The Brain Rules site (www.brainrules.net) reminded me so much of what I learned from Eric Jensen’s Brain based Learning book in my month two course Multiple Learning Intelligences. The concepts purported in the Brain Rules site corroborated with the concepts of the stressed brain and the effect that exercise and rest have on the brain.
Teaching Different Brains
From reviewing the site and indeed upon reflecting on what was brought up in Brain based Learning, and the different times of day for brain alertness, I realize that perhaps I could be more flexible with my students in terms of instruction. I think that I were to spend more time with the children, I'd get a chance to see how each student responds to learning at different times of day. Perhaps the lesson could be modeled around that, so that each child gets a chance to learn in their own way.
Multitasking
My perception of multitasking was challenged when I reviewed the Brain Rules site.
Perhaps this very post is a good example of how multitasking really isn’t beneficial at all. I started out to post this quite early this morning. But due to construction/remodeling of my home, and of course the children not in school, I was “multi-tasking”. And a post which could easily have been completed in 2-3 hours was drawn out over the course of most of the daylight hours.
I was so intrigued by this multitasking myth that I just had to include a reference from a book I own in this post. (C How to Program 2nd Edition: H.M. Deitel/P.J. Deitel ) A few years ago, I become interested in C, an object–oriented programming language. In this book, there was an interesting fact that was raised.
Computers initially were capable of executing merely one job/task at a time. This is referred to as single-user batch processing.
Over time, as computers transformed into even more powerful machines, this process of single user batch processing didn’t make use of the computer’s resources efficiently. As such, eventually computers were developed into machines that multi-programmed. Multi-programming is when many jobs or tasks share a computer’s resources, in order to get better results. Enter timesharing. Time sharing is a particular instance of multiprogramming where users interact with a computer through terminals. This system enables many users to access a computer all at the same time. The access appears to be simultaneous, but what the computer is really doing is running a small segment of one user’s job and then moving onto another one, several times per second. The computer does this so quickly that it appears that things are simultaneous.
This caused me to wonder if the way we programmed computers was telling of the way we viewed how the brain works when different tasks are presented at the same time. Are we referencing our own knowledge of this process and transferring t to computers? Are we trying to perfect this concept of multitasking in computers where we have people have failed? Are we trying to be more like our perfected machine when in reality as the studies have shown from Brain Rules, that it is impossible? I wouldn’t be surprised if that were the case at all. We are expected to work all day with only a one hour break, if that in some cases. Most of us wouldn’t think to leave our car engines running at night. The car wouldn’t run effectively or efficiently. We try to multitask and it really does us no good. This revelation has seriously challenged me to view multitasking differently.
Performace and Simulation: Haptic / Mind Reading Technology
This section of my post is a response to the Performance and Simulation sections of the assignment. These are areas of interest to me because I will be studying more into these topics as they relate to my Action Research. Here is a link that my friend passed on to me, where haptic technology has taken a broad step… Instead of using your body to physically touch a screen or interface, the mind gathers data from your body movements and transfers it to a video game or operate a wheelchair.
Essentially, as each movement is made, there are different areas of the brain that fires electrical impulses at varying frequencies and length. And as the third video, Total Communication conveys, the way we relate to machines is the central focus of this exercise.
Multitasking
My perception of multitasking was challenged when I reviewed the Brain Rules site.
Perhaps this very post is a good example of how multitasking really isn’t beneficial at all. I started out to post this quite early this morning. But due to construction/remodeling of my home, and of course the children not in school, I was “multi-tasking”. And a post which could easily have been completed in 2-3 hours was drawn out over the course of most of the daylight hours.
I was so intrigued by this multitasking myth that I just had to include a reference from a book I own in this post. (C How to Program 2nd Edition: H.M. Deitel/P.J. Deitel ) A few years ago, I become interested in C, an object–oriented programming language. In this book, there was an interesting fact that was raised.
Computers initially were capable of executing merely one job/task at a time. This is referred to as single-user batch processing.
Over time, as computers transformed into even more powerful machines, this process of single user batch processing didn’t make use of the computer’s resources efficiently. As such, eventually computers were developed into machines that multi-programmed. Multi-programming is when many jobs or tasks share a computer’s resources, in order to get better results. Enter timesharing. Time sharing is a particular instance of multiprogramming where users interact with a computer through terminals. This system enables many users to access a computer all at the same time. The access appears to be simultaneous, but what the computer is really doing is running a small segment of one user’s job and then moving onto another one, several times per second. The computer does this so quickly that it appears that things are simultaneous.
This caused me to wonder if the way we programmed computers was telling of the way we viewed how the brain works when different tasks are presented at the same time. Are we referencing our own knowledge of this process and transferring t to computers? Are we trying to perfect this concept of multitasking in computers where we have people have failed? Are we trying to be more like our perfected machine when in reality as the studies have shown from Brain Rules, that it is impossible? I wouldn’t be surprised if that were the case at all. We are expected to work all day with only a one hour break, if that in some cases. Most of us wouldn’t think to leave our car engines running at night. The car wouldn’t run effectively or efficiently. We try to multitask and it really does us no good. This revelation has seriously challenged me to view multitasking differently.
Performace and Simulation: Haptic / Mind Reading Technology
This section of my post is a response to the Performance and Simulation sections of the assignment. These are areas of interest to me because I will be studying more into these topics as they relate to my Action Research. Here is a link that my friend passed on to me, where haptic technology has taken a broad step… Instead of using your body to physically touch a screen or interface, the mind gathers data from your body movements and transfers it to a video game or operate a wheelchair.
Essentially, as each movement is made, there are different areas of the brain that fires electrical impulses at varying frequencies and length. And as the third video, Total Communication conveys, the way we relate to machines is the central focus of this exercise.
Emotive Stonehedge Demo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxMux4uEkLI&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxMux4uEkLI&feature=player_embedded
Retrieved Sunday, September 3, 2009
Wheel Chair Control:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0at3NzNRySg&feature=player_embedded
Wheel Chair Control:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0at3NzNRySg&feature=player_embedded
Retrieved Sunday, September 3, 2009
Mind Control: Human / Machine Interactions (Total Communication)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40L3SGmcPDQ&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40L3SGmcPDQ&feature=player_embedded
Retrieved Sunday, September 3, 2009
We’ve seen this technology implemented to a degree in the Nintendo Wii. But from an educational and training perspective this sort of immersive environment lends itself to a plethora of education ideas in knowledge delivery and acquisition. Children can use specialized gloves in order to manipulate dough in a home economics lesson, which would also help to save money on materials. We’ve seen such steps toward immersion in Augmented Reality, (former FSO graduate, Camaal Moten’s History Lesson site: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDnKzfEVEHM) Virtual Reality and Second Life.
In this presentation for Dr. Wyly’s Month 1 MLR course, my group and I discuss our findings on how Science Education is being used in Second Life, and what we believe the implications and applications are and could be in a real life setting.
http://media2point0.comxa.com/
Playful Learning
One of the concepts that was brought out in the Gever Tully video was that of exploration through independent and collaborative playful learning.
In an ID Model that my former group was assigned last month in Dr. Deason’s Education Design & Evaluation course, the concept of playful learning was brought to the forefront. The article entitled, Computer as Paintbrush: Technology, Play, and the Creative Society by Mitchel Resnick highlighted the various ways in which Lego robots were used to accomplish varied tasks.
Children used crickets, which are small electronic components that communicate with the brick of a Lego robot. This brick then executes the commands run by the cricket script in order for the robots to perform goals such as sense light, react to movement, gather data and navigate a course. The article explained that it was because of the playful explorative nature of the method the children employed to accomplish goals that these goals were actually accomplished.
These investigative steps were explorative in that they employed the use of the trial and error process central to the Gever Tully video.
I would tend to agree with the points that both the Resnick article and Tully video raised. I had the privilege of working with fourth and fifth graders a few years ago in a similar setting. The children had Lego components, software, a mapped course and of course plenty of enthusiasm. One day we all had a warm time trying to code the script for the cricket. This was because each time we ran the script, the timing would change. We wanted our rover to proceed forward for a specified number of seconds, moving up a ramp to pick up an artifact. The problem was that again, each time we practiced, the amount of energy that the robot needed to use from the battery depleted, so after we had our numbers recorded, and tried to proceed with the rest of the mapped course, the robot would stop short of the artifact, each time farther and farther away. From this explorative process the children were able to learn about time and energy relations, and also about value. We used two sets of batteries in three different ways. Generic brand, brand name, and both, Our conclusions told us that when we purchased brand name batteries (Duracell) they actually lasted longer than Energizer batteries, and worked more efficiently than when we combined the batteries, which is something that each brand always labeled that we don’t do anyway. Were it not for this explorative, playful process, the information would not have been retained in quite the same way. These methods employed relevance, which is an important component of the learning process. It also brought up the issue of advertising. One of the girls brought up a point that the “Energizer bunny is fraudulent. Because it doesn’t keep going and going. They just want your money.”
