Differential acquisition rates for different types of information from pictures

In three picture-recognition experiments, we investigated the characteristics of “specific feature” and “holistic” information hypothesized to be extracted from pictures. In each experiment, exposure time was varied at study. The recognition test was two-alternative forced-choice in which the target/distractor relationship was manipulated in such a way that responding on the basis of one type of information or the other was required. The results indicated that following one fixation on a picture at the time of initial study, performance based on holistic information was superior to performance based on specific feature information, whereas the reverse was true following sufficient study time for multiple fixations. These results support a view of pictorial information acquisition which postulates that most holistic information extracted from a picture is extracted during the first eye fixation on the picture, whereas subsequent fixations have the primary purpose of seeking out specific, informative features.     

Models of consultation: Preferences of educational professionals at five stages of service

Three professional education groups (elementary school principals, special education teachers, and second-grade teachers from two school systems) were asked to rate their preference for four models of consultation as offered by school psychologists at each of five stages of the consultation process. Results indicate that there were no differences among the three professional education groups in their ratings of the models. However, there was a significant difference in the ratings given to each model, with the collaboration model receiving the highest rating. A model by stage interaction also was noted, a finding which suggests that consultation preference should not be considered a unidimensional concept. The implications of these results for the training and practice of school psychologists in the consultation role are discussed.     

An Appreciation of Hal Childs' Critique of Historical Jesus Research

Biblical scholars have been exceedingly slow to grasp the implications of the Heisenberg principle, namely, that the observer is always a part of the field being observed, and disturbs that field by the very act of observation. In terms of the interpretive task, this means that there can be no question of an objective view of Jesus as he really was. Objective view; is itself an oxymoron; every view is subjective, from a particular angle of vision. We always encounter the biblical text with interests. We always have a stake in our reading of it. We always have angles of vision that can be helpful or harmful in interpreting texts. Historical writing does not treat reality; it treats the interpreter's relation to it, according to Brian Stock. All history, said the poet Wallace Stevens, is modern history. And historical criticism is a form of criticism of the present, according to Walter Kasper. All that is true, but only partially. For historical criticism can still help us recover an understanding of that past that holds out to us present meaning.