1. There are three types of attention processes: divided attention, selective attention, and saccadic eye movements. The processes explain how our attention can or cannot focus on what is happening at the moment. There are also multiple theories that explain attention such as neuroscience research and visual reasoning for attention. The chapter also discussed consciousness and its relation to attention and vision with thought suppression, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, and blindsight.
2. The feature-integration theory discussed one can easily find and target, could be a word or a specific picture, when it is in a specific color and different from the irrevelant items. The website discussed when using less color and distractors one can more easily view and understand the content presented-thus, reinforcing the the study by Treisman and Gelade. The chapter also discussed brain lesions in which people might not see specific places in the viewing field which accounts for "unusual deficits" in attention tasks. My father-in-law suffers from this. It is hard to keep him on task when eating because he believes he is finished eating and wants to leave the table because he cannot see his food. Or, he often sees the food on others' plates and wonders why he doesn't have it (he cannot see it on his plate). His attention is diverted constantly because of his visual problem. Chapter 2 discussed brain lesions and prosopagnosia with not recognizing human faces. So, lesions, depending on where they occur, can effect different visual or attention processes.
3. I am still not clear on where ADD fits into the picture. This is the attention processing chapter. It did touch on OCD but not a lot of students are OCD. We, as teachers, struggle with students who have attention issues and how to combat them with our teaching.
4. As discussed on blackboard, I wrote about how my students use the attention process of saccadic eye movements. I have realized that most of my students read word by word and pause longer to figure out the word because they are taking the whole word and stretching it out letter by letter sound. Their attention is focusing incorrectly. I need to try and teach my students more about taking larger eye movements and looking ahead at words when they read. This will hopefully increase their fluency and comprehension because they will be more apt to thinking about the story and not about decoding letter by letter. I guess the whole is bigger than the part! 5. Again, previous chapters back up the theories stated that seem to make it valid. I am not quite sure about the bottleneck theories. The book discusses it is too simplistic and goes further to discuss how it might be incorrect. The author does go to say that there are some credible parts of the theory but I cannot seem to find if the author is for or against this theory. There is not a lot of evidence to back it either way (or am I missing something?)
6. Attention is important because it allows us to see that there are different modes and reasonings why and how our brains process information and reverts to what is happening in our surroundings. It allows me to understand why some of my students conduct themselves the way they do during our small group lessons and during independent reading. I have more of a concept that each student is different and their attention processing is different. It's like differentiated instruction but I'm going to call it differentiated attention! This chapter also helps explain my father-in-law! He suffered a major stroke and now cannot see everything-especially things on his dinner plate. I need to be more patient with him during dinner because I have an understanding as to why he is acting this way!
7. I can use the saccadic eye movement attention processing with my lower readers. I will use this concept when working with my students in taking them one step forward and take their attention from reading letter by letter to reading word by word and looking ahead to help with fluency and comprehension.
8. I think that the white bear and cocktail party effect could have more easily been studied through surveys. It would have been a faster and cheaper method. The white bear could have been studied in a high school classroom setting quickly and without any cost. As for the brain research discussed, I still think that there has to be a more cost effective way to research the brain lobes without the expensive PET scans. If anyone can think of a way, please let me know!
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Monday, January 19, 2009
Chapter 2
1. Chapter 2 focuses on visual perception and how the brain functions to make sense of what is seen and how certain "features" (lines and curves, etc.) come together to make objects which then become known objects to our brain. Several theories discuss why and how we see objects either from their "features" of similarity or differences or by geons which form 3-D objects. Bottom-up processing is also discussed and how when we see and object, the information from that object begins with basic object information and is then passed up through the process to form a complex image which is then seen as the complete object. During top-down processing, we use our background knowledge to help us recognize the object and begin with the top, most complex thinking, and end with the basic understanding of what the object is (color, shape, size, etc). This top-down process is used during reading when readers use context clues to read meaningful words, yet both processes are working together to figure out the object. It is also used in object recognition but can become an issue if one fails to see that something has changed and was not able to recognize or see the change. The chapter also discusses face recognition and how one looks or perceives an entire face rather than just a certain feature of the face.
2. Chapter 1 discusses early Gestalt theory and how one sees the whole picture rather than each part that makes up the entire picture. Chapter 2 discusses that when one perceives an image, he/she is able to see the object as a whole made from certain patterns rather than a mass of chaotic lines going every direction in a blob. Chapter 1 also discussed the information-processing approach and discussed that when processing information through the brain, the information is passed through one phase at a time. This approach follows along the bottom-up and top-down processing. The two processing concepts discuss too that information is passed either up or down depending on the process in stages as well.
3. I am still unclear about background knowledge and how it fits into knowing an object. If a child is reading a story about animals and he/she comes to an unknown word, looks at the object and completes both top-down and bottom-up processing but is still unable to identify the animal or figure it out from the text "features" then the child ends up skipping it and might never know what the animal is unless down the road the student encounters it and someone tells them or they see it on television and it is spoken to them. How do we build their background knowledge so they understand and "know" the objects to run them down both processes to understand and recognize it and place its name with it?
