text:
Classroom Management Theorists and Theories/William Glasser

Who is Glasser?
Dr. William Glasser is an American psychiatrist and the developer of Reality Therapy and Choice Theory. Born in Cleveland, Ohio in 1925, he was educated at Case Western Reserve University, where he received a B.S. and M.A. in clinical psychiatry. In 1953, he received his M. D. and completed his residency at UCLA and the Veterans Administration Hospital of Los Angeles. He received numerous awards for his outstanding work. These awards include an honorary degree from the University of San Francisco in 1990. He also received the American Counseling Association’s Professional Development Award in 2003 and the ACA’s “A Legend in Counseling Award” in 2004. Dr. Glasser founded The Institute for Reality Therapy in 1967, which was later renamed The Institute for Control Theory, Reality Therapy and Quality Management in 1994. The name changed again in 1996 when it was renamed The William Glasser Institute.

Dr. Glasser’s ideas are considered controversial by mainstream psychiatrists. Glasser’s ideas focus on personal choice, personal responsibility, and personal transformation, whereas his critics focus instead on classifying psychiatric syndromes and often prescribing psychotropic medications to treat mental disorders. Glasser is noted for applying his theories to broader social issues, including education, management, and marriage. He also advocated the consideration of mental health as a public health issue. By 1996, Glasser’s body of work, known as Control Theory, was renamed Choice Theory.

The Control Theory, later named Choice Theory, states that a person’s behavior is inspired by what that person wants or needs at that particular time, not an outside stimulus. Glasser states that all living creatures control their behavior to fulfill their need for satisfaction in one or more of these five areas: survival, to belong and be loved by others, to have power and importance, freedom and independence, and to have fun. Every individual has the power to change their lives for the better based on the choices they make. A person can make the proper choices and take greater responsibility for their actions by asking themselves the following questions:
 * What do you want?
 * What are you doing to achieve what you want?
 * Is it working?
 * What are your plans or options?

Choice Theory At A Glance
The Choice Theory - Found at the William Glasser Institute website:

Reflective Journal Entry No. 1

1. Identify at least three indicators of consistent classroom management used by the teacher and how well was the teacher able to facilitate learning?

To provide an answer to this question would fall next to impossible if Classroom Management and Classroom Management Indicator hang undefined. Classroom management is the process of managing and controlling the classroom environment. To ensure that teachers are able to get through to students in an effective and productive manner, without distractions or disruptive behavior, they use specific techniques. Classroom Management Indicators are used to measure the success that teachers have in managing their classroom and activities (Martin, 2005). Assuming what the source has presented comes with accuracy, classroom management indicators are somewhat like barometers made use of by the teachers to determine whether their strategy or two of keeping the students under a particular management are consistently operative or merely nominal. Overlooking the class from the backmost part of the classroom during the first day of classroom observation, it was virtually noticeable how the teacher underlined strategies to keep the students under an effective classroom management. Utter positive reinforcements were present. Frequent use of verbal reprimands was in the picture. Reward system, proper arrangement of chairs, individualized praises, oral recognition of misbehaviors and other common strategies were also observed. As you may have noticed, the list of strategies I detailed tends to come with quite of a length. But the number of strategies applied isn’t really a matter. What matters most is the efficiency and consistency of the technique being reinforced. To note, it has been said that “effective management is the key factor to a positive classroom environment” (Hue & Li, 2008). Consistency in reinforcing techniques of classroom management can be determined, I can tell, by at least three indicators. First, when students that constitute a class maximally involve themselves to work despite the variation of their interests, backgrounds, cultures and ideas, consistent classroom management is observably present. According to Oliver Clinton Moles (1990), classrooms are crowded and busy places in which group of students who vary in interests and abilities must be organized and directed in ways that maximize work involvement and minimize disruptions. Second, when misbehaving students of a class tend to conform their actions more often to rules and instructions set by the teacher and thus no longer misbehaving, consistent classroom management is keenly used. As any experienced teacher would say, one common fruit of effective management is the shift of students’ behavior. Third and last, when the entirety of classroom atmosphere seems to no longer need further management from the teacher, consistent classroom management is obviously present. Classroom management is basically a necessary conditioning practice done to keep the students moderated, properly propped and enabled to effectively learn. So simple logic will say when one classroom management exercise has truly been consistent and effective, all the moderation, proper propping and enabling no longer have to be done repeatedly. Using 2.	What constitute a conducive learning physical learning environment? How can a teacher come up with a physical environment that is supportive of learning?

