No more lectures!

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/01/144550920/physicists-seek-to-lose-the-lecture-as-teaching-tool?ps=cprs

I wanted to post this for Heather, though anyone might be interested in it. 

Questions, thoughts, musings...

Zull doesn't give us a clear cut way to help trigger motivation, but he does gives us a glance into how the brain processes information. After examining the scientific methods of learning and cycling through the brain's processes, Zull determines that the brain wants to survive, and be safe--not exactly a revolutionary idea, but necessary to reiterate, nonetheless. The brain learns by motivation; however, our brains are not entirely motivated by extrinsic reward. Most learning happens when we enjoy what we are doing.

Zull wants us to understand what our students are thinking, and he believes that triggering motivation doesn't happen unless we know what is going on in our student's mind. After doing this, we are then able to make a game plan to promote positive learning.

I keep coming back to idea(s) (contention[s], perhaps) we expressed in our earlier conversations:  Zull doesn't really address the interpersonal effects of student-on-student learning. Nor does he factor in any of the various environmental issues affecting changes in the brain.  Brain "fitness", if you will, is not simply the product of positive learning experiences, i.e., growth and stimulation does not take place in a vacuum. I also found his emotional, sometimes visceral reactions to his students to be somewhat distracting, ironic and at odds with his clinical approach to the mechanics and chemistry of the brain. Maybe he is proving his point by emphasizing how emotional impressions make for more deeply registered learning experiences--or perhaps I just read too much into things ;-).

Though it lacks clear direction for particular teaching practices, focusing instead on abstract concepts as a necessary theoretical foundation for effective teaching to take place, overall, I felt the text to be a good starting point for a discussion on how we learn.  Pedagogically speaking, it leaves many openings (his point, perhaps). My only real beef is that we do not learn in isolation from others or our environmental factors--a bit more acknowledgement of these factors and incorporation of their potential effects would make for a more pressing case.

Eat more brains! Future brains!

As a good Americanist, I'm a fan of Cathy Davidson.  Sure, she risked multiple spider bites in order to write The Revolution and the Word.  I met her at a conference and she was really nice, too.

As a member of HASTAC, she maintains her cutting-edge status. 

So, if I needed one more reason to enjoy her work, she's now in Zull's territory: Now You See It: How the Brain Science of Attention Will Transform the Way We Live, Work, and Learn.  I've got my copy speeding to me through OhioLink!  I'll let you know what I think.

Rhizomatic structures

The more I read Zull's descriptions of the neuronal networks of the brain, the more Zull's points seem to build on Deleuze and Guattari's notion of rhizomatic structues (though Zull doesn't seem to be aware of this connection). I recall reading in Deleuze and Guattari's text, A Thousand Plateaus, how the process of how critical theory and research allows for multiple, non-hierarchical entry and exit points in data representation and interpretation. 


On the surface, this seems to reflect what Zull discusses in chapter 6, particularly on pp. 94-99. This seems to fit nicely (too nicely, perhaps) with a prominent conception of knowledge in the West which juxtaposes dualist categories and binary choices. A rhizomatic structure (e.g., like our neuronal network according to Zull) works with planar and trans-species (genre?) connections, while a more traditional taxonomic model works with vertical and linear connections. If our brains work as Deleuze and Guattari contend rhizomes work with "no beginning or end...always in the middle, between things, interbeing, intermezzo," perhaps the way we have been processing and categorizing knowledge in our formal educational systems incorrectly. Then again, isn't this suggestion itself a binary categorization ;-)?


If our paradigm is completely wrong, who wants to start overhauling pedagogy from the ground up? 


-R

Notes, Questions and Musings on Zull's Brain Book

First post--just to activate.