pedagogic pedometers & gnomische gnostici ........


~*~
engel
~*~

IT
has become
dangerously fashionable
to label general - even trivial - pedagogical advice
that is not grounded in scientific fact
as "brain-based
learning."

For
instance,
findings about rapid synaptic proliferation in young children's brains
have nurtured hopes that cognitive capabilities can be increased by teaching infants vocabularies
and basic facts with audiovisual
material.

But
proponents
of these early education programs
have conveniently overlooked the lack of direct empirical evidence
linking neurological and learning
processes.

It is
far from clear
whether children who are encouraged to memorize isolated facts
early in life show better long-term retention
than their peers.

~*~

As a scientist
specializing in school-related learning,
I am open to the educational implications of neuroscience.
However, we need to scale down unrealistic
expectations.

Otherwise,
there is a danger
that new efforts to incorporate research in this area into education
by stymied by falsely raising the hopes
of the public and
policy-makers.

There
is the further danger
that people will ignore the importance of empirical research
in the fields of educational and instructional science, psychology, and information technology -
work that can continue to teach us
about good schooling.

Thanks to
these more traditional areas of research,
we understand a great deal about what has gone wrong in learning environments
when otherwise competent students
fail to learn.

Research on
learning and instruction
has provided precise and applicable knowledge about how to design
powerful learning environments
in many content areas.

What we now know
about the conditions
under which pictorial representations aid in teaching advanced concepts
goes far beyond the recommendations of so-called
brain-based learning.

~*~

Nevertheless,
certain groups of learners
do not benefit sufficiently from educational environments
developed in accordance with state-of-the-art research on learning and instruction,
and here is where collaboration among traditional research disciplines
and neuroscience may be
promising.

Looking
into the brain
during problem solving might help to clarify what impedes learning.
For instance, there is an ongoing debate on whether male students outperform female students
in mathematics and science because of their greater ability
to use visual-spatial representations
as reasoning tools.

As yet,
however,
the implications of achievement data
and bahavioral observations remain ambiguous in this respect.
Neuroimaging techniques have elucidated areas of the brain that are especially involved
in visual-spatial processing, so we may be able to find out
whether differences in achievement can be traced back
to the use of visual-spatial representations
in reasoning.

Similarly,
neuroimaging may help to clarify whether visual or phonological processing is impaired
in people with dyslexia.

~*~

Neuroscience may also be able
to show how prior experiences can improve learning,
going beyond psychological explanations.

Although many studies
have found evidence for the overwhelming impact of prior knowlegde of skills, procedures,
or concepts on learning, there may be other ways of improving learning besides
such knowledge transfer.

Cognitive activities can stimulate
certain neuronal processes by triggering electrical impulses and the release of neurotransmitters
in particular brain areas.

Concurrently,
other cognitive activities that are processed in similar brain areas may be enhanced,
even if the two cognitive activities involve completely different
knowledge structures.

~*~

Neuroscience alone
cannot provide the specific knowledge required to design powerful learning environments
in particular school content areas.

But
by providing insights
into the abilities and constraints of the learning brain,
neuroscience can help to explain why some learning environments work
while others
fail.

As part
of interdisciplinary collaborations,
neuroscience is poised to help structure the future classroom:
THIS would be "evidence-based" reform
worth supporting.

~*~
engel
~*~*~
engel
~*~

GNOSIS
is dus geen beschouwing,
geen filosofie in de moderne opvatting van het woord,
maar een religieuze ervaring.

Religie
stijgt uit boven iedere godsdienst.
Want een godsdienst houdt een dienst aan "G D" in ...
En DAN begint de ellende pas goed: want wie of wat is 'g d'?
En HOE kun je [in 's hemelsnaam {!}] die g d gunstig stemmen
opdat je leven vlekkeloos moge
verlopen?

Aan die 'g d'
moeten dan meestal ook nog 'offers' gebracht worden:
want 'geluk' moet 'afgedwongen'
worden?

En
naarmate
de kloof groter wordt
tussen DIT 'soort' "God" en 'de mens' -
en dat wordt hij in dit 'systeem' per definitie -
HOE MEER de mens zich klein, schuldig en zondig gaat voelen:
ZELF is hij niet meer in staat om de offers te brengen,
DAAR is hij niet 'heilig' en 'zuiver' genoeg
meer voor ...

DUS
moet er een kaste van 'zuiveren' komen
die deze taken uitvoert: en zo'n priesterkaste gaat een Eigen Leven leiden ~
wie MACHT verleend word, gebruikt die macht ook, dat zie je elke mydidag overal weer?
ZO is het in bijna iedere 'godsdienst' gegaan,
OOK in het 'christendom'!

~*~

ZO
was het
NIET oorspronkelijk?
De 'christosimpuls' die als een oerknal implodeerde
in de harten van de mens verdraagt geen godsdienst!
En gnosis, INZICHT in DIT gebeuren,
laat zich NIET in regels en systemen vatten ...
Leraren die de mens hielpen in DAT
bewustwordingsproces zou je
gnostici kunnen
noemen?

ZIJ
werkten vanuit de universele gnosis:
in Griekse mysterien, in Hermetische cirkels, in joodse leerhuizen en ook
in christelijke scholen?

Over hen
hoop ik het in het mydivervolg
vaker te hebben!

~*~
engel
~*~
04 feb 2006 - bewerkt op 04 mei 2008 - meld ongepast verhaal
Weet je zeker dat je dit verhaal wilt rapporteren? Ja | Nee
Profielfoto van Asih
Asih, man, 81 jaar
   
Log in om een reactie te plaatsen.   vorige volgende