3.	Why is establishing routines considered an effective practice in classroom management? 4.	What routines can be established for an efficient and effective teaching-learning process? 5.	To what extent does knowledge on the stages of development help the teacher in managing the class to have an effective teaching-learning?

Journal 1- p. 14 Journal 2 – p. 8 Journal 3 – p. 9 Journal 4 – p. 16

Choice Theory® is the basis for all programs taught by the Institute. It states that all we do is behave, that almost all behavior is chosen, and that we are driven by our genes to satisfy five basic needs: survival, love and belonging, power, freedom and fun. In practice, the most important need is love and belonging, as closeness and connectedness with the people we care about is a requisite for satisfying all of the needs. Choice Theory (and the Seven Caring Habits) is offered to replace external control psychology (and the Seven Deadly Habits), the present psychology of almost all the people in the world. Unfortunately, this forcing, punishing psychology is destructive to relationships. When used in a relationship it will always destroy the ability of one or both to find satisfaction in that relationship, and will result in people becoming disconnected from those with whom they want to be connected. Disconnectedness is the source of almost all human problems, such as what is called mental illness, drug addiction, violence, crime, school failure, spousal and child abuse, to mention a few. The 1998 book, Choice Theory: A New Psychology of Personal Freedom, is the primary text for all that is taught by the Institute. Relationships and Our Habits

The Ten Axioms of Choice Theory
 * 1) The only person whose behavior we can control is our own.
 * 2) All we can give another person is information.
 * 3) All long-lasting psychological problems are relationship problems.
 * 4) The problem relationship is always part of our present life.
 * 5) What happened in the past has everything to do with what we are today, but we can only satisfy our basic needs right now and plan to continue satisfying them in the future.
 * 6) We can only satisfy our needs by satisfying the pictures in our Quality World.
 * 7) All we do is behave.
 * 8) All behavior is Total Behavior and is made up of four components: acting, thinking, feeling and physiology.
 * 9) All Total Behavior is chosen, but we only have direct control over the acting and thinking components. We can only control our feeling and physiology indirectly through how we choose to act and think.
 * 10) All Total Behavior is designated by verbs and named by the part that is the most recognizable.

Implementation
After looking through the Glasser's theory and models, what is the most effective way to learn about choice theory? What practical ways can we implement the Glasser’s Choice (Control) Theory (behavior results from one of five basic needs needing to be met) into a classroom?

Here are a few examples for both Elementary and Secondary Levels.

Elementary
When deciding to use Choice Theory in an elementary classroom, teachers must share with their students that they have a say in what they learn and how they learn it. In order to have their “say” students must learn to make choices.

In order to convey the message, a suggested way to teach the theory concept is by teaching through the use of skits or role-playing. William and Carleen Glasser have created a series of skits to assist teachers (although written for use basically in secondary schools) in teaching the theory. The skits help in teaching students about such concepts as building trust, making connections and responsible choices, making decisions, talking together, acquiring knowledge to using knowledge, authentic assessment, competency, getting along, caring and respecting, moving from external control to internal control, teaching Choice Theory to others and every student can succeed.

Can these skits be adapted to teach younger, elementary aged students? It has been accomplished. As stated by Angela Ward, her suggestion for teaching the concepts in her second grade class would be to use the series by, “restructuring the skits by changing the amount of characters from five to four to account for her teams in her classroom.” In addition, she suggests, “by keeping the names consistent throughout, the students were able to each do a different skit and the audience could follow the story line.”

In addition, Glasser shares what he believes are the Seven Caring Habits which includes: Supporting, Encouraging, Listening, Accepting, Trusting, Respecting, and Negotiating Differences and he shares his belief of the Seven Deadly Habits – Criticizing, Blaming, Complaining, Nagging, Threatening, Punishing, and Bribing or rewarding to control.

To teach this in elementary schools a teacher could possibly borrow the ideas from Gail Edelman Small a teacher from Conejo Elementary School near Thousand Oaks, California. Students made creative representations to show the importance of choices. Three examples were: creating a “choice flower” – the petals on the flower were used to describe the things and people the student loved and what things or events made her feel “powerful and free.”  A second example:  a student created a book about her thoughts and feelings surrounding her choices. And a third example was a student who created posters of magazine cutouts about Glasser's idea of how seven caring and deadly habits make or break relationships.

Secondary (Middle and High School)
Implementation of choice theory into secondary education would basically allow students the freedom of choice. Educators would only be supportive entities only to help the students make a better choice. Reaffirming that one can only control oneself would be the focus of teachers in this particular environment. Educators and students will recognize everyone’s basic needs and the necessity in fulfilling those needs in an environment that fosters caring and respect for all. Ensuring the students attain self-awareness and esteem to make better choices for themselves develops as a secondary goal. The primary goal of an educator is to prepare students for the “real world”. Real world skills that are needed are interpersonal skills and group problem solving. Secondary education would emphasize not blatant memorization but more on critical thinking skills and a problem-based learning. As in the real world, students are encouraged to seek help and help one another as necessary. Students will use all resources available, including parents, each other, texts, to demonstrate understanding. The grading system is based on competence and credit will be given only if competence is demonstrated (B). Student with an understanding above the competence level along with willingness to help others would earn an exemplary grade (A).

The following Glasser skit can be modified for elementary level students.

Skits to Help High School Student Learn Choice Theory

Support
There are over twenty “Quality Schools” that have implemented William Glasser’s Choice Theory in their schools (William Glasser Institute, 2006). Many of the supporters of Glasser’s theory believe his ideas are revolutionary and at the same time contain a basic common sense philosophy. In Corning New York they have implemented "the Choice Community Project." Many different segments of this community are involved in this project: the senior center has a support group for women; the county jail has workshops for the inmates; one pastor has couples in pre-marriage counseling read about Glasser's philosophy; and workshops have been offered to community citizens, promoting their participation the project. Supporters of the community project have stated, ..."there are signs that Corning -- person by person, household by household -- is gradually becoming a kinder, gentler place" (Foderaro, 2002, 5). One superintendent involved with the “Quality Schools” in Corning indicated that his schools have had fewer suspensions since the project began (Foderaro, 2002). Additionally, despite the claim Glasser's Choice Theory is not supported by research, educator's research using Glasser's Choice theory with students has found student's learning and retention is increased as well as overall student satisfaction in the classroom. (Cooke, 1995; Martin, 1988).

Disagreements
William Glasser has written numerous books of which two are entitled, Defining mental Health as a Public Health Problem and Warning, Psychiatry Can be Hazardous to Your Health. These titles seem to directly challenge psychological and mental health professions. Some of these professionals have countered that Glasser's work has been an attempt to reinvent theories of other theorists such as “… Erich Fromm, the psychologist Abraham Maslow and the psychotherapist Carl Rogers“ (Foderaro, 2002, p. 2).

Dr. W. Thomas Bourbon, a Perceptual Control Theorist from Rochelle, Texas wrote a review of Edward E. Ford’s book, Discipline for Home and School, Book Two: Practical Standards for Schools (revised and expanded edition). In this review, Bourbon describes a chronological history comparing the work of Ford alongside the work of Glasser. Throughout his comparison of these theorists Bourbon challenges the credibility of Glasser's work. At one point in the review Bourbon states, "Does the material I have quoted from Glasser's web site seem to indicate that he (Glasser) has modified his personal beliefs in cause-effect to make them more compatible with PCT science? Are Glasser's assertions the same as PCT? You tell me" (Bourbon, n.d., 98 section, 2). Bourbon then refers to a lack of research supporting Glasser’s work, ... "it is a serious mistake to believe that a particular set of needs has been "scientifically proved" to be real" (Bourbon, n.d., 98 section,  10).

