Martin,I noticed that the attachment didn't appear as part of the "incoming" email, so I double-checked my original "outgoing" email to make sure that I did indeed remember to attach it -- I did. So it's a mystery to me why it didn't survive the transmission. I'm going to try again, and if it fails again, I'll send it to you personally.
Keeley Mistaken ID bk rev.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
On Sep 17, 2009, at 1:45 PM, Martin Packer wrote:
Jerry, The attachment didn't make it this far, and the link gets me to the abstract but not the PDF. Can you send it again (or to me personally)? thanks Martin On Sep 17, 2009, at 12:15 PM, Jerry Balzano wrote:Former UCSD denizen Brian Keeley has written a very interesting review of Mistaken Identity for the (now defunct (!)) journal Brain and Mind that is as good or better than anything I'd be able to do; here's the link: http://www.springerlink.com/index/T1553031775156U6.pdf (I'm also attaching the pdf if people can't get to the review itself through this link). As for the corruption(s) of language, the main one I was referring to was the one where we make the little sacred object in our heads the Subject of the sentence, the Agent of the action, as in my subject line, as in when we say things like "our brains don't like it when ..." and other linguistic constructions that replace references to whole persons with references to organs. Jerry On Sep 16, 2009, at 7:56 PM, mike cole wrote:Hit and expand, Jerry.Are there any summaries/reviews of *Mistaken Identity: The Mind- BrainProblem Reconsidered*? Could you do one for xmca/mca?? mikeOn Sep 16, 2009, at 9:54 PM, Duvall, Emily wrote:Hi Jerry, No need to run on my account. So called 'brain-based learning' is one of the banes of my existence... :-) And it's good to keep a wary eye... However, I did wonder when you said, "We see a corruption of our language, ...." I'm not sure what you mean by corruption or 'our language'? ~emOn Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Jerry Balzano <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:I just wanted to insert an opinionated and possibly inflammatory view, that the influence of neuroscience -- not just on "the learning sciences" -- but on a much wider gamut of practicing scientists, teachers, laypersons, and even that ghostly creature known as the Zeitgeist, has not been altogether benign - in fact, far from it. We see a corruption of our language, wherein we increasingly find otherwise intelligent people take agency away from persons (not to mention groups) and hand it over to brains. I've called this tendency "brain chauvinism" in my classes; I've also seen it called "brainism", and in a recent book by Leslie Brothers with the lovely title Mistaken Identity: The Mind-Brain Problem Reconsidered, the author refers to it as "neuroism". It shows itself in particularly egregious form in the "Brain-Based Learning" literature (promotional and 'academic'), a scientistic attempt to dress up previously unassuming theories, ideas, and findings in the flashy garb of the physiological and thereby make it look like something that has instantly earned more of your attention and respect, when in fact it has actually earned less. Hitting and running, JerryB - "No supposition seems to me more natural than that there is no process in the brain correlated with associating or with thinking." - "Note also how sure people are that to the ability to add or to multiply or to say a poem by heart, etc., there must correspond a peculiar state of the person's brain, although on the other hand they know next to nothing about such psycho-physiological correspondences." - "It is thus perfectly possible that certain psychological phenomena cannot be investigated physiologically, because physiologically nothing corresponds to them." - “Thinking in terms of physiological processes is extremely dangerous in connection with the clarification of conceptual problems in psychology.” (L. WIttgenstein, various places) On Sep 16, 2009, at 8:24 AM, Monica Hansen wrote: I think this plug is well placed because methodology is really central tothis discussion. How do we know what we know in any field? The tools and resources that are available and shared in common are the tools that can be used for communication. An old tool maybe used until a new one, a better one is invented. The idea of a computational theory of mind--when this was simplistic, based on a more simple computational machine--input, function, output. One of the best things that happened because of this model was that researchers had to test it. The human brain is not a simple, computational machine! We know this now. Now, one of the words I see most often in discussions of the brain function is "complex". Computational models are evolving to accommodate this. Those who used to think of the development of the human as an individual unit are also realizing that the individual exists within and is a part of a larger system and that must be accounted for in models as well. It is fascinating to see how old ideas re- circulate and feed new work. -----Original Message----- From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org ] On Behalf Of Martin Packer Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:47 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: Re: [xmca] Neuroscience connections to learning and relearning Perhaps this is just a plug for phenomenology, but I can't resist pointing out that Maurice Merleau-Ponty was able to useneurophysiological literature concerning brain-damaged patients (byHead and others) as evidence *against* both a computational theory of mind and biological reductionism. Old habits of thinking certainly die hard, but they *are. habits, not necessary paths for thought. Martin On Sep 16, 2009, at 9:31 AM, Monica Hansen wrote: Steve:I like the way you pose the last question: At the same time, some of the dominant trends in contemporary neuroeducational theory seem to revolve around time- worn biological