Re: [xmca] Educational neuroscience

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Whoever the moderators are, they are probably ambivalent, is mt guess.
What I do in such ashes is to ask people who are interested to write me
directly.

The commentaries are interesting too.
Mike

On Sunday, July 28, 2013, Rod Parker-Rees wrote:

> I could, but should I? How do xMCA moderators feel about copyright?
>
> Sorry if this seems unhelpful, Nancy, but I don't want to cause any
> problems for this forum.
>
> Meanwhile, the link is
> http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8958097&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0140525X12001495
>
> All the best,
>
> Rod
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu <javascript:;> [mailto:
> xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu <javascript:;>] On Behalf Of Mack, Nancy J.
> Sent: 28 July 2013 17:04
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: RE: [xmca] Educational neuroscience
>
> Rod,
> This sounds useful.
> Could you please attach a copy of the article for us to read?
>
>
> Nancy
>
>
> Dr. Nancy Mack
> Professor of English
>
> ________________________________________
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu <javascript:;> [
> xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu <javascript:;>] on behalf of Rod Parker-Rees [
> R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk <javascript:;>]
> Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 11:01 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: RE: [xmca] Educational neuroscience
>
> I am reading a fascinating article by Andy Clark - 'Whatever next?
> Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science'
> BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2013) 36, 181-253
> doi:10.1017/S0140525X12000477 - not specifically focused on education but
> offering a powerful set of arguments for understanding cognitive processes
> (including perception and action) as always involving both top-down and
> bottom-up components. We don't simply take in perceptual information and
> pass it through a series of processes to extract information from it,
> instead we actively anticipate what we are likely to experience and check
> our perceptions against these predictive models, paying attention only to
> aspects where there is a mismatch. This is grossly oversimplifying a
> complex argument but I think it does relate to questions about neuroscience
> and education because it clearly shows that what we already know (a product
> of our experience - always social and always cultural) directly informs the
> way our brains process new information. We have our (unique) genetic
> biology but we also have our (unique) history which makes our perezhivanie
> - what we understand from our experience - unique to us. Some aspects of
> neuroscience can help us to challenge the simplistic, 'mind as machine'
> models which neuroscience has tended to encourage (mainly among people who
> are not involved in it).
>
> All the best,
>
> Rod
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> Behalf Of Martin John Packer
> Sent: 27 July 2013 23:28
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Educational neuroscience
>
> Yes, it seems to me that some of the best evidence against a simple
> preprogrammed maturational account of brain development has come from
> neuroscience itself. Equally, some of the most interesting theorizing and
> research exploring alternatives to the computational model of the brain and
> the representational model of mind is coming from neuroscientists.
>
> Martin
>
>
> On Jul 27, 2013, at 11:46 AM, "Hansen, Monica" <
> monica.hansen@vandals.uidaho.edu> wrote:
>
> > Hi, Andy, and others. Interesting discussion. Some good sources. One
> consideration:
> >
> > Pharmaceutical implications are NOT the only result of understanding the
> contribution of neuroscience in education! Although I have seen
> neuroscientists include this in their discussion (especially for dyslexia
> and adhd).
> >
> > One implication of neuroscience for teachers in the classroom with
> individual students is a greater understanding of normal, individual
> variation for complex functions like reading and writing. In working to
> understand neuroanatomy of meaningful language, one finds that current
> research supports more structures being involved rather than identifying
> one localized region for speech production.  Rather than considering
> development as predetermined, development is considered ongoing. The social
> and cultural influence in an individual's cortical organization is huge!
> Current neuroscience supports what Bella Kotik-Friedgut refers to from
> Luria as "extracortical" organization, the notion that the cortex is
> reorganized from without the individual. Development of the brain is not
> predetermined for our students just because of genetics. What we become and
> are is not reduced to chemicals, is not a function of time(maturity) in the
> mechanistic sense, but arises from the ability of our nervous systems as
> dynamic, growing and changing within larger systems.
> >
> > Monica Hansen
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> > On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:00 AM
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] Educational neuroscience
> >
> > I would like to suggest a thought experiment.
> > Suppose that neuroscience had progressed to a point where every
> > psychological phenomenon has been traced to a specific formation in
> > the brain. (This is of course very far from the case. Even dramatic
> > psychological disorders are often invisible to neuroscience, but just
> > suppose. ....)
> >
> > What then?
> >
> > It could help faciitate new pharamceutical and surgical cures for
> psychological disorders.
> > So instead of better teaching, we could administer drugs to children so
> they learn faster, or something??
> > It is only surgical and pharmceutical interventions that require
> > neuroscientific knowledge. Oherwise, stories about the brain just
> > function as rationalisations, for doing things which can be explained
> > and tested without reference to the brain,
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > Huw Lloyd wrote:
> >> On 24 July 2013 16:45, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 24 July 2013 16:35, Wagner Luiz Schmit <wagner.schmit@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Huw,
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for the indications. Any "recent" (10 years or so)  research
> >>>> dealing with the data made available by the knew scan technologies?
> >>>>
> >>>> Best,
> >>>>
> >>>> Wagner
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Nothing that I've come across.  I haven't expected to find anything
> >>> though, so haven't looked with any diligence.
> >>>
> >