Unit 8 S1

Example in Setting: All the children have targets for when they are writing, it might be to use capital letters and finger spaces, when they achieve their target the get to colour in a picture and once

When given the choice of seven activities all three of the children, aged two years old, went straight for the sandpit to draw letters in the sand with thick and long sticks. The children doing the activity love to draw by making shapes and different movements with a variety of implements, for example paint, colouring pencils or chalk, which is similar to writing in the sand in many different ways. This means spelling out the letters in the sand can be used as a way of stimulating interest in writing.

When dealing with children in a nursery, teachers need to keep accurate pace of time with the amount of activities done in the day. Children loose interest very quickly and are easily influenced by other peers, so its very easy for one child to break the circle of concentration. Making short, captivating activities that are both educational and fun are the most effective ways of keeping children busy. These need to be controlled by time, because if they are being taught for too long, they will loose interest. This is a negative factor.

Anything that does not work as well would be changed or developed to improve the lesson/activity ensuring that the Childs needs are always catered for.

Advanced preparation by the adults would be paramount if Max was to stay safe but yet fully enjoy the experience. A Risk Assessment form would have to be completed before hand and all adults would need to be fully briefed on the health and safety issues involved with a visually impaired pupil. Notifying the staff at the venue that you have a visually impaired pupil will also enable them to make any necessary changes. Max’s 1:1 TA and Max could spend time before the trip thinking about what Max wants to learn and questions that he may want to ask. He may want to record his trip on an electronic device talking about his feelings and experiences, therefore helping to build a picture and a memory about the trip.

unknowing that they would undoubtedly be the teacher in the experiment. They were assigned to

Ullsperger, Bylsma, and Botvinick (2005) investigated whether the findings of Mayr, Awh, and Laurey (2003) can be replicated and how much they can be shown across different task performances. Their specific study was motivated by a prior experiment where Gratton, Coles, and Donchin (1992) found that after an incompatible type trial reaction times were reduced and target processing occurred more frequently than flanker processing on the next trial. Botvinick, Braver, Barch, Carter, and Cohen (2001) believed that this follows the conflict monitoring hypothesis where incompatible trials involve a conflict with the response leading to greater top-down information processing (Botvinick, Nystrom, Fissell, Carter, & Cohen, 1999). However, Mayr et. al (2003) argued that the congruency sequence effect found by Gratton et al. (1992) was due to repetition priming because of stimulus repeats in a flanker task. This may have led to a faster reaction time with repeated trials. Mayr et al. (2003) used two experiments to present evidence for their argument. Both experiments failed to show the effect found by Gratton et al. (1992) when target and stimulus items did not repeat from trial to trial.

The milgram experiment. The three people involved were: the one running the experiment, the subject of the experiment a volunteer, and a person pretending to be a volunteer. These three persons fill three distinct roles: the Experimenter an authoritative role, the Teacher a role intended to obey the orders of the Experimenter, and the Learner the recipient of stimulus from the Teacher. The subject and the actor both drew slips of paper to determine their roles, but unknown to the subject, both slips said "teacher". The actor would always claim to have drawn the slip that read "learner", thus guaranteeing that the subject would always be the "teacher". At this point, the "teacher" and "learner" were separated into different rooms where

This was achieved by presenting central cues, indicating the position of the target letter thus increasing focus. Through these experiments they found that when a subject is in a diffuse attention state (unfocussed) SOD do cause attentional capture and increase reaction time. However, if the subject was presented with a cue this same increase in reaction time was not observed. This led them to conclude that attentional capture from SOD is not automatic and instead propose a priority based visual attention system. In 2006 Neo and Chua conducted research which built upon Yantis and Jonides’ to further demonstrate effects of attentional capture on reaction time. They investigated whether sporadic use of the SOD increased the effect of attentional capture as well as investigated whether maintaining the same position for the target letter decreased reaction times. They found that SOD attentional capture did affect reaction times and unlike in Yantis and Jonides’ experiment they concluded SOD did trigger an automaticity response when used

The participants that were going to test the subjects, rode an escalator up and down and stood behind someone and waited until the person noticed they were there then the subject waited until off the escalator and noted what happened. This happened with all 20 people.

The experiment was initiated when a newspaper advertisement was dispersed from Yale University, calling for male and female participants needed in a learning study. Only 40 males were chosen, varying from 20 to 50 years of age. The participants were then teamed with another “participant,” an accomplice of the experiment who was chosen by Milgram. The participants were lead to believe they were drawing for the role of “teacher” and “student.” For the experiment to remain controlled, the accomplice would always draw the role of student, and the participant the teacher. This protocol ensured the participants were the subjects being

c) Figure 5 illustrates the main results of Experiment 2, displaying the probability of fixation over time in milliseconds for the target, cohort competitor, and the average of the distractors. The trends in the

Posner and Cohen (1984) found that an inhibition showed when a participant responded to the previous cued location in a relatively long cue-target time interval whereas facilitation showed when a participant responded to the previous cued location in a short cue-target interval. The reason for the absence of inhibitory effect is that a larger facilitation masked the inhibitory effect at the short cue-target stimulus. Posner and Cohen (1984) discovered an IOR using a simple cuing paradigm, which is to measure IOR through central and peripheral cued boxes that aid to generate IOR either in endogenous or exogenous signals. In the classical experiment, participants were asked to fixate at the central box and then responded to one of the two peripheral brightening boxes, which was a cue to summon participants’ attention. Higher probability of target was then presented as a dot with probability of 0.6 in the central box to withhold the participant’s attention. Participants were then asked to make a manual respond to target box quickly. The result showed an early facilitation and late inhibition of the cued side and a reduction of RT was observed in the uncued side. In the cue side, a reduction of RT was similar to the uncued side before 250 msec. However, an increase of RT occurred after approximately 250 msec. Posner and Cohen (1984) suggest that

The authors conducted an experiment to test a social facilitation theory based on a single attribution on a certain level of task. The present study tested effect of distraction based on using two-line comparison of performance. We built two groups which were (a) control groups who do memory test alone and (b) experimental groups who do test with a confederate. We give another replaced purpose when we requested consent from participants for confirming the validity for experiment. The study found no significant effect on memory task under distraction. Furthermore, the presence of others does not appear necessary on simple task. The following discussion will give the explanation of unexpected results.hirty University of British Columbia undergraduates volunteered to participate in exchange for completing their research project in various psychology classes. Sixteen participants served in experimental

The purpose of Milgram’s experiment was to see how far people would go to obey authority. His scientific methods followed the scientific procedure and produced external validity. There were 20 variations of Stanley Milgram’s experiment some factors remained consistent throughout all variations, while some remained the same, while some changed. The four experimental conditions grew in intensity. In the first condition, also known as remote feedback, the learner was isolated from the subject and could not be seen or heard except at three hundred volts when he pounded on the wall. At three hundred and fifteen volts he was no longer heard from until the end of the experiment. The naive subject was required to keep administering shocks with an unresponsive human at the other end. Put yourself in the teacher’s shoes. In the second condition (voice feedback) the learner was placed in an adjacent room, when he started to shout and protest at lower shock levels he could be heard through the crack in the door. In the third