On a related note, our team in Dr. Deason’s course had to create a collaborative learning environment where the concept of playful learning was realized, where the computer is used as a creative implement that aided to “paint” new learning experiences instead of simply a passive tool. This project was our month 3 final group project that was based on the Mitch Resnick paper. This link maybe found here: http://fullsailboas.ning.com/
We’ve seen this technology implemented to a degree in the Nintendo Wii. But from an educational and training perspective this sort of immersive environment lends itself to a plethora of education ideas in knowledge delivery and acquisition. Children can use specialized gloves in order to manipulate dough in a home economics lesson, which would also help to save money on materials. We’ve seen such steps toward immersion in Augmented Reality, (former FSO graduate, Camaal Moten’s History Lesson site: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDnKzfEVEHM) Virtual Reality and Second Life.
In this presentation for Dr. Wyly’s Month 1 MLR course, my group and I discuss our findings on how Science Education is being used in Second Life, and what we believe the implications and applications are and could be in a real life setting.
http://media2point0.comxa.com/
Playful Learning
One of the concepts that was brought out in the Gever Tully video was that of exploration through independent and collaborative playful learning.
In an ID Model that my former group was assigned last month in Dr. Deason’s Education Design & Evaluation course, the concept of playful learning was brought to the forefront. The article entitled, Computer as Paintbrush: Technology, Play, and the Creative Society by Mitchel Resnick highlighted the various ways in which Lego robots were used to accomplish varied tasks.
Children used crickets, which are small electronic components that communicate with the brick of a Lego robot. This brick then executes the commands run by the cricket script in order for the robots to perform goals such as sense light, react to movement, gather data and navigate a course. The article explained that it was because of the playful explorative nature of the method the children employed to accomplish goals that these goals were actually accomplished.
These investigative steps were explorative in that they employed the use of the trial and error process central to the Gever Tully video.
I would tend to agree with the points that both the Resnick article and Tully video raised. I had the privilege of working with fourth and fifth graders a few years ago in a similar setting. The children had Lego components, software, a mapped course and of course plenty of enthusiasm. One day we all had a warm time trying to code the script for the cricket. This was because each time we ran the script, the timing would change. We wanted our rover to proceed forward for a specified number of seconds, moving up a ramp to pick up an artifact. The problem was that again, each time we practiced, the amount of energy that the robot needed to use from the battery depleted, so after we had our numbers recorded, and tried to proceed with the rest of the mapped course, the robot would stop short of the artifact, each time farther and farther away. From this explorative process the children were able to learn about time and energy relations, and also about value. We used two sets of batteries in three different ways. Generic brand, brand name, and both, Our conclusions told us that when we purchased brand name batteries (Duracell) they actually lasted longer than Energizer batteries, and worked more efficiently than when we combined the batteries, which is something that each brand always labeled that we don’t do anyway. Were it not for this explorative, playful process, the information would not have been retained in quite the same way. These methods employed relevance, which is an important component of the learning process. It also brought up the issue of advertising. One of the girls brought up a point that the “Energizer bunny is fraudulent. Because it doesn’t keep going and going. They just want your money.”
On a related note, our team in Dr. Deason’s course had to create a collaborative learning environment where the concept of playful learning was realized, where the computer is used as a creative implement that aided to “paint” new learning experiences instead of simply a passive tool. This project was our month 3 final group project that was based on the Mitch Resnick paper. This link maybe found here: http://fullsailboas.ning.com/
Teaching Application
Having children become literate in various media takes the willingness for teachers and administrators to work together. It's my hope that as I proceed toward working on my AR project, that I can get the information that I would need in order to work the right channels to be able to integrate my AR project idea of a virtual classroom into a real world setting.
I'd have no problem developing training modules for principals and faculty to how this could effectively work. Kristen, one of my critical friends remarked that keeping perhaps taking disruptive students from out of the school and putting them all in one separate location may be facilitating the negative behavior further. Maybe if I channeled my efforts down the right paths, I'd be able to see where the technology could be best put to use. It is my ultimate hope that the classroom addresses a real safety in the classroom issue, but also addresses the much needed media literacy that the kids need to acquire. Teachers can benefit as well, because they too need to be aware of the technology and how it plays out in the classroom.
In the meanwhile, I think that I can definitely allow for more explorative options in the classroom.
I see where in my school, the computer is seen as a privilege or a reward. If I could find a way to get the computer to be embraced more as part of the in -class curriculum, perhaps that could be a step in the right direction. Right now, there is a computer class given once a week in a separate classroom. The children are not being taught the skills they need such as keyboarding by the computer teacher.
Anytime I've been in there, I see the kids left to play games for 45 minutes. Not that the games are themselves bad or that he couldn't be instructing them when I'm not around, but I've heard complaints from several teachers as to the instructor's attitude, competence and general apathy toward being actually involved. I think that the computer teacher needs to be less of a facilitator and more of a participator. This way, perhaps the computer classes could not only become more frequent, but more engaging too.
There are computers in most classrooms, and I think that by "sneaking" in computer related activitites would be a perfect way to begin to wean the children from off the perception that the computer is a privilege.
