Paper Ideas

Paper Ideas Reading changes resting state activity in theory of mind….

Is leaning to read dependent on the development of theory of mind?       Deficit models…      Test using other symbol-system of expressing intent.

Is literacy a construct which can be associated with brain structures?       -> Connected to ToM?      -> Symbolic system as tool      Pea 

Is there a relationship between programming and executive function?

---

What’s of interest to me? (What could I aim at for my directed reading?)      - constructivism, constructionism      - concept formation      - 

The Monkey and the Rake Neueoscience and Papert’s gears

Cognition with tools      How do children use tools (or representational systems) 

Notes from class Specific aims: start broadly; focus on 3 specific aims      1: key novel research      2: key component, or tests key explanation or hypothesis      3: a bit more speculative or wide-ranging  make sure the aims are separate (independent) from one another

METHODS

Design: Cross-sectional? Longitudinal?

Measures:      Valid? Reliable?

Commonly-used designs:       Cross-sectional comparison of ability across different groups      Single or multi-year interventions      Between-subjects comparison of effectiveness of training programs           - Quasi-experimental comparison

KIND OF ALREADY KNOWING WHAT IT IS GOING TO SAY I have found that I have a hard time learning new concepts with symbolic math, but once I have an idea, I can easily manipulate it, apply it, refer back to it, using the symbol. Similarly, when learning a new programming language, I need to already have an idea about the data structure and what’s going on before I can grok the symbolic manipulation. For example, in Swift, I was recently learning how to parse untyped JSON into typed Swift objects, and had a hard time with the code until I went back and forth along levels of abstraction. I had to drop down to see what was going on, then go back up in order to comprehend the big picture—at the lower level of abstraction, there was too much going on. 

This reminds me of reading a dense theoretical text—I often need to have a fuzzy idea about what’s going on, or how to approach it before I can get started. Sometimes I do this by reading a simplified overview (SEP or Wikipedia), sometimes by reading criticism of it, sometimes by reading a biography of the author. These strategies have been presented previously as tools for becoming interested in a topic, and I think that’s important for integrating new ideas into existing constructs of understanding. But here, I’m referring to a lower level—it’s necessary for comprehension to have a basic model on which to lay down the details. 

This raises the question of what happens when the basic model is insufficiently flexible to afford a productive reading. If one’s mind is made up as to what the new text means, one will not gain much from the reading. For example, I think this is why science teachers are so careful to uncover misconceptions that students will use to continually misinterpret new evidence. Could we recruit a Kuhnian ‘paradigm’ concept to talk about changes in understandings? 

To pursue this further, I would like to talk to science teachers about changing students’ mental models, talk to Bruce McCandliss about schema in reading, and think about the difference between mechanistic mental models (science) and symbolic systems. I could also engage with Djykstra’s arguments about teaching CS. I think this could turn into an interesting theoretical paper on understandings in CS, possibly returning to Papert’s claims about the fundamental nature of CS concepts around learning how to manipulate symbols and engage with new ideas.