Read: Have we got it wrong on how the universe evolved? Images suggest so. Also today: Science Poetry Friday! Artificial Bites At Night In Sync Brainwaves Predict Learning Sex Of Blood Donor Has No Effect On Recipient Survival Nurses Trained in Virtual Reality Performed Better Than Those Trained By Inpatient Clinical Training
Sync Brainwaves' research is a very good example of outtaSync research. All research that begins in the wrong place ends up with the wrong answers. Learning does not primarily happen in social interaction; it happens in the brain. Yes, the brain supports learning, as they say, but learning, which Sync Brainwaves does acknowledge, is entirely under the control of the learner, not in spite of the learner, and not because the learner is engaged in social interactions, and in 'in sync' with the teacher. When you start with the idea that everyone is exactly the same, and that includes learners, then you presuppose that they all learn in exactly the same way. But that presupposition makes everyone 'robots', which they are not. And why - if you check the results of learning in a classroom setting, whether it be homogeneous or not - the results are always mixed. I would predict that even if 'more' learning happened when a learner was 'allegedly' in sync with their teacher that that group of 'synced' learners will not show outcomes on tests. Synced or not, the scores on any tests will show that synced doesn't produce equal outcomes for all learners. Which I think is what Sync Brainwaves was trying to argue but what the researchers didn't do was question their own assumptions about how learning happens. Sync Brainwaves was right when it said learning is a process, which means it has a beginning (when learning begins) and an end (when whatever is expected to be learned is learned to the satisfaction of the teacher/educator, which is usually a score on a test). Learning for tests has its own problems. That fact that even in homogeneous classrooms (where every student is from the same socio-economic background - you could add a few more factors to that) rather than mixed groups (even though the research results are the same) shows that learners have their own ways of learning, devised by the student since they were born and started learning about things, building learning pathways in the brain (and why everyone's pathways are different). Use whatever examples you want. While schools try to funnel learners into similar ways of learning, or the one way, which has the undesirable side-effect of producing 'sameness' of thinking (where thinking is a process), Sync Brainwave didn't find what it was looking for at the individual level - each individual's way of learning would be different from their peers - so they only accepted what they perceived as 'syncing' to be a good predictor of learning. What about the poor sods who aren't 'in sync', do teachers force them to get in sync? I suppose another word to use to describe being 'in sync' with the teacher is 'agreeableness'. How agreeable are students with what the teaching is saying and extrapolating from there that learning outcomes will improve. [Add as many variables as you want!] This would be an undesirable outcome if what the teacher was telling the students was wrong. And, at what stage will students begin to 'question' or critique what they are being taught/asked to accept by the teachers/peers/authority figures, etc., so they can distinguish between fact and fiction? Just a thought. But I think Sync Brainwave has problems with its research methodology, should revise its assumptions and research aim, and be very cautious when applying its findings to learners and the learner-teacher relationship in classroom settings.
Hi you are commenting on astronomy images implications would you be willing to solve something photography and universe related that is more for the layperson?
Sync Brainwaves' research is a very good example of outtaSync research. All research that begins in the wrong place ends up with the wrong answers. Learning does not primarily happen in social interaction; it happens in the brain. Yes, the brain supports learning, as they say, but learning, which Sync Brainwaves does acknowledge, is entirely under the control of the learner, not in spite of the learner, and not because the learner is engaged in social interactions, and in 'in sync' with the teacher. When you start with the idea that everyone is exactly the same, and that includes learners, then you presuppose that they all learn in exactly the same way. But that presupposition makes everyone 'robots', which they are not. And why - if you check the results of learning in a classroom setting, whether it be homogeneous or not - the results are always mixed. I would predict that even if 'more' learning happened when a learner was 'allegedly' in sync with their teacher that that group of 'synced' learners will not show outcomes on tests. Synced or not, the scores on any tests will show that synced doesn't produce equal outcomes for all learners. Which I think is what Sync Brainwaves was trying to argue but what the researchers didn't do was question their own assumptions about how learning happens. Sync Brainwaves was right when it said learning is a process, which means it has a beginning (when learning begins) and an end (when whatever is expected to be learned is learned to the satisfaction of the teacher/educator, which is usually a score on a test). Learning for tests has its own problems. That fact that even in homogeneous classrooms (where every student is from the same socio-economic background - you could add a few more factors to that) rather than mixed groups (even though the research results are the same) shows that learners have their own ways of learning, devised by the student since they were born and started learning about things, building learning pathways in the brain (and why everyone's pathways are different). Use whatever examples you want. While schools try to funnel learners into similar ways of learning, or the one way, which has the undesirable side-effect of producing 'sameness' of thinking (where thinking is a process), Sync Brainwave didn't find what it was looking for at the individual level - each individual's way of learning would be different from their peers - so they only accepted what they perceived as 'syncing' to be a good predictor of learning. What about the poor sods who aren't 'in sync', do teachers force them to get in sync? I suppose another word to use to describe being 'in sync' with the teacher is 'agreeableness'. How agreeable are students with what the teaching is saying and extrapolating from there that learning outcomes will improve. [Add as many variables as you want!] This would be an undesirable outcome if what the teacher was telling the students was wrong. And, at what stage will students begin to 'question' or critique what they are being taught/asked to accept by the teachers/peers/authority figures, etc., so they can distinguish between fact and fiction? Just a thought. But I think Sync Brainwave has problems with its research methodology, should revise its assumptions and research aim, and be very cautious when applying its findings to learners and the learner-teacher relationship in classroom settings.
Hi you are commenting on astronomy images implications would you be willing to solve something photography and universe related that is more for the layperson?
It’s here:
https://open.substack.com/pub/wiseadvice/p/my-blue-moon-enigma-not-a-ufo?r=2ptfdh&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web