Search Results

Theory of Mind (ToM), originally defined as the ability to consider the human mind as a generator of representations, is a cornerstone in social interactions because it corresponds to developing an awareness of how mental states (beliefs, desires, wishes, etc.) govern the behavior of self and others. This chapter explores relations between ToM and teaching-learning. It begins by discussing these relationships and presenting the state-of-the-art findings about ToM in deaf children. It then discusses how cognitive processes underlying ToM may differ among deaf children, and in deaf children compared to hearing children. The chapter presents ways in which some key aspects of hearing children's ToM might differ from researchers' conceptions about ToM development. This leads to a discussion of learning by deaf students and the need for teachers to be conscious of different learning styles.

The idea that people are either verbal or visual thinkers is current not only in popular mythology, but also in the educational concept of ‘learning styles’. Teaching methods, it is claimed, should be tailored to accommodate either the verbal or visual proclivities of the students. Careful examination of the evidence indicates that the distinction is without foundation, at least with respect to the effectiveness of educational practice. It may be true that some people are good at verbal skills, some at visual skills, but just as many are good at both or good at neither — and there are, of course, many shades in between. An associated but equally suspect idea is that people are either left-brained or right-brained. These distinctions may reflect a natural human tendency to see the world and its inhabitants in terms of dichotomies, thereby overlooking the very complexities that make us human. They may also reflect a politically correct but often misguided (and indeed dangerous) attempt to define talent in those who fail to achieve academically. The natural disposition to dichotomize is exploited by individuals and organizations only too eager to profit from human folly.

This chapter discusses the importance of education to the success of a palliative care team in an acute hospital. Education is a core activity of any palliative care service; however, there are often practical difficulties in finding ways to fit it into the hospital routine. A palliative care team needs to be creative and become part of the hospital mainstream to achieve to achieve its goals of having a clear understanding of the needs of the staff working in the hospital. It is also important to investment in training around teaching and presentation skills and collaborate in order to avoid duplication, build relationship with other departments, and pool resources. This chapter provides a list of recommended learning style resources.

This chapter reviews a range of memorization strategies that are available to musicians. The chapter is in three main sections. It begins by setting out basic principles of human memory, including a discussion of the psychological structures thought to be involved in memorization and some recommendations for improving memory generally. The second section explores musical memory specifically and offers a selection of strategies commonly used by musicians and tested through systematic research. These include rote memorization, methods for memorizing visual and auditory information, methods for developing and exploiting ‘conceptual’ memory, and memorization for words and music. The chapter closes with a discussion of how these strategies can be used in conjunction with one another and how individual differences in learning styles may impact on one's capacity to memorize.

Any consideration of learning in organizations requires a description of how individual learning translates into organizational practices. This chapter builds a template that outlines approaches to learning from experience in organizations. The template draws from rational, dialectic, and poststructural approaches to learning to provide an integrated model of learning in organizations based on experience. The template is built on the work of Dewey, and a contemporary application of Dewey’s work to organizations. The template builds on the notions of routine and novelty and identifies four modes of learning from experience in organizations: counter experience, direct experience, exploration, and evidence based learning. Implications for organizational learning styles are explored.

This chapter talks about a new vision of the ideal classroom: one for girls and one for boys. The girls' classroom is occupied by quiet, focused girls who are comfortably seated. The teacher speaks in a mellow voice, and the girls learn about chemistry by analyzing “girly” artifacts like cosmetics or cleaning fluids. The boys' classroom is filled with a lot of activity and noise, with the boys expending plenty of physical energy, such as taking a motorcycle apart to understand how engines function. This kind of set up proves to be unhelpful, as the use of gender specified teaching tools is a wasteful allocation of limited educational resources. Separating boys and girls on the basis of alleged learning-style differences is completely unscientific. The real ideal classroom is one where teachers see students as individuals, and encourage them to stretch beyond stereotypes and discover a range of talents.

This chapter examines the validity and relevance of two frequently discussed educational theories: Multiple Intelligence Theory and Learning Styles. Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence Theory encourages educators to look beyond the standard IQ test as a single measurement of a student’s potential. Rather, he encourages educators to look at students more holistically as defined by eight different intelligences. The chapter continues by explaining that scientific studies do not support the commonly held belief that students learn best through their preferred learning style. Instead, research demonstrates that information learned through multiple sensory entry points will have more triggers for recollection, thus increasing chances for recall. The author shares a variety of exercises created to take advantage of this brain principle in the choral rehearsal. This chapter further explores the brain’s affinity as a pattern-seeking device to respond to structure, and ways to use that affinity as an aid to learning.

