We can also think of this pre-writing or even free writing as a mindfulness exercise which helps students reflect and potentially manage stress (beyond the stress of having to speak in public).

This one is a pretty bold statement to make, in general.

Mike Johansson, at Rochester Institute of Technology, makes the case that curiosity is the key to enabling both Creative and Critical Thinking for better problem solving, in general.

What are some of your ideas?

Agreed. This is a much better question to ask, as it is an open-ended and discussion enabling question..

This one is an interesting phrasing -- there's a lot of debate going on about IQ being an outdated metric already.

For example, N. Taleb is very vocal that IQ simply does not make sense in today's society.

What do you think? Is IQ overrated?

"Using mixed methods, we examined the contribution of four scenario-based online discussion strategies -structured, scaffolded, debate and role play – to the learners’ cognitive presence, the outcome of the discussion. "

I am not entirely clear what this sentence really means?

maybe delta & theta waves do not influence the aggressiveness/whatever drives them to commit crimes?

but why? is there a specific reason?

was there a reason why abnormalities in the left hemisphere in specific affected their violent tendencies?

what methodological problems? how does thus study differ in method?

can such a large study be done?

different brain impairments = different levels of anger?

good solution, but there's sOOO many factors to consider

more likely to express aggression due to mental capacities but violence is not likely -- why? perhaps influenced by other factors (upbringing?)

do not account for other variables that could attribute to violent crimes

affective murderers are impulsive, thus they're decision-making would be impaired/they would not think their actions through whereas predatory murderers actively decide and plan to kill

non-distinction of patients with ASPD could skew reuslts, since not all the variables are considered

self-reported: bias to show their best selves

"...traits, and reduced overall prefrontal grey matter volume."

do the subjects only have antisocial personality disorder, or are there other factors that could contribute to these three? do they control for only ASPD?

limitations in their studies

"...measured by neuropsychological testing and increased antisocial and aggressive behaviour."

not necessarily; many of these studies were circumstantial (even more research bias)

could signify that psychopaths do, in fact, have a brain injury/mental impairment that should be looked into

although they exhibit aggressive behaviour, it is not likely they would commit another crime due to their injury or change in behaviour (could be related to their war background?)

can be compared to Phineas Gage

secondary research; due to the database search, this could completely eliminate studies that contradict it, thus skewing the articles in favor of the hypothesis (research bias)

lack of empirical research in the field supporting this hypothesis; based on beliefs?

profiling experience can be obtained by simply looking at the case from an analytical point of view

but what is the reason????

detectives possess biases due to their experience in the field

thus what the detective said earlier was wrong, education can argue against experience

To what extent is the writer's analogy to the medical industry persuasive?

What are the assumptions in the writer's argument?

Can you think of other industries in which this might also be true? Share illustrations with your class.

Do you agree that AI is incapable of decision-making, and that a human will always have to make the final call? Why or why not? How might this vary in different fields, including the ones you are interested in pursuing?

What are the pros and cons of focusing on representation in the leadership?

What do you think are some of these barriers?

Do you agree that the writer's proposals will be effective in achieving gender equality? Why or why not? What other ideas do you have for achieving gender equality?

Have you ever experienced or witnessed implicit gender bias? Share your thoughts with a classmate of a different gender.

Do you find the writer's evidence convincing? What are the the strengths—and limitations—of her evidence?

Do you think this is a fair claim? What examples of patriarchal attitudes can you think of in Singapore?

You may include photos, videos, or hyperlinks.

How do you think Singapore's history might have been different if women were included among the founders of independent Singapore?

Can you think of reasons for why this might have been the case?

How do you think the context of democratic socialism and gender are linked?

What assumptions do each o these policies reveal? Do you agree with these policies? Why or why not?

What assumptions do each of these policies reveal?

Do you agree that the writer's proposals will be effective in achieving gender equality? Why or why not? What other ideas do you have for achieving gender equality?

Can you think of reasons why this might have been the case?

Why do you think Mrs Lee Kuan Yew was excluded from the "inner sanctum" of the PAP? Do you think this could have been a justifiable decision in the circumstances?

Have you ever experienced or witnessed implicit gender bias? Share your thoughts with a classmate of a different gender.

Do you find the writer's evidence convincing? What are the the strengths—and limitations—of her evidence?

How do you think Singapore's history might have been different if women were included among the founders of independent Singapore?

Constitutional ideas started before its writing

This is really worth thinking about. Which virtual spaces are "my space" and which are "our space?" How do they relate and affect group dialogue and individual learning?