4. The section discussing top-down processing and reading applys to my teaching when discussing word superiority effect. Context is important to my readers and is helpful when my students don't know a word so they skip it and come back to see if they can "figure it out." I need to make sure I choose meaningful text so my students are able to practice using context clues and that processing. This should also help my readers read more quickly because the letters are more meaningful when attached to meaningful words. The book says that this should allow readers to move more rapidly through the text.
5. The author uses multiple research studies to support the theories. I believe what is discussed because the author discusses the theory and gives "holes" the theorists are missing in their studies. For example, when discussing feature-analysis theory, the author uses Gibson's research to back foundational neuroscience research. Then, the author used Hubel and Wiesel's research to continue to give supporting research on the topic. The author then goes on to discuss the problems with the approach. Multiple researchers were used to support, yet the holes in the research were clearly given. I believe the info given in the chapter because I have multiple experiences that can show for each theory. But, like each theory, there are instances that show the opposing side of the theory.
6. Perception is important because it allows us to see how we process information. It allows us to see that there are problems with perception processing and we, as educators, must take into account that students might use different processing techniques to find the same outcome. It also helps us to become aware that there might be problems with visual processing and the brain. It is helping me to understand that my students are slower readers possibly because they are having visual processing problems that I need to allow extra time or techniques to help them read.
7. I can use this information when assessing all students with a running record. I can take into account the visual images they are using from the pictures, consider their background knowledge, and assess their answer given for the text. This allows me to discuss answers with the speech and language teachers to find if there are any major problems that they might need speech and language services. This is one assessment for proof that a student may have visual impairment.
8. I believe that student perceptions of written text or objects can easily, and cheaply be assessed by any classroom teacher. Simply keeping simple DRA, running records, and oral answers documented by the teacher would provide evidence. Most students are sent to a doctor now to assess visual perceptions so why not use the data from teachers to assess a student's situation and needs? Does it really matter what part of the brain is not functioning? We, as teachers, have proof that something is not working and that is what matters. Brain research is expensive and if we document the occurances we can easily assess what students need to help them and provide support and accomodations.
2. Chapter 1 discusses early Gestalt theory and how one sees the whole picture rather than each part that makes up the entire picture. Chapter 2 discusses that when one perceives an image, he/she is able to see the object as a whole made from certain patterns rather than a mass of chaotic lines going every direction in a blob. Chapter 1 also discussed the information-processing approach and discussed that when processing information through the brain, the information is passed through one phase at a time. This approach follows along the bottom-up and top-down processing. The two processing concepts discuss too that information is passed either up or down depending on the process in stages as well.
3. I am still unclear about background knowledge and how it fits into knowing an object. If a child is reading a story about animals and he/she comes to an unknown word, looks at the object and completes both top-down and bottom-up processing but is still unable to identify the animal or figure it out from the text "features" then the child ends up skipping it and might never know what the animal is unless down the road the student encounters it and someone tells them or they see it on television and it is spoken to them. How do we build their background knowledge so they understand and "know" the objects to run them down both processes to understand and recognize it and place its name with it?
4. The section discussing top-down processing and reading applys to my teaching when discussing word superiority effect. Context is important to my readers and is helpful when my students don't know a word so they skip it and come back to see if they can "figure it out." I need to make sure I choose meaningful text so my students are able to practice using context clues and that processing. This should also help my readers read more quickly because the letters are more meaningful when attached to meaningful words. The book says that this should allow readers to move more rapidly through the text.
5. The author uses multiple research studies to support the theories. I believe what is discussed because the author discusses the theory and gives "holes" the theorists are missing in their studies. For example, when discussing feature-analysis theory, the author uses Gibson's research to back foundational neuroscience research. Then, the author used Hubel and Wiesel's research to continue to give supporting research on the topic. The author then goes on to discuss the problems with the approach. Multiple researchers were used to support, yet the holes in the research were clearly given. I believe the info given in the chapter because I have multiple experiences that can show for each theory. But, like each theory, there are instances that show the opposing side of the theory.
6. Perception is important because it allows us to see how we process information. It allows us to see that there are problems with perception processing and we, as educators, must take into account that students might use different processing techniques to find the same outcome. It also helps us to become aware that there might be problems with visual processing and the brain. It is helping me to understand that my students are slower readers possibly because they are having visual processing problems that I need to allow extra time or techniques to help them read.
7. I can use this information when assessing all students with a running record. I can take into account the visual images they are using from the pictures, consider their background knowledge, and assess their answer given for the text. This allows me to discuss answers with the speech and language teachers to find if there are any major problems that they might need speech and language services. This is one assessment for proof that a student may have visual impairment.
8. I believe that student perceptions of written text or objects can easily, and cheaply be assessed by any classroom teacher. Simply keeping simple DRA, running records, and oral answers documented by the teacher would provide evidence. Most students are sent to a doctor now to assess visual perceptions so why not use the data from teachers to assess a student's situation and needs? Does it really matter what part of the brain is not functioning? We, as teachers, have proof that something is not working and that is what matters. Brain research is expensive and if we document the occurances we can easily assess what students need to help them and provide support and accomodations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)