reductionist ideas - almost with a vengeance. New bottles, but some of the same old wine. Because the method of the tradition of academic inquiry in the naturalsciences is a strong contributor to work in this area (physiology,biology,chemistry, etc) we would expect to see this. What is so great withthis recent tide of research in neuroscience, is that we are finding more"evidence" that cannot be explained by the traditional models. Notthe sameold wine--a different wine that needs new packaging; it's just theproduction facility only has bottles, labels, the same old equipment. -----Original Message----- From: email@example.com [mailto:xmca- firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Steve Gabosch Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 2:29 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: Re: [xmca] Neuroscience connections to learning and relearning What interesting books, Emily. Thank you. Virginia Berninger and Todd Richards, who are at the UW Seattle in my neck of the US woods, say (as revealed by Amazon Books Look Inside) in the Introduction to this textbook that they rely on Luria: "In Parts I and II we lay the groundwork for the complexities of systems of brains and minds at work and in doing so draw on the work of a Russian neuropsychologist, A.R. Luria (1973), who introduced the notion of functional systems of a brain at work. However, Luria based his conclusions on study of individuals with brain damage, whereas we base ours on study of normally developing individuals with and withoutlearning differences and not on those with brain damage. AlthoughLuria did not study the processes of teaching and learning academic subjects in the same depth or setting as contemporary researchers in many disciplines do, we credit Luria with the fundamental insight that multiple brain structures may be involved in one function and that the same brain structures can participate in more than one functional system." p8, Brain Literacy for Educators and Psychologists (2002) Great to see Luria given this credit. Question: Where does Luria's The Working Brain: An Introduction to Neuropsychology (1973) fit in to this kind of study? Is his book accessible, is it too out of date, etc.?Thanks much for the attachments. (I keep getting the same Howard-Jones article out of the first two attachments, btw).Next AERA conference I go to, I will pay some serious attention towhat the people in neuroeducation are doing - there really does appearto be something burgeoning there. My take so far ... see what youthink ... is that one can expect all the current major trends in the general social, life and natural sciences to reappear in this new interdisciplinary field - but on a new level, reflecting some of the advances of recent decades, such as an increased awareness of the central role of cultural experience ... just as, for example, cognitive science in its developmental years absorbed some of the newer ideas of its time (computer science, game theory, general systems theory, etc. etc.). Neuroeducation seems to be consolidating the surge in knowledge from research in cognition and learning in recent decades - and especially, finding ways to theorize about and apply the vast new research insights that brain imaging technology ismaking possible. At the same time, some of the dominant trends incontemporary neuroeducational theory seem to revolve around time- worn biological reductionist ideas - almost with a vengeance. New bottles, but some of the same old wine. Am I in the ballpark? - Steve On Sep 15, 2009, at 9:23 PM, Duvall, Emily wrote: Glad you found it interesting, Steve!To start, I guess it depends on how much you want to know, but generallyI find it important to work with diagrams and video, some kind ofvisual support (I've started to include brain drawings as an assignment in my class) as well as articles. The Berninger & Richards text works well in conjunction with the Brain Coloring Book to get you going. You don't have to memorize everything, but it's helpful to understand the macro and microstructures from a systems perspective in order to begin to bridge the discourse. Others may have different favorites, but I suggest The Jossey- Bass Reader on the Brain and Learning... and (brand new, I haven't read my copy): The Educated Brain: Essays in Neuroeducation. Meanwhile, I've attached a couple of general articles by Howard-Jones and one of the more interesting pieces on VAK by Sharp et al. As to where this discussion is taking place? I am still relatively new and don't have any peeps other than those I am cultivating in my classes and several open minded folks on the neuroscience faculty with UIdaho. ~em -----Original Message----- From: email@example.com [mailto:xmca- firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Steve Gabosch Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 7:16 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: Re: [xmca] Neuroscience connections to learning and relearning Emily, I much appreciated your links to the Science Daily articles and the Usha Goswami article. I learned a lot. Thanks much, and please keep links like this coming! These are areas I know I would like to learn much more about. A) On astrocytes etc.: If you had to put together a crash course for CHAT-oriented researchers on neuroscience, what authors, books, articles etc. come to mind that you would draw from? B) As for the overview Goswami offers in her 2006 article regarding 1) what neuroscience actually is discovering about learning processes and how they might apply to the classroom and 2) what neuromyths are emerging along with perhaps other hazards of the commercialization of neuroeducation knowledge ... where is more of this kind of discussion taking place these days? - Steve On Sep 15, 2009, at 12:34 PM, Mike Cole wrote: Thanks Em-- And I googled Goswami neuromyths. Also veryenlightening. Goswami did early work with Ann Brown, former collaborator with us at LCHC. Now if we go back a step and look