I wish I had a better sense how a multiauthor "class blog" fits into this framework.

Spider web discussions for collaborative learning

Same could be said for page bottom comments in online newspapers/magazines.

This authentic discourse is definitely better achieved via annotation in which students self-select passages to annotate and annotations to reply to.

Discussion Forum - I believe using a technology like the discussion forum allows for students to expand on their thinking and interaction. I know I often think of things I wish I had said after class; students tell me the same thing. This forum allows for students to respond in their own time and ponder what they want to say. It provides a more equal platform, as some students may be reluctant to speak in class and others just process things for a longer period before responding and may rarely speak in class. Some of our class discussions in ENG101 would take the place of an online discussion assignment later in the week. Many weeks, these discussion questions would be generated from what we discussed, or didn't have time to discuss, in class, as well as concerns I see with skills or that the students have with assignments. This is why only a few weeks have been posted as examples.

Agreed. In times of learning, say in college for instance, there will be particular aspects of school that we will never forget, and this is because we are still in our learning stage. Our brains are still developing and trying to figure out how to do certain things. When learning how to become a grown man, or woman, we take what we learn habitually and hold it in our minds forever if it sticks with us.

I appreciate this statement because the founders were right in putting their observations of education on these aspects. They included math, science, and health, and these aspects cover much of what the world needs to have solved. They focused on which subjects would be the most beneficial to human life, and I appreciate their thought process with this.

This cuts both ways though, right? E.g., it's also an opportunity for the established skaters to edit their conception of the use of the space and potentially expand their community of practice. While it sounds like there is a legitimate reason for curbing the "carving" behavior (like cutting off other skaters) it also seems like this is akin to reproducing/perpetuating the status quo through power dynamcs

The focus on healthiness and fertility reminds me sickeningly of the treatment of slaves and of women throughout history, as land, a place for a school to be built, was regarded in the same way that human beings were -- property; only worthy of life if they met specific criteria. A slave was only useful if it was healthy enough to perform the work necessary of its existence (as the slave owners thought). If a slave could not work in a field or in the home, they were a useless slave and often times killed for their inability to perform. The fertility of a slave and it's ability to reproduce was profitable as slave owners were able to buy a slave (if they raped their females) or two (male and female), and have their slave continue to produce more slaves and therefore more bodies able to do the slaveowner's biding. Such is similar to the view of women, as health and fertility were the most important aspects of a woman to society, besides obedience. Women's fertility could be manipulated and used for gain of both men and society. In some instances, women were only considered worthy of life if they produced male offspring. Such is seen in royalty, as King Henry vehemently believed that Catherine "was condemned by God not to have a boy and that Anne would provide him with one". This belief that the only worth of a woman is their ability to produce male heirs was carried into society for a long time after the Tudor times. And although the thoughts towards women are not as strict in modern society, the stigma towards women unable to have children or who do not want children has continued into modern society.

source link : http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/tudor-england/henry-and-divorce/

I find this phrase "branches of learning" interesting, as it implies that learning stems from a singular object, which in essence is a university. It is a very remarkable way to think of learning, as the university is the foundation for learning, but the different branches (topics) stem from not only what is taught officially at the university in classrooms, but also from the experiences that occur here and people that call this place home. I know that this statement did not mean what I think it means now back when it was written, but I still find it a beautiful way to talk about learning. The metaphor of a tree implies that roots in the university - the land it was built on, the people who built it, the people who used to live on this land - can affect the university and the way students learn from it and on it. Such is so applicable to today as we are attempting to embrace the rotten roots of our dear university, attempting to learn from the injustisces against humanity that occurred on and before our university.

Could you detect this in a discussion forum? How could you define homogeneity in a way that could be measured via discussion?

I find it interesting that the University made it a goal to cultivate the morals of the students attending their school. They also stress how they want to instill the precepts of virtue and order. They want to achieve this, yet they based the location of their school to be around the centrality of the white population. I do not believe this is cultivating the morals of their students. This is narrowing their viewpoints, and not expanding on the multitude of cultures that lie within the United States.

The University set out a goal for the parents of young boys to begin their studies of the ancient languages at the year of age ten. This is an extremely young age, considering that the boys would be going to college eight years later. The minds of the young boys seem to be too young to be able to grasp this form of art. This correlates to my Engagement, Art Inside/Out, by focusing on the art aspect. Latin, Greek, and Hebrew are forms of art in the language aspect. This piece of art is powerful and intriguing; however, it may be too complex for the minds of ten year olds who are still trying to develop.