This chapter examines three models of apprenticeship. It explains the similarities between each model and how each connects to a different psychological theory. Traditional apprenticeship is a model that relies on teacher-centered demonstration and imitation grounded in behaviorism. Cognitive apprenticeship, framed in cognitive psychology, situates the mentor and apprentice in “real-world” experiences through student-centered strategies such as reciprocal teaching. Lastly, sociotransformative apprenticeship addresses issues of power and musical identity that are neglected in the traditional and cognitive apprenticeship models. Within this third model, the mentor and apprentice pose and solve problems together as they cycle through authentic activities that foster competency and a critical consciousness in the apprentice. Such actions prepare the mentor to enter into a community of practice with skill and competence. Social theory and experiential learning ground each model. The chapter also explores the nature of the apprentice–mentor relationship and describes how mentors design scaffolding experiences that align to children’s individual learning styles.

Chapter 3 focuses on the cognitive and intellectual growth of college students and includes vignettes written by undergraduate students. The role of the professor in assisting the undergraduate in developing from dualism to relativism is discussed. A review of various learning styles and a discussion of multiple intelligences is provided. Various strategies for motivating students are discussed. Specific techniques for self-regulation are also examined. The chapter concludes with suggestions for differentiating instruction. Suggestions for underclassmen include autobiographical assignments, modeling and thinking aloud; while suggestions for upperclassmen include choice in assignments and recognition of the challenges of planning a future in the arts.

The need to prepare adequately for any university examination is beyond refute and students may struggle with the OSCE assessment if they are unprepared or have unrealistic expectations of the OSCE process (Bloomfield et al. 2010). Adequate preparation will enable you to: ● Minimize any anxiety related to the examination, ● Understand the requirements of the OSCE, ● Facilitate accurate, systematic and timely performance of the OSCE, ● Enable you to give full justice to your professional ability…. OSCEs represent an important opportunity for you to further develop your nursing knowledge and skills. Effective preparation will give you a better opportunity to learn effectively from your OSCE and enable you to view the experience positively (see Chapter 14 Reflecting upon your OSCE). Preparation for your OSCE will clearly be affected by your own learning style and where and how you study is likely to be adapted to suit your own learning needs. You may well have completed a learning style assessment quiz such as Honey and Mumford’s (1986) at university; if not, you are able to access this online. It may be best to link your study for your OSCE to your learning style. Honey and Mumford (1986) identified several differing learning styles that are briefly described here. These include: ● Reflector: Tend to explore issues in depth before reaching a decision, ● Theorist: Logical and enjoy researching and using theory to enable understanding, ● Pragmatist: Like to apply things in practice and experiment with new ideas, ● Activists: Are open to new ideas and learn through experience alongside others. Therefore you can use your understanding of your learning style to help plan how you may best revise/prepare for your OSCE. For example: ● Activist: May prepare best by practising for your OSCE with your colleagues and practising your OSCE in the skills room or in a group outside of university. ● Reflector: May learn best by reviewing your own experience or learning from reflecting on experiences you have had in clinical practice. ● Theorist: May prepare by reviewing the literature and reading around the subject matter of your OSCE in appropriate literature, OSCE and clinical skills books.

If the music classroom is meant to be a creative, safe, music-making space, how do educators balance technology in that space? Technology can be used in the simplest teacher-directed ways, as well as in a more student-centered “doing music” environment, depending on how the teacher wants to utilize it and how the students respond to it. Using approaches like Dr. Ruben Puentedura’s SAMR (Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition) model and Liz Kolb’s Triple E (Engage, Enhance, Extend) Framework can help elementary music educators realize how much technology they want to use and when it would be the best tool for the students’ learning styles.

This chapter presents general teaching and learning theories fundamental to auditory (re)habilitation practices. The heuristic approach, top-down versus bottom-up processing, passive versus active learning styles, restorative versus compensatory perspectives, process versus product, potential versus failure intervention model, and constructivist perspective are covered. It is important for practitioners to apply these theories when engaging with adolescents and their families.

Individual ways of thinking can be developed and changed with time. The introspections of literary scholar Mark Bauerlein, entomologist and cartoonist Jay Hosler, lawyer and novelist Diana Richmond, and developmental biologist Scott Gilbert convey how it feels to change one’s way of thinking through determined effort. Bauerlein’s advocacy of focused concentration resonates with neuroscientist Elizabeth Gould’s and Fred Gage’s studies of adult neurogenesis and neurophysiologist Michael Merzenich’s experiments demonstrating adult neuroplasticity. Hosler’s and Gilbert’s accounts of teaching science indicate that teachers of any subject must consider the needs of verbally, spatially, or pictorially oriented students. Teachers should not, however, simply accept that students are “verbal” or “visual” and cater to their needs; they should push them to learn what comes hardest. Many thinkers profiled in this book chose professions demanding skills they needed to develop. Sometimes, people achieve their greatest successes in fields for which they first seem to have no affinity.

This chapter examines strategies for winding back and winding forward rhythm pattern instruction including rhythm syllables and a reading/writing rhythmic sequence to aid in individualization of rhythm instruction for all students. Numerous practice activities that appeal to different learning styles are offered, as various approaches to the same concept can be beneficial to all students. In addition, assessment charts are presented that sequence the steps of rhythm instruction in multiple meters and offer a means of tracking skill development of individual students that recognizes mastery and progress. Through differentiation of rhythmic objectives and skill development, students can access the curriculum at their own current skill level and the class can proceed through instruction together. Without this, we may unintentionally leave some students confused as we move on to more complex rhythmic skills.

Whereas Chapter 4 explored the “reactive” side of teaching or what happens in the lesson, Chapter 5, “Training Sequencing and Planning Strategies,” covers the “proactive” side of teaching. It describes how pedagogy students should be prepared for planning their lessons and curriculum, beginning first with the skill of sequencing repertoire and other performance skills, and then exploring techniques for designing long-term and short-term plans. In particular, this chapter places a strong emphasis on how piano teachers must be prepared to design lesson plans that prevent potential student problems, rather than only react when problems arise. Several classroom exercises are included that help pedagogy students understand the importance of the planning process and how they can adjust their plans to the needs of individual students.

Participants in the past decade's discussions about precollegiate education speak informally of "waves" of educational reform. The first wave which took place in the early and middle 1980s, centered on attempts to ensure that students would secure the prerequisites for higher learning; this phase was often termed a quest for "basic skills" or the "basic literacies/' though sometimes commentators spoke more bluntly about "getting the little buggers to work harder." The second wave, which occupied the late 1980s, called for the professionalization of teachers and of building administrators. There should be a higher caliber of teachers, teachers should have more control over the events in their classrooms, and management should occur, as much as possible, directly on site. Commentators like Albert Shanker and Patricia Graham have pointed out that neither of these waves was controversial. No one could question the importance of basic skills, though the means by which they were attained, and the time by which they should be in place, merited discussion. By the same token, while some may have feared the negative consequences of too much teacher or building autonomy, it was scarcely correct politically to oppose this trend in too direct a fashion. One area of potential discussion has remained conspicuously absent from the first decade of discussions. This missing wave could be termed "the primary purpose of education." Various goals were implicit in many discussions, of course; they ranged from the preparation of a skilled workforce to the education of a wise citizenry. But there was understandable reluctance to make this discussion overt, because educators' goals are too likely to conflict with one another: the reformer who values well-roundedness or individual excellence might well clash with the reformer who values the graduate steeped in science or in the classics of Western civilization. Since reformers have needed all of the support and as much consensus as they could garner, it is not surprising that such discussions have taken place far more frequently in the corridors at meetings or in writings by individuals like Allan Bloom or E. D. Hirsch,1 who did not come from the ranks of precollegiate educators.

Today, as the demographics and culture of America change, the demands made on any number of social, cultural, and educational institutions that had their origins in the traditions of Europe and earlier American history seem almost impossible to reconcile. The current demand that these institutions serve all members of American society—people of a multitude of backgrounds, cultures, and interests—and at a higher technological level than ever before, gathers increasing weight, weight that threatens these institutions. At the same time, those with a vested interest in universities, museums, social services, and arts organizations desperately try to shore up their beloved institutions from within, with the result that no one is pleased. Reform attempts seem to lead to the creation of yet more bureaucracy, further stifling institutional ability to respond to the new needs. Goals apparently so simple and clear as "We must better educate our youth to compete in the new world economy" become complicated and muddled. To complicate all the more this process of "change"—to use the current buzzword—we are coming to realize that in tinkering with our traditional institutions, we no longer have confidence in the traditional ways of passing along our values, nor is there a strong consensus on what those values are. William E. Brock, chairman of the Wingspread Group, which was convened to study higher education, states that we must pass along to the next generation the "critical importance of honesty, decency, integrity, compassion, and personal responsibility in a democratic society." Who could disagree? The problem is that people of goodwill no longer necessarily define terms such as "integrity" and "personal responsibility" the same way. So while everyone of every political persuasion is able to agree that something must be done, it has become almost impossible to agree on what to do. Goals become either so idealistic that they are laughable or so watered down, in order not to offend any interest group, that they are useless. In today's political climate, it is clear that to call for "major reform" plays well in the press but can actually forestall any needed change.