Underlearning and Overlearning

Instructors often struggle to find the right balance of sternness and leniency with their students, especially in the beginning stages of their careers. An instructor who is too casual risks being overrun by students who do not take him or her seriously. The professor who is too strict might inadvertently thwart students’ creativity and stifle their potential success. The following commentary reflects my own journey to a balanced rapport with students in a university classroom setting. Over several years, my interactions with students have gone from overly formal to embarrassingly casual before finally settling somewhere in between. My experiences serve to help both novice as well as experienced educators hone their rapport with students to create an enriching classroom environment. Various studies have shown gains in student learning due to quality instructor/student relationships and the present commentary aims to aid instructors in finding a balanced and meaningful rapport with their students. In my endeavors, I have found a balance by showing students I can be an effective teacher while also showing them that I am human with a life outside of the classroom, just as they are.     

Privacy: an institutional fact

Let us show how property is grasped as an institutional fact. If Jones steals a computer, he does not own it in the sense of property, but only exercises control towards it. If he buys the computer, he controls it too, and moreover owns it in the sense of property. In other words, simply exercising control towards something is a brute fact. This control counts as property only in a certain context: the computer counts as Jones’s property only if he got it through a licit transfer. This is why property is not a brute fact, and is therefore an institutional fact. The same kind of reasoning applies to privacy. When a personal information P about Jones is openly diffused, it seems that P becomes public. From this point of view, a violation of privacy equates to a publication. The problem about this account is the following: who would call “publication of a book” the hacking of it on its author’s computer? No one, because the word “publication” is an institutional word that only refers to a licit diffusion. Considering this answer, we may conclude as follows: if the diffusion of P is illicit, P still counts as private, even if everyone knows about it. If that conclusion is true, privacy is an institutional fact.     

Charting a Future for fMRI in Communication Science

Neuroscientific investigations into communication phenomena using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) are becoming increasingly popular in communication science. This presents opportunities for new discoveries, but also for the rapid spread of questionable practices. Here, we look to the future of fMRI in communication science: first, highlighting and advocating for several relatively new methods that should enable communication scholars to address novel research questions; and second, pointing out various controversies or pitfalls that exist in the use of several of the more widely used fMRI analysis methods within the field. Given the rapidly changing nature of the fMRI analysis landscape, such reflection is an essential part of being a good scholar in this domain. Our aim is to ensure that the future of fMRI in communication science is healthy, robust, and rich in variety, by encouraging all researchers in the field to think critically about the methods they use, whether that means adopting new analysis methods that can answer previously unanswerable questions, or adjusting their use of methods they already use to align with the latest recommended practices.     

Factors mathematicians profess to consider when presenting pedagogical proofs

This paper concerns proof presentation at the university level. We report on a study in which we observed ten mathematicians constructing or revising proofs for pedagogical purposes. We highlight the factors that they claimed to consider when completing these tasks. We found that intended audience and medium (lecture or textbook) influenced proof presentation. We also found that, although mathematicians generally valued pedagogical proofs featuring diagrams and emphasizing main ideas, these mathematicians did not always incorporate these aspects in the proofs they constructed or revised.     

Why and how mathematicians read proofs: further evidence from a survey study

In a recent paper (Weber & Mejia-Ramos, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76, 329–344, 2011), we reported findings from two small-scale interview studies on the reasons why and the ways in which mathematicians read proofs. Based on these findings, we designed an Internet-based survey that we distributed to practicing mathematicians working in top mathematics departments in the USA. Surveyed mathematicians (N?=?118) agreed to a great extent with the interviewed mathematicians in the exploratory studies. First, the mathematicians reported that they commonly read published proofs to gain different types of insight, not to check the correctness of the proofs. Second, they stated that when reading these proofs, they commonly: (a) appeal to the reputation of the author and the journal, (b) study how certain steps in the proof apply to specific examples, and (c) focus on the overarching ideas and methods in the proofs. In this paper, we also report findings from another section of the survey that focused on how participants reviewed proofs submitted for publication. The comparison of participant responses to questions in these two sections of the survey suggests that reading a published proof of a colleague and refereeing a proof for publication are substantially different activities for mathematicians.     

Schleicher Klaus,und Möller,Christian (Hrsg.). 1997. Umweltbildung im Lebenslauf. Altersspezifisches und generationsübergreifendes Lernen. Münster/New York/München/Berlin: Waxmann.

International Review of Education -