notions about the rising sun as "truth" would be shattered; if those chemicals that the student mixes were to one day yield a completely different result, her notion of chemical "truth" would be majorly challenged.  And so, because infinite consistency cannot possibly be measured, we can never know absolute "truth."  While results that are repeatable are useful, they should not be considered final.

It was almost as if the student researchers could not see past their current work and into the the future of scientific inquiry that we've been exloring so far this summer.  As Paul said in an earlier meeting, this new view of science as something open and co-constructed is met with opposition because "people don't want to be deprived of certainty and authority."  We are scared of what we do not understand, of what is new and unusual. 

What was even more interesting was the interaction that took place in a neighboring conference room after the lecture, where my two colleagues and I gathered with the other student researchers to talk about the lecture over pizza.  It was clear that not many of the other students took what Paul had to say seriously, even though they had agreed with his "new" definition of the scientific method as something more flexible than that of traditional science.  Their incredulity quickly filtered down to me, Jenna and Kate.

"So, what exactly are you doing again?"

We explained once more our research efforts, including our work with Serendip and how we were making connections between the brain, science and education.

"...But are you doing anything?"

And so, it seems, thought is not considered a true scientific endeavor by those heavily steeped in the world of chemicals and glassware.  Why, I don't know.  Thought is the basis for all scientific action.  What scientific discovery would have been possible without the bright idea of one, or the collaborative efforts of many?  Even scientists must "think before they act."  The disrespect and closed-mindedness of the student researchers was sad not only because of its personal implications but because it demonstrated a lack of acceptance of the "new" scientific method they had supported minutes prior.  The process of thought is parallel to that of scientific work--both involve exploration through experimentation and a revision of prior ideas.  Just because one takes place in the brain and the other takes place in a lab does not mean the former should be discounted or considered any less important to the progress of humanity.

Interesting discussion this morning with Wil about a variety of subjects, thought I would post some of them here.

So primitive man must have been doing something right because, well, we're here now and surviving. So what does it mean when we use "primitive" or Caveman logic in our day to day life? Raising our kids in the way we envision cavemen would have?...

Caveman Logic (book), Caveman Logic (site)

[The author, Hank Davis, is a professor of psychology at the University of Guelph in Canada and has a blog here.]

The idea is that we were, and are now, wired to create "narratives," stories that help us survive. Finding "cause" and "effect" was an effective means of survival: fire + hand = ouch; lion + me = big ouch; blue fruit = food, red fruit = stomach cramps. In an article on supernatural science, here, author Robert Roy Britt writes:

"'While it is difficult to know for certain, the tendency to believe in the paranormal appears to be there from the beginning', explained Christopher Bader, a Baylor sociologist and colleague of Mencken. 'What changes is the content of the paranormal. For example, very few people believe in faeries and elves these days. But as belief in faeries faded, other beliefs, such as belief in UFOs, emerged to take their place'.

Figuring out why people are this way is a little trickier.

'It is an artifact of our brain's desire to find cause and effect', Cronk, the psychology professor, said in an email interview. 'That ability to predict the future is what makes humans "smart" but it also has side effects like superstitions [and] belief in the paranormal'."

Humans started believing in the supernatural because the stories they constructed, the sun rising and setting everyday because a god pulled it by chariot across the sky, were just as good as any at the time. Our need to know "why?" is a means for our minds to make sense of the world-- and thereby construct a means of surviving in it. We're natural born storytellers; it's hard-wired into our brains.

So what does that mean for education? Should we guide kids to construct their own narratives in the path of our ancestors? Or should we urge them to deny the hard-wired tendancy for the supernatural? What value does believing in the supernatural have and is it dangerous or "wrong" to believe in it?

Wil spoke of how it all seems to come back to "control," that is, by constructing a narrative (even if it is supernatural or false) gives us a sense of what we can do to avoid misfortune. Control is important to humans, makes us calm, gives us peace-of-mind. If a god pulls the sun across the sky, and the sun makes the crops grow, then by providing offerings for that god, we can gain his favor. We can "control" the sun's behavior in this way, ensuring that it rises and sets every day as it should, despite the fact that we know, now, that nothing we do affects the orbit of the earth around the sun and the rotation of the earth itself.

In the classroom, giving kids the "control" to construct narratives based off of hard evidence, might be an interesting way to go about science and other subjects.

As little Chipotle, our resident toad, sat in his tank at the back of the office, we discussed the difference between the "selves" that each person has, ones that distinguish between and behave differently with the inanimate, the animate, and humans. The "self" that deals with a rock is not the same "self" that deals with your pet dog (or toad, as it were), and that "self" is very different from the one that interacts with other people.