In this brief introduction to the next section of the paper, Murphy challenges existing scholarship that aligns Emma with Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream. Rather, the author outlines the parallels between Shakespeare's Twelfth Night. I find the connection somewhat tenuous as it almost ignores all of the gender bending and performance of Twelfth Night. While the author's later claim that "the broader themes of deliberate misrepresentation and self-serving delusions" are the tie between the two plays, I find that ignoring the aspects of performance and disguise is problematic.

I also think that this takes away from Murphy's main argument, which is that Austen's view of influence is broader than the historically main canon, evidence by her parody of Brunton's novel. This section seems to show the opposite, which is a parallel between Austen and Shakespeare.

The connection between the unfair genealogical model of literary and artistic inheritance and patrilineal inheritance laws is interesting here, as several of Jane Austen's novels, especially Sense and Sensibility, are shaped by the deleterious effects of this system upon their characters.

I don't know how true this is. One element not mentioned here is convience. For the first time, I did not assign individual textbooks this past year, but instead I had a class set of books, and I posted the book to my website. I did this because none of my students in years past wanted to carry their "heavy" book back and forth from home to school. So out of convienece, a large majority of my students did all of their reading online in regards to my text book. I had a handfull request a copy to keep at home, but most of them "read" online.

Digital #annotation is currently demonstrating a model for discussion much like Michael describes, where "discussion" (as annotation) is a separate, generic service and different manifestations of that service can be harnessed for and surfaced in various platforms for different uses. See Hypothesis' work, especially with a Canvas LTI integration.

I think Nathaniel would agree with this, as he says that many individuals who claim to engage rhetoric so as to persuade others do not actually want to persuade them, because then they would not have anyone with whom to argue, and would not feel like they were affecting change concerning a certain situation.

I could just be putting words in his mouth, though.

Claims about the power of SDGs

It is a clear skill to know exactly what someone wants to hear out of anything that could be said, but this will not amount to anything productive unless both parties recognize the merit in the discussion and not just in hearing what they desire

Oh, so maybe the personal is not political for Stewart. . . .

Humans why we always change our mind in the simple staff in live ? why we make it so complicated in this world?

How will this lead to violence, waste, war, and destruction?

But is this idea not true for almost everything in life? If someone wins, someone must lose, right? Is this system poorly designed because some people lose? The alternative would be nobody wins, would that be preferable?

So by quoting this, what is the author trying to say? Should we stop the pursuit of knowledge after instituting these 'limits'?

Why would we fear to become inhuman and monstrous? What most people really care about is extinction. Yet her it states that's not the case. How? And why would we ned to become inhuman and monstrous?

True in a sense, But why must we have limits if we have never reached them. theoretically speaking isn't there always room for improvement regardless of the subject?

Can we as a society be "free" without restraints then?

Why do we think of limitless as a godly trait? Mankind continues to do the unthinkable as we progress. We have done things we once thought were never achievable.

How can a limitless knowledge affect a human brain dangerously ?

Is waste and greed the cause of global warming?

This thought process has guided America's economic choices from the beginning. There's always more: money, oil, freedom, opportunity...etc. But was it to occur when we are forced to realize that this way of thinking can only be temporary, and at some point time will catch up with innovation.

Humans beginning are not define as animals and not all religions agree with at. Some religions doesn't agree that human heritage begin from animals. That may be true scientifically but not culturally or religiously.

Because us as humans consume limitless amounts we lose respect for each other and humanity? Wouldn't sharing these limitless needs give us a common ground and make us a community?

How do you feel about renewable energy? and do you believe this argument is valid and appropriate regarding the necessity to follow nature in the essence of "natural ecosystems"?

How do you feel about renewable energy? and do you believe this argument is valid and appropriate regarding the necessity to follow nature in the essence of "natural ecosystems"?

what is the circumstance of giving up the right of being godlike animals and how would it effect the earth?

If we as a society focus less on big business, and more on what nature is giving us, would we have to worry about running out of what nature is already giving us as energy resources?

But why are we talking about this? Like why does it matter?

How would we even be able to present a limitless economy and what kind of an ending effect would it had on us?

The author talks about our "abused cropland" which opens up a lot of problems with un-regulated farming and deforestation in different places. And if we don't regulate farm land we can farm the land to the point where it has no nutrients and if we just keep moving to the next plot of land, eventually we are going to end up like the movie interstellar where the money is in crops instead of the progression of the technology.

