title: Deictic Framing Performance Fails to Generalize to Other Perspective-Taking Tasks

authors: Taylor, Tokiko

abstract: The behavioral processes underlying perspective taking have not been studied extensively. One approach to understanding and enhancing perspective taking, deictic framing, has been proposed. Proponents of this approach have suggested that deictic framing is a core property of perspective taking. A training protocol based on deictic framing has been developed and tested, but researchers generally evaluate the effectiveness of the protocol using tasks that have a similar format to the training protocol. Little research has examined the protocol’s effectiveness for improving performance in different perspective-taking tasks. We investigated generalization of the performance of three groups of university students trained with a deictic-framing protocol (or not) and tested with two other perspective-taking tasks: a visuospatial perspective taking using a cupboard containing a range of objects and a version of the implicit relational assessment procedure specifically designed to measure perspective taking. The first group was trained with the original verbal protocol with deictic expressions; the second group with the same protocol involving nondeictic words; and the third group was merely exposed to deictic expressions as a control condition. The results suggested that deictic framing is not fundamental to perspective taking, as the performance of the two experimental groups was not significantly different from the control group’s performance. Identification of specific stimulus functions involved in successful perspective taking and how those functions can be established should be addressed in future research.

text: Deictic Framing Performance Fails to Generalize to Other Perspective-Taking Tasks The behavioral processes underlying perspective taking have not been studied extensively. One approach to understanding and enhancing perspective taking, deictic framing, has been proposed. Proponents of this approach have suggested that deictic framing is a core property of perspective taking. A training protocol based on deictic framing has been developed and tested, but researchers generally evaluate the effectiveness of the protocol using tasks that have a similar format to the training protocol. Little research has examined the protocol’s effectiveness for improving performance in different perspective-taking tasks. We investigated generalization of the performance of three groups of university students trained with a deictic-framing protocol (or not) and tested with two other perspective-taking tasks: a visuospatial perspective taking using a cupboard containing a range of objects and a version of the implicit relational assessment procedure specifically designed to measure perspective taking. The first group was trained with the original verbal protocol with deictic expressions; the second group with the same protocol involving nondeictic words; and the third group was merely exposed to deictic expressions as a control condition. The results suggested that deictic framing is not fundamental to perspective taking, as the performance of the two experimental groups was not significantly different from the control group’s performance. Identification of specific stimulus functions involved in successful perspective taking and how those functions can be established should be addressed in future research.

year: 2023-06-12

title: The challenges of teacher education-exploiting synergies to meet multiple demands

authors: Cooper, Beverley

abstract: Internationally questions about the nature of effective teacher education have come to the fore as a consequence of the demands to produce equitable outcomes from a more diverse range of learners working with ever more challenging curriculum. This expansion has arisen in part from a realisation that mastery of formal conceptual or propositional knowledge alone is no longer a sufficient basis for active participation in today’s knowledge society. In conjunction with these expectations and understandings, policy makers have introduced a range of mechanisms to hold teachers, schools, and teacher educators to account for student learning and achievement. These mechanisms include the specification of standards for either or both of student learning and teacher performance, along with a requirement to provide evidence of impact. University-based teacher educators are in unique positions of being accountable to students, teachers and teacher accreditation agencies or teacher learning and development that impacts positively for students in the classroom, and being accountable to their university in terms of research productivity. They also need to ensure student teacher graduates develop the attributes specified in their university graduate profile.
In this paper, we use New Zealand as a case study to explore some of the convergences that teacher educators might usefully consider across school curriculum goals, university graduate attributes, and teacher performance standards for preservice and practicing teachers, where these have the potential to shape and inform their practice and learning. We begin by elaborating on the landscape of change and then provide two examples of convergence from our own work and that of our colleagues. We describe how projects we have conducted assist in meeting multiple goals. Firstly we illustrate how the need to develop numerate citizens can be imbedded in a teacher education program and secondly illustrate how the need to develop the capacity for learning lifelong can be developed through researched program innovations based on a combination of a design research approach and a design-based intervention research approach. Drawing on our analysis, we scope some of the possibilities for exploiting synergies these shifts can have for initial teacher education and teacher educators.