For some people these selves are very distinct and rarely, if ever, overlap. But for some the lines are a little fuzzily defined: the woman who treats her cats as her children, who talks to them and interacts with them as she would interact with toddlers; the woman who is in love with, and is loved by, the Eiffel Tower and the Golden Gate Bridge. Anthropomorphising animate objects (animals and other living things) is fairly common. Anthropomorphising inanimate objects isn't rare, either-- look at any young child with a favorite toy or baby blanket: the object of reverence will be carted around everywhere, treated like a human, given its own seat at the table and a place in bed.

The usefulness of clearly defining those selves, at least so much as to treat the object or animal (or person) with the most logical approach (the toad doesn't return your affections, Jessica, I'm sorry) is a matter of coherence. If we are to treat all things equally, the world falls into disarray and the process of inquiry gets a little... complicated.

"Dissociating" from non-humans, and even humans, is a useful approach for a changing, mercurial world.

Interesting to me, along this vein, is the idea of imaginary friends (in children and others), where the line between the "selves" is delineated there-- is an imaginary friend actually a "self" so harshly delineated that they become foreign or alien to the child?

(It calls to mind "alien hand  syndrome" and other instances where physical pieces of the body, still attached to the person, are regarded as something not belonging to the self.)

What about de-anthropomorphism? Destructuring a human into an animal, or an animal into an inanimate object?

And the social implications of "selves" and the delineation between one self and another-- when do a child's actions no longer reflect on the parents, if ever? When is the child a "self" of the parent... a piece of them? When do they dissociate and change from animate to human? When a baby is born, it does not possess the mental faculties to operate above the "animate level," as far as a I see it. They eat, they poop, they want to be held-- but none of that is uniquely human.

So when do they become "human?" How many selves, or types of selves, make you "human" over "animate?"

I guess it just makes me a little uncomfortable to put humans apart from all other living things... It might be wishful thinking, but I know that my dogs have personalities. I'm pretty sure they even have different selves, depending on who's on the other end of the leash. Are humans unique? Better? Or just different?

A friend of mine is a former avid Sudoku player. I use the term former because while last summer she would play for about three hours a day, during the school year her time was often consumed with strictly academic assignments. I should also mention that this friend is also a math major. Well, last night this friend decided that she would resume playing Sudoku for the first time in quite a while. It was not anymore than three or four minutes into the game when she was proclaiming that she was having great difficulties completing the game. Her explanation for this was that she could not think quick enough since she had not used her brain in such a way since classes ended in May.  She then attempted to advise a strategy to complete the game.
As soon as I heard that she was devising a strategy, I stepped in to watch her play.  There were at least four boxes where it was obvious what number belonged so I asked her why she did not fill them in. She said it was because they did not coincide with her strategy and she would return to them once again after using the strategy that she devised to fill in some other boxes.
To be honest, it was painful to watch her play! I say this because as an outsider, I could see things that she could not. After conversing with Paul about this story, he suggested that perhaps it was the fact that her unconscious mind was impeding her from seeing the obvious. She had a certain strategy that she noticed in one part of the puzzle and her brain was automatically trying to use it to solve the rest of the puzzle in the same manner. On the other hand I was just an on-looker simply watching over her shoulder and not fully engaged in the game so it was quite simple for me to be able to look at the puzzle and realize what was obvious, or at least obvious to me. 

It is apparent when one plays games, their brains attempt to create a strategy based on past events that occurred and ended in a positive result. For example, perhaps this friend filled in a row with success and then unconsciously used this same method to fill in remaining portions of the puzzle.

I'm sure this idea will be explored further with our own findings over the course of the summer!

 

Very interesting discussion with Paul just now about the paper we read regarding the difference in birds' vs. humans' approach to the Monty Hall Dilemma.  The paper's data, as well as a computer model created by Paul, supports the fact that birds are optimizing (they come to the conclusion that if they switch which door they want to pick it will end in a reward 67% of the time, and they stick with this conclusion 100% of the time) while humans are drawing conclusions based on empirical probability (they switch which door they want to open 67% of the time, not 100% of the time like birds do). So the difference between these two species when it comes to the MHD is not about "cluttered" thought getting in the way of the process through which they learn how to solve the puzzle--it is about the way in which they treat the data.  But why...?

Have to look more into this, but perhaps it relates back to our discussion about humans being born with a "scientific" or "analytical" brain that requires evidence, or a "right answer."  Are we too scientific to deal with the MHD? Maybe we are too focused on proving which door is the right choice every time; maybe we don't want to trust in a conclusion that will potentially work for a while and then turn into a "wrong answer." Are we afraid of committment to one answer? Perhaps our inquisitive nature is not well-suited for this puzzle because we are subconsciously not satisfied with one solution that stands the test of time...

I read this article for my psychology course this past semester and found it interesting, as well as pertinent to our discussion the other day about sporatic thought in relation to depression.