Having studied the issue of Global Warming in detail under the direction of two other professors here, I find this claim Berry makes to be utterly flattering. It suggests that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions (less than 5% of total CO2 surface emissions) rival those that can be attributed to natural processes. Do you believe Berry to be employing a "truthful hyperbole"--as Trump would say--here to illustrate the danger of our "limitless" view of the Earth; or do you believe Berry himself to be caught up in a view of human limitlessness (in other words, do you believe he thinks the impact humans have on this planet to be limitless)?

Why would anyone think that a limitless economy would be easy to demonstrate?

What limits can we create to ensure we are still able to exist as human beings or to exist at all?

Do the points in this essay refer to us as selfish in a way? The people and the government seem to look at things as limitless but in reality stuff will run out. Example being the gas we use is not limitless and someday will run out. We need to be more resourceful and mindful. But of course no one thinks of these things while they fill their cars up..

How is monetary not a stats about wealth of land, but instead about wastes and depletes?

Why is hell everywhere for those who reject heaven?

Do we have a delusion that there will be enough oil and that it isn't going to ever run out?

So, by this metaphor, is the author implying that if we use our freedom to destroy nature, will there be no place to go where the environment is safe for living plants and animals?

Are we entitled to a limitless economy? Should we consume whatever we please in the world without regard to consequences of that unrestrained use of resources?

Why does our society have an assumed limitlessness when we are capable of doing things thought not possible?

Discussion: How can limits be acknowledged positively without the impediment of progress?

As a society, we tend to function in a rat race mentality, that we are busy people who focus on what is important and urgent. We usually put off what is urgent but can wait to be dealt with later. Is it wrong to let the next generation solve this problem so that we can continue on, "business as usual"?

Will looking away from science and technology and going to focus on the arts really help with limitless? If you look at a broad spectrum of things are technology and art really limitless? Is anything limitless?

Not really sure what "already abused cropland" is supposed to be referring to. The USA has plenty of land that is useful for crops, so we won't be running out of land anytime soon. Crops can be rotated to put the nutrients back in that a certain type of crop takes away. I would say that a shortage of water would be a bigger concern. As it is, we import about 19% of the food we consume for more variety of choices. With advances in farming, there is less crop loss and more yield per acre than ever before. Do you think that growing so-called bio-fuels such as wheat, corn, soybeans and sugarcane will really cause problems?

Why will we need to start over? We can learn the concepts of ideas and things but we would not need to restart completely to understand it.

Is the problem about us assuming limitlessness, true? Do we assume EVERYTHING is limitlessness?

Were limits learned by time and society or did we always have them instilled in us? ( ex: attention span of an audience)

C'est à dire aussi bien :

poser des questions
commenter,
enrichir, ajouter des références, des liens
ajouter des images
tagger, indexer
signaler

In my experience, this is often also true of older children as well (problems detecting logical inconsistencies, that is). Are humans inherently logical? (thinking of Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow, which suggests no). If humans are not inherently logical, how does that affect teaching/learning? Would love to see more articles on this!

Title: Is Polite Philosophical Discussion Possible? (guest post by Nomy Arpaly) - Daily Nous

Keywords: implicit bias, philosophical discussion, war crimes, moral inhibitions—

Summary: For brevity’s sake, let’s just say it’s a big part of politeness or civility not to correct people.<br>A soldier who is fighting, even for a just cause, is in a precarious situation, with regard to morality, because he has lost, of necessity, the basic moral inhibition against killing people.<br>A philosopher who is arguing with another, even in pursuit of truth, is in a precarious situation with regard to politeness, because she has lost, of necessity, the basic civil inhibition against correcting people.<br>Having lost, of necessity, the inhibition against killing people, some soldiers find themselves shedding other moral inhibitions—and committing war crimes.<br>Having lost, of necessity, the inhibition against correcting people, some philosophers find themselves shedding other social inhibitions—and being terribly, terribly rude.<br>That’s just the nature of inhibition loss.<br>You need the real thing.<br>Being compelled to break the rule of thumb against telling people that they are mistaken in the understanding of an important thing is no excuse for also yelling at them, repeatedly interrupting them and talking over them, responding to their painstakingly prepared talks with a sneering “why should I be interested in any of this”?<br>Furthermore, I will argue against the philosophical Henry Kissinger within many of us who worries that whatever might be true about war and war crimes, realistically speaking philosophical rigor just requires rudeness.<br>It’s clearly a vice, virtue ethicists would say.<br>I would like to add the following.<br>First, if everyone is rude, women are judged unfairly (as potential colleagues, for example) because rude women are treated more harshly than rude men, by everyone, due to implicit bias.<br>Again, changing behavior is much easier than changing implicit bias.<br>Some think philosophy should change here—either through what I called “pacifism” earlier or through changing the way we evaluate people, or otherwise.<br>It won’t solve everything, but if we reduce rudeness, I solemnly promise that more women will want to do philosophy.<br>It is shown most emphatically by downright quiet, mild-mannered philosophers whose objections, expressed in a nice tone of voice, are nonetheless absolutely lethal.<br>They say revenge is best served cold.<br>Philosophical discussion can legitimately feel like a very tiring game of squash.<br>(Vincent Van Gogh, detail of “Four Cut Sunflowers”)<br>

Yes, annotations should open up discussion, not close it down.