Personal Reflections
Dee's Reflection: As I look through the information provided for Choice Theory and the five basic needs each person has and how this reflects in our behavior, I think of these things how they relate in my private life before I put this in context with students. I agree with the theory that Glasser has shared. I have always believed that each person has choices, and each choice has some sort of outcome or consequence that results from that particular choice. When I think about using the theory in my classroom, I believe it is something that I already stress to some degree. I often convey the message to my students that most everything that we do in class leaves room for choices. For example, they can choose to behave one way or another; they have a choice whether to complete classwork; they have a choice to ask for assistance when they’re struggling with something.

In addition, I agree with the aspect of the theory that one behaves one way when a basic need is not met. For example, I had situations in my classroom where a behavior stemmed from a child wanting attention because there was a situation at home, which resulted in them possibly not feeling loved. Another example could be a student’s inappropriate behavior resulted from their need for “survival” when a skill was being introduced or reviewed because they “didn’t get it” and they were trying to downplay the lack of knowledge.

On a personal standpoint, I know, myself, if my needs aren’t being met in some way, my reactions and “behavior” is not the norm. For example, if I don’t receive a hug from my son in the morning or after school, I tend to be a little grumpy. Another example, is if I don’t have my one cup of coffee in the morning, I am very lethargic in my mood and actions.

I am in agreement with Glasser’s theory people always have control over their behavior and how the outcome for such choices or behavior will result.

Randi's Reflection: The Choice Theory reveals a manner of observing behavior and examining the needs of individuals that appeals to me. Through an examination of the criticisms of William Glasser’s Choice Theory there was a discovery of, and an interest found for, the Perceptual Control Theory. This new interest does not change the appeal of Glasser’s work, for me, it adds an extra added dimension to understanding “the why” of needs. Why do we have the needs we do? After reading Dr. Bourbon’s opinions and perceptions I was left wondering what got him so invested in his stance, seemingly against anything to do with Glasser. Personally I see both of these theories working hand in hand, I also believe there is room for both theories.

Through my observations in life I have come to believe that … Everyone has choices everyday. Sometimes we are unaware we have or make these choices … by becoming aware … we become responsible not only for our choices but also to make these choices  … consciously. We ALL have the choice about … how we feel … how we react … how we think … I believe that we ALWAYS have a choice … with everything … AND because of this choice we choose/create our reality. For do we not define reality through our thoughts and what we chose to believe.

Tammy’s Reflection: When researching Glasser’s theory of Choice Theory, at first it sounded a bit too abstract. Although we all seek to have our needs met, I had not considered that those needs drove our every decision. I had felt that when students acted out it was because of an outstanding source or for a need for attention, but now I see that there are other motives that drive our behavior. I found the ten axioms to be fairly solid for me. There is one that I have used many times but did not know where it came from, “You cannot control another person’s behavior just your response to that behavior.” I find that to be very true. Having learned the ideas from Glasser’s Choice Theory, I can now better evaluate why a student might be acting out and determine which of his needs are not being met.

