Paying Attention: Why Students are Poor

Some people who attend public lectures upon natural philosophy, with the expectation of being much amused and instructed, go home with sensations similar to those of the poor Eskimaux; they feel that they have had too much of every thing. The lecturer has not time to explain his terms, or to repeat them till they are distinct in the memory of his audience.[16] To children, every mode of instruction must be hurtful which fatigues attention; therefore, a skilful preceptor will, as much as possible, avoid the manner of teaching, to which the public lecturer is in some degree compelled by his situation. ~Practical Attention: Chapter 3 by Maria Edgeworth (Pg 73) [Pg3 of the word document]

Another view that has become increasingly popular in recent years is called the selection-for-action view.... attentional limitations should not be attributed to a limited capacity or mechanism. Instead, the limitations are byproducts of the need to coordinate action and ensure that the correct stimulus information is controlling the intended responses. ~Attention: Theory and Practice by Addie Johnson & Robert Proctor (pg 22)

____________________________________________________________________________________

       

          Proctor and Johnson recount a history of the study of attention and its importance. They break up the study of Attention into five periods, beginning with the philosophical pre-psychology period and ending with the modern age of fMRI's and PET scans that are able to reproduce full three dimensional renderings of the brain. They discuss how the views of attention went from thoughts of animal spirits and humors swimming through the rippling hills of the brain to internal capacities and abilities of developing minds. The main question becomes, "How should attention be interpreted?"

Yet some things never change...

          The viewpoint that Proctor and Johnson is an interesting one. They say that, "attentional limitations should not be attributed to a limited capacity or mechanism." This means that instead of attention loss being blamed on natural, biological limits. Instead they say, "the limitations are byproducts of the need to coordinate action and ensure that the correct stimulus information is controlling the intended responses." In layman terms, loss of attention is caused by the coordination of thoughts or objects being received and their related appropriate actions. Thus not a limit in capacity or how much time attention can be held but in how many thoughts or objects that can be mentally processed at once.

          This is very contradictory from the views of Edgeworth who tells of a natural ceiling to how long or complex a thought may be. This is an a theory that instead gives a natural limit to mankind and thus shows a more clear evolution in thinking as time goes on. However this also does not allow multitasking to be taken into account in a clearly definable way. This division in theories are not just scientific in thought but also allow for philosophical undertones. Proctor and Johnson leave an interpretation of complexity and unlimited human possibilities. Edgeworth's on the other hand is open to a more realist approach or set boundaries that will shift over time and mutation. However, both ideas are allowable and undefinable at this time without a clear winner. How to measure and define attention is important, but if one loses att.....

SQUIRREL!!!

Any-who, attention is important for furthering human knowledge, but by understanding how attention works one can streamline how to teach effectively and maximize attention. By better understanding attention maybe we can finally figure out why reddit, Wikipedia, and Facebook are so addicting.