text: The challenges of teacher education-exploiting synergies to meet multiple demands Internationally questions about the nature of effective teacher education have come to the fore as a consequence of the demands to produce equitable outcomes from a more diverse range of learners working with ever more challenging curriculum. This expansion has arisen in part from a realisation that mastery of formal conceptual or propositional knowledge alone is no longer a sufficient basis for active participation in today’s knowledge society. In conjunction with these expectations and understandings, policy makers have introduced a range of mechanisms to hold teachers, schools, and teacher educators to account for student learning and achievement. These mechanisms include the specification of standards for either or both of student learning and teacher performance, along with a requirement to provide evidence of impact. University-based teacher educators are in unique positions of being accountable to students, teachers and teacher accreditation agencies or teacher learning and development that impacts positively for students in the classroom, and being accountable to their university in terms of research productivity. They also need to ensure student teacher graduates develop the attributes specified in their university graduate profile.
In this paper, we use New Zealand as a case study to explore some of the convergences that teacher educators might usefully consider across school curriculum goals, university graduate attributes, and teacher performance standards for preservice and practicing teachers, where these have the potential to shape and inform their practice and learning. We begin by elaborating on the landscape of change and then provide two examples of convergence from our own work and that of our colleagues. We describe how projects we have conducted assist in meeting multiple goals. Firstly we illustrate how the need to develop numerate citizens can be imbedded in a teacher education program and secondly illustrate how the need to develop the capacity for learning lifelong can be developed through researched program innovations based on a combination of a design research approach and a design-based intervention research approach. Drawing on our analysis, we scope some of the possibilities for exploiting synergies these shifts can have for initial teacher education and teacher educators.

year: 2019

title: Te kaumoana Poronīhia: Ngā terenga onamata

authors: Tuaupiki, Jackie Whetumarama

subjects: Kōrero nehe

abstract: Tā tēnei tuhinga e whai ake nei, he wānanga i ngā pūtake o te whanaketanga mai o ngā iwi, nāna ngā motu o Poronīhia i whakakāinga, ka utaina te karangatanga ki runga ki a rātou, he iwi Poronīhia. Ko te pātai matua, i ahu mai ngā iwi Poronīhia i whea? Tēnei, ka hahaina ngā whakaaro Māori me ngā whakaaro Tauiwi e pā ana ki te pūtakenga mai o te iwi tāngata ki te ao. I konei, ka kitea te rerekē o te titiro ā-ao a ēnei iwi tāngata.

Ka ū te titiro ki Hawaiki, e tau ana ngā kōrero tuku iho a te ao Māori, ki te ao Poronīhia hoki. E mea ana te Māori, he tūrangawaewae taurikura a Hawaiki, he pā whakawairua hoki. Ka riariakina e au ngā whakapae mō tēnei karangatanga kāinga i mau roa ai i ōna iwi kōrero.

Ka huri rā ki te āta whakatewhatewha i ngā rangahau mō te horanga haeretanga o te iwi tāngata mai i whirika, ki  hia ki te tonga mā rāwhiti, ā, tau atu rā ki roto i ngā whaitua moana o Poronīhia. I konei, kua āta wānangahia e au ngā whakapae huhua mō ngā take i horapa haere ai ēnei iwi ki roto o Poronīhia, ka tahi. Ka rua, ka tirohia ngā tohe e pā ana ki tō rātou āheinga ki te whakatere i ō rātou waka. Ko ēnei kōrero, he whakatuwhera i te pūtea mātauranga mō runga i ngā mahi whakatere waka a ngā tūpuna Poronīhia.

text: Te kaumoana Poronīhia: Ngā terenga onamata Tā tēnei tuhinga e whai ake nei, he wānanga i ngā pūtake o te whanaketanga mai o ngā iwi, nāna ngā motu o Poronīhia i whakakāinga, ka utaina te karangatanga ki runga ki a rātou, he iwi Poronīhia. Ko te pātai matua, i ahu mai ngā iwi Poronīhia i whea? Tēnei, ka hahaina ngā whakaaro Māori me ngā whakaaro Tauiwi e pā ana ki te pūtakenga mai o te iwi tāngata ki te ao. I konei, ka kitea te rerekē o te titiro ā-ao a ēnei iwi tāngata.

Ka ū te titiro ki Hawaiki, e tau ana ngā kōrero tuku iho a te ao Māori, ki te ao Poronīhia hoki. E mea ana te Māori, he tūrangawaewae taurikura a Hawaiki, he pā whakawairua hoki. Ka riariakina e au ngā whakapae mō tēnei karangatanga kāinga i mau roa ai i ōna iwi kōrero.

Ka huri rā ki te āta whakatewhatewha i ngā rangahau mō te horanga haeretanga o te iwi tāngata mai i whirika, ki  hia ki te tonga mā rāwhiti, ā, tau atu rā ki roto i ngā whaitua moana o Poronīhia. I konei, kua āta wānangahia e au ngā whakapae huhua mō ngā take i horapa haere ai ēnei iwi ki roto o Poronīhia, ka tahi. Ka rua, ka tirohia ngā tohe e pā ana ki tō rātou āheinga ki te whakatere i ō rātou waka. Ko ēnei kōrero, he whakatuwhera i te pūtea mātauranga mō runga i ngā mahi whakatere waka a ngā tūpuna Poronīhia.

year: 2017