at the people who created the label of learning sciences, and their backgrounds, the shift from "developmental psychology" to developmental sciences, the appearance recently of the handbook of cultural developmental science, ......... what a tempest! Must be a teapot in there somewhere. Simultaneous, fractilated paradigm shifts? Does anyone have the luxury of being able to organize a science studies interrogation of these movements? Seems really worthwhile. mike On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Duvall, Emily <email@example.com: Thanks Mike... :-)In general I like Goswami's work; I find her discussion of neuromyths compelling and have had my grad students do additional research on some of them. I am also particularly interested in ways to try to negotiate across different fields. I've attached my favorite Goswami and a nice intro to neuroeducation. As a side note: Monica (Hansen, who frequently shows up on the list serve and is one of my doc students) and I took a neurosciencejournal club/ seminar last spring and found ourselves trying tomakesense of the work that is done with regard to education. We aretaking another seminar right now and some of the folks who were in last year's class are presenting journal articles in their field, but are trying to make the links to human experience, particularly education. It's been interesting to discover how open minded the students and faculty are...one of the computational neuroscience faculty has taken up someVygotsky reading as well as neuroeducation... of course Luria's work is a door opener and a point of mutual interest. ~em -----Original Message----- From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:xmca- email@example.com] On Behalf Of Mike Cole Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 9:41 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: Re: [xmca] Neuroscience connections to learning and relearning No one picked up on your interest in neuroeducation, Emily. A lot of what I read in this area strikes me as almost entirely without any appreciation of education, or human experience, as a culturally mediated, co- constructed process. Do you have a favorite general ref you could point us to that you resonate to?? mike On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Duvall, Emily <firstname.lastname@example.org: I thought some of you might one or both of these article summariesinteresting. The first really speaks to the new field ofneuroeducationwith regard to cellular learning... the nice thing about the summaryisit gives you an overview of learning at the cellular basis... veryclearand easy to understand. Plus an introduction to astrocytes... :-) The second piece actually discusses re-learning, which has been atopiclately. What I personally find so interesting is the role of experience in learning and relearning... I found myself thinking back to ShirleyBriceHeath's work... it would be fun to go back to her work and look at her study through a neuroeducation lens. 1. Star-shaped Cells In Brain Help With Learning http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090911132907.htm Every movement and every thought requires the passing of specific information between networks of nerve cells. To improve a skill or to learn something new entails more efficient or a greater number of cell contacts. Scientists can now show that certain cells in the brain --theastrocytes -- actively influence this information exchange. 2. Forgotten But Not Gone: How The Brain Re-learns http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081117110834.htmThanks to our ability to learn and to remember, we can performtasks that other living things can not even dream of. However, we are only just beginning to get the gist of what really goes on in the brainwhenit learns or forgets something. What we do know is that changes in the contacts between nerve cells play an important role. But can these structural changes account for that well-known phenomenon that it is much easier to re-learn something that was forgotten than to learn something completely new? ~em Emily Duvall, PhD Assistant Professor Curriculum & Instruction University of Idaho, Coeur d'Alene 1000 W. Hubbard Suite 242 | Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814 T 208 292 2512 | F 208 667 5275 email@example.com | www.cda.uidaho.edu He only earns his freedom and his life, who takes them every day by storm. -- Johann Wolfgang Goethe _______________________________________________ xmca mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca _______________________________________________xmca mailing list email@example.com http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca _______________________________________________xmca mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca_______________________________________________ xmca mailing list email@example.com http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca <howard- jones .pdf<neuroeducation .pdf< sharp_et_al_2 .pdf>_______________________________________________xmca mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca_______________________________________________ xmca mailing list email@example.com http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca _______________________________________________ xmca mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca_______________________________________________ xmca mailing list email@example.com http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca _______________________________________________ xmca mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca_______________________________________________ xmca mailing list email@example.com http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca_______________________________________________ xmca mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca_______________________________________________ xmca mailing list email@example.com http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca