Questioning and Creating: A Model for Curriculum Reform

ABSTRACT Creativity research has unsettled education by newly defining neglected abilities, and by proposing new methods like training in questioning abilities, but conventional methods do not encourage students to learn or think by asking good questions. We need to cultivate the full spectrum of talents by bridging the research—classroom practice gap. A proposed three-dimensional model for analyzing curricula, courses, and classes would show us where we are not doing a good job in teaching students to think while we are simultaneously teaching them subject-matter content. Content is best learned as a by-product of thinking or learning processes. The proposed model capitalizes on transfer effects of both processes and content, and may be of value in working, not only with those highest in a talent, but also with the educationally deprived. Every student should learn to use each of his abilities at some point in the educational process, but different teachers may specialize in various contents, processes, or methods.     

Wind as an aversive stimulus

Two monkeys were trained on an escape-avoidance procedure in which a lever press delayed exposure to wind by 20 sec. For 5 hr, subjects alternately worked 15 min and rested 15 min, and performed this schedule when the wind was 5, 10, and 20 mph and the temperatures were 50, 60, and 70° F. Analysis of variance showed that the percent of wind avoided was related to both the velocity of the wind and the temperature during the exposure. When the wind was 10 and 20 mph it was avoided almost continuously regardless of the temperature.     

Development of behavioral compensation to the effects of scopolamine during fixed-interval reinforcement

Rats were injected with scopolamine before every daily session of water reinforcement on a fixed-interval (FI) schedule. Initially the drug decreased the rate of responding. Control injections of scopolamine following each session did not. Over 119 sessions, the typical FI performance developed more slowly in the animals drugged before the sessions. Their rates of responding increased from session to session, to a level slightly greater than that of the animals drugged after the sessions. Their rates did not increase. The effects of injections before the session were not duplicated by increasing the deprivation of animals drugged after the session.