… but I have no way of knowing until I open it.
Sorry, I don’t have any credit for this one! A random forward from a friend.
{ 0 comments }
… but I have no way of knowing until I open it.
Sorry, I don’t have any credit for this one! A random forward from a friend.
{ 0 comments }
I just came back from the University of Oregon, in beautiful Eugene, where I did a series of workshops and talks. Here are the materials and slides from those talks, for anyone interested in these materials.
This talk looks at some of the findings from cognitive psychology that have been of particular interest to us here in Colorado (or, perhaps more specifically, to me):
There are a few other threads in the slide presentation that I didn’t get a chance to cover (though did discuss with some interested graduate students after the talk).
Here are the handouts: Handouts.pdf
A few discussion points came up during the talk, and here are some literature references related to those discussions:
Below are the slides.
What every teacher should know about cognitive science
I also gave a talk about some of the major themes in effective science communication. This led to a particularly good discussion on how some of these ideas still apply in academic writing and talks — one needs to weave a story, use clear transitions between paragraphs, and make ones’ motivation for the study clear. Narrative structure IS how we understand content? Unfortunately you can’t hear the great pieces of audio that I played to make my point, but I’m always happy to share them.
Here are the handouts: Speaking of Science-handout
We mentioned some useful resources:
Here are the slides:
Speaking of Science… the art of science communication
Lastly, I gave a talk for the University of Oregon Women in Science group about my rather unusual career, careening from physics research to science journalism, museum work, education research, and now consulting services.
Here is a previous blog post that I wrote about my career.
We discussed a bit the way that working for grades, rather than for intrinsic rewards, can be a real hindrance in a career. An “A” can be a validation of self-worth, whereas a “C” is taken as a sign of personal failure. This was contrasted to an approach where a “C” just means that you need to work harder next time. There’s quite a bit of research showing that the second approach is much more productive. This is based on research by Dweck, and is called “fixed vs. growth mindset”. A really useful Scientific American article about this research, and how you can avoid this in your kids, is here: Dweck_SciAm11-07_The_Secret_to_Raising_Smart_Kids.pdf
The slide show is here:
{ 0 comments }