Touch

I read an interesting article in the New York Times yesterday about the power of touch. I would have thought that this topic would have been well researched, but apparently not. One of the experiments cited noted that children who were touched by their teacher were more likely to volunteer an answer in class than students who were not touched. What power we have!

How do we decide who to touch, when to touch, and how to touch? In my interactions with students I rarely touch, but I do sometimes feel an almost irresistible urge to reach out and touch a student. Usually it is an attempt to comfort or reassure them. In times of distress it seems we need physical connection more. Of course, as a teacher you must think about the boundaries between you and the students. Touches can be misinterpreted or unwanted. Is it better to err on the side of not touching? Probably.

I am certainly not what would be considered a big toucher. I don't greet friends, or family, with hugs. I'm not the cheek kissing type, either. I might on occasion hug a student, one with whom I have worked closely, perhaps at graduation or the completion of a major goal. So, if you are in my classes, don't worry, I won't be stalking you for a hug. But, if you feel you need one, just ask.

Numbers

I was listening to an old broadcast of Radio Lab last night on my walk. It was a crisp, starry winter night. Perfect for walking. The broadcast was about "numbers" and started with an interesting discussion of how our number sense develops. I may be a little fuzzy on the details, but three basic experiments were described.

First, there was a study with 2-3 month old babies. They hook them up to some brain electrodes and plop them in front of a computer screen. The kids see a screen with some object, say 8 ducks. The screen flashes again, same image. The researchers note that at first there is a lot of brain activity, "cool, ducks on a screen" but, gradually the activity slows as the image repeats. Then a screen with 8 trucks appears, prompting a brain wave response in the temporal lobe..."cool, something new to look at!" The babies recognize that something has changed. If they repeat the experiment, but this time switch not the object, but the number, for instance go from 8 ducks to 16 ducks, the babies show an increase of brain activity, but this time in a different place (parietal lobe, perhaps?). Babies recognize a different kind of difference now.

Second experiment. Find a 2 year old. Give her a bunch of pennies. Sit down and say, "can you give me 1 penny?" The kid will pick up one penny and hand it over. Ask, "can you give me 2 pennies?" and the kid will just pick up a bunch of pennies and hand them over. They know that 2 is more than 1, but have no clue how much more. The idea of 2 doesn't develop until about 1/2 way through the year. Then the idea of 3 takes a little longer, then 4. I think they said it wasn't until 3.5 years old that kids can count out objects. They can count before then, that is, recite the numbers in order, but they have no meaning. Making that connection is a big leap.

In that discussion the idea was introduced that our "natural" way of thinking about numbers was closer to a logarithmic understanding than a scalar (?) way of thinking. Leading to the 3rd experiment. In this case an aboriginal group was found that had very little concept of numbers. They might count up to 4 or 5, but after that numbers had no real meaning. If given a number line with 1 on one end and 9 on the other, and asked to say what number comes in the middle, they are apt to choose not 5 (the Western answer) but 3! Since 3 is 3x 1 and 9 is 3x 3 then, 3 is in the middle...they are thinking in logarithms!

Attention

There was an interesting article in the Chronicle of Higher Education last week http://chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Turn-Their-Attention/63746/

The focus was on attention spans, multitasking, and teaching. There were many interesting ideas, but two really caught MY attention. The first was the discussion of the studies showing that for the most part we can remember 7 units of information. I had heard and read this before, although I had never seen the source of that fact. It got me to thinking about teaching and how to present information in a way that will be remembered. We can remember 7 digit phone numbers, but we can remembe longer strings of information if we "chunk" the information--break the information into pieces that we recall as a whole. If we remember 7 chunks of 7 digits we can remember a string of 49 digits!! I wonder if I should organize my lectures and notes into chunks better, into pieces of information that will be more easily remembered.

The other point was about student multitasking. Should an instructor ban phones, laptops, newspapers, etc? Or tolerate them? Some of my colleagues have very strict rules about reading newspapers, etc, in class. I tend not to care, as long as the person isn't making noise or distracting those around her. If students don't need the information I'm presenting, that is a decision they make, not me.