That part never worked. But maybe these annotations will? That’d be neat.

Well...applies to blogs as well even when in a fishbowl. Readers are not codeswitching carefully and intentionally.

walkmyworld defined

fishbowl defined

Purpose of post

Something that is both bothering me about Whyville and interesting to me in terms of our other readings is the focus of the game on creating or changing the "faceparts" of the avatar. It bothers me for reasons Raquel mentioned earlier about "preparing them" (or i might say "figuring them into" a world that values beauty and perfection above a lot else. But it is also a really interesting take on Ma and Munter's idea of editing space. Maybe this is a stretch, but I am subbing out "spaces" in the sense of where we interact or "are" with the avatar - thus the player - who gets edited but also does the editing. Maybe it's too weird and doesn't work, but it seems like the player would be impacted and impacting their experience of the world at the same time.

Interesting here, the distinction between "socializing" and what the media determines as "isolating." In some ways, isn't participation in online social space both a physically "isolating" experience while also a "socializing" experience?

Don't know the game, so this is just based on the picture below and experience with other learning situations (italics intended). Are they learning about all of these, or just getting used to take their consequences into account? You don't need to learn about gravity and gravitational forces to get used to take into account that things fall...

This question is embedded in some larger context, right? If we think about this, we need to understand that society has a view of video games and them not teaching children anything. Makes me wonder what kinds of questions we would be asking if society did not have this view.

Connecting to my comment above, why don't the authors interrogate the connected controllers embodiment in the same way?

Interesting that she traces the line with her finger repeatedly, possibly calling for her embodied knowledge to assist in remembering the vocabulary

One directional? Learning transforms Identity but Identity doesn't transform Learning

I don't know exactly where I sit with this article. On the one hand I appreciate this sentiment of field trips as a having potential to open new worlds or spaces to children and allow them to begin to see themselves in it. But on the other hand, they are only allowed to explore that world in controlled ways, thus only supporting identity creation that matches the space developers image of what students should do/be in the space and that feels both constrained in the immediate interaction and potentially politically/socially limiting for them down the road when they might have a chance to be in the space as adults or teenagers.

Colin and Raquel have both pointed this out already, but I think this line is worth adding to the conversation. The idea of transforming kids so they become "elements of the new aesthetic landscape". I want to make a direct (and maybe uncomfortable) reference here to schools. I think in a very similar way, schools work to mold students so they might become "elements of the school aesthetic". This not only edits some students out who they can't get to conform, but takes agency away from all students in deciding how school might best work for them.

Is this way to do it also blind to agency issues? Because, according to this description and the introduction, there is a huge difference if the kid develops the interest and looks for answers -aided by parents and surrounding community. This depction is more on the "ready-made" side, with no particular care about kid's interest on the topic

Identities become important outcomes of participation in communities of practice in ways analogous to our notion that identities are formed in the process of participating in activities organized by figured worlds"

This seems like it could be a useful passage for our class question about CoP vs FW!!

Discuss: What does this mean? Have you experienced an "open door moment" like this?

I think this author misses the full concept of Participatory Action Research (PAR) and what is called Youth PAR. Is a trend, and not that recent actually, about activism projects, some guided by the communities and with almost exclusive participation of the communities (researcher is little more than an observer), some heavily guided by researchers

How much can this be intentional? How much does this fit into an understanding as "accidental learning?"

Is this really a just request?

Is it significant that Helen has no lines? Is she even real, or just an idealized (and thus silent) version of femininity?

Paraphrasing Jasmine, this makes my heart hurt, in an awesome nerdy way

Is this a kind of FoK?

And then the question is on the importance of those facts or inferences, in order to decide if and how to teach/show/facilitate them

Do people agree/disagree with Allen here? Do students enter the classroom thinking, "Hey, this might be so boring, but if I stick it out I know there are rewards/benefits on the other side."?

I think this shows flexibility and ability to keep learning, mostly situation-specific job training (Resnick) but some transferable pieces of information too.

This is glorious!