High Thinking Processes (HTP): Elements of Curricula and Teaching Able-Learners

Acquiring High Thinking Processes (HTP) seems to be the solution for greater challenge in the present and for preparing able learners to the technological dynamic future. In dealing with this, the article is divided into two main chapters: a) HTP as a goal (what to teach) b) the different elements needed to accomplish this (how to do it), a) The components of HTP as a goal are: control and enhancement of long term memory and working memory; automatization and regulation of processing speed; flexibility; openness to information; developing strategies of listening, speaking, reading and writing; inference and reasoning processes; decision making using metacognition; positive transfer; description and justification of mental processes; mental image; independent learner and using HTP for values like tolerance, b) There are four main elements to develop such a goal: 1) well organized and justified curricula with appropriate tasks, 2) metacognitive teaching that emphasizes processes, integration, feedback, differential instruction and efficiency, 3) challenging environment, learning communities and advanced technology, 4) training teachers for HTP expertise.

Substance over Style: Assessing the Efficacy of Modality Testing and Teaching

The techniques of meta-analysis were used to arrive at a quantitative synthesis of findings from 39 studies searching for aptitude-treatment interactions. The primary findings indicated that neither modality assessment nor modality instruction were efficacious. When subjects were assessed to ascertain modality preferences, considerable overlap was found between groups exhibiting a modality preference and those not exhibiting such a preference. Modality preference groups were not as clearly differentiated as assumed. With respect to instruction, no benefits accrued to subjects taught by methods matched to their modality preferences. When compared to control subjects receiving no special instruction, the subjects in the modality preference groups receiving differential instruction exhibited only modest gains. In sum, no empirical support was rendered for the modality model. It was concluded that, although intuitively appealing, the modality model should be dismissed and efforts be directed at enhancing general instructional methodology.

Modality Preference as a Model for Differentiating Beginning Reading Instruction: A Review of the Issues

This paper reviews accumulated research pertinent to the issue of modality preference as a method for differentiating beginning reading instruction. Research is considered here in the following categories: Studies providing differential instruction based on modality preference; related studies comparing auditory and visual modes as mediational channels; and studies dealing with the extent to which auditory and visual capacities are related to success in beginning reading. The following conclusions are presented: 1) Regardless of the measure used to classify learners, only a relatively small percentage of children showed a marked preference for either modality; 2) most current measurement instruments did not demonstrate the necessary reliability to be used in decisions concerning differential assignment of children to instructional programs; and 3) differentiating instruction according to modality preference apparently did not facilitate learning to read.

A Correlational Study of Variables Related to Imagery

This is an exploratory correlational study of a number of variables relating to imagery. The EEG of each of 32 Ss was monitored during post-observation imaging to words varying in imagery (Paivio, Yuille, & Madigan, 1968). Ss then recalled the words and completed several questionnaires. The following significant correlations were obtained; (i) Paivio's I-rating of words and experienced imaging ( p < 0.01); (i) Experienced imaging during the task and alpha abundance (EEG) ( p < 0.05); (iii) Betts Test of Vividness of Imagery (QMI) and Gordon Test of Visual Imagery Control ( p < 0.01); (iv) Betts QMI and incidental recall of words ( p < 0.05); (v) Gordon test score and incidental recall ( p < 0.05); (vi) Betts QMI and extroversion ( p < 0.01), and (vii) extroversion and alpha abundance ( p < 0.01). Two correlations of interest which failed to reach significance were: (i) Paivio's I-rating of words and alpha suppression, and (ii) Paivio's I-rating of words and incidental recall. Both findings may be attributed to the effects of differential instruction to image.