Val's Reflection: After reviewing Glasser’s theory, I believe that many of my own personal beliefs mesh with his Choice Theory. I often tell my students that we cannot control what happens to us but we control how we choose to react. There are many hardships facing our students today, do we really want them to sit around and belly ache about how bad it is or do we want to help them take steps to improve their own situations. Choice theory does not allow ones environment to be an excuse but instead treats it as a learning opportunity. The path to becoming a responsible person is a tough one and it comes with facing problems and choosing the best way to learn from those problems. There is a need to feel we deserve better, the empowerment that develops with making one’s own decisions can only increase self-esteem. There will be mistakes but that is how problems are solved, by finding a solution. Ultimately the student’s choices determine what and how successful they will be. A personal area of improvement would be to have higher expectations for my students. I have high expectations for younger family members. In the current grading systems, I do not allow them to settle for a C. I have a friend who has observed this and asked me “Why is it okay for your students to have a C and not your nephew?”  I didn’t have an answer. I feel this expectation should be relevant for everyone I care about and I have resolved to hold my students to this expectation as well. Although I might not be able to support my students as much as my own family but I feel this is an attainable goal and will strive to push my students toward it. Another expectation I would like to implement is that of helping one another, an exemplary grade can only be earned if the student chooses to help others. I believe this a very important life skill and plan to integrate it into future classes.

Questions
What are the benefits of embracing Choice Theory by some schools, known as Quality Schools?

How would you demonstrate a situation using Glasser's Choice Theory?


text:
Classroom Management Theorists and Theories/Thomas Gordon

History of Thomas Gordon
Thomas Gordon dedicated his life to developing training systems that help individuals improve their relationships with one another. Dr. Thomas Gordon’s approach to psychology was revolutionary because it looked at relationships, rather than individuals, to solve conflicts.

When Dr. Gordon began in the field of psychology he was dissatisfied with the emphasis on statistics and scientific process. What Dr. Gordon was really interested in was the relationships between people. On his website, there is a story about how a young Dr. Gordon was inspired while watching a Sunday school teacher. The Sunday school teacher, “created a climate in class that made the students feel good about themselves and that encouraged them to enjoy learning” (Gordon Training International, 2005–2007). Dr. Gordon was also influenced by his experience in the Army Air Force from 1942-1946. As a student in the Army’s pilot training program he suggested that the authoritarian style of discipline contributed to accidents and a large drop out rate. After persuading his superiors to implement a program in which fear was not the primary element, students in the training program became much more successful. After his time in the war, Dr. Gordon went to the University of Chicago to pursue his Ph.D. with his favorite professor Carl Rogers. It was there that he discovered, “that with training in reflective listening, and with an attitude of genuine acceptance and trust in their clients’ ability to solve their own problems, positive and lasting changes in their clients could be achieved” (Gordon Training International, 2005–2007). After receiving his Ph.D. in 1949, he spent five years of teaching at the University of Chicago. After that,Dr. Gordon took his experience and continued his career as a private consultant.

Throughout his career Dr. Gordon has published works focusing on issues such as organizational leadership, communications, counseling, discipline, parenting, conflict resolution and democratic decision making. In addition to contributing over 50 published articles, Dr. Gordon also authored 9 books including Teacher Effectiveness Training. During his lifetime he was involved in many different psychological associations including Division of Peace Psychology and the National Peace Foundation. In 1997, 1998 and 1999 Dr. Gordon was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize (Gordon Training International, 2005–2007).

References:

Gordon Training International.(2005–2007). Retrieved June 11, 2007 from http://www.gordontraining.com.

Classroom Philosophy
The central tenet of Dr. Gordon’s approach to classroom management is the importance of developing meaning and mutually beneficial relationships. Dr. Gordon rejects traditional models of reward and punishment because they are based upon an assertion of power and foster no intrinsic motivation. Instead Dr. Gordon focuses on how student’s conflicts can be resolved in a way that will improve their relationships with their teacher and peers.

Dr. Gordon recognizes that conflict is an inevitable part of relationships because each person is an individual with unique values and needs. There will be times when these needs come into conflict. However, conflict does not have to destroy a relationship. By having open and honest communication, along with listening with genuine acceptance and understanding, individuals are able to find their own solutions. It is important that these solutions are agreeable to both parties involved in the conflict. It is also important to tell someone if their behaviors are negatively affecting you. The hope is that they will respect your feelings enough to change their behavior (Gordon, 1978).

When conflict arises in the classroom setting Dr. Gordon suggests following a series of steps. The first step is to use a graphic tool developed by Dr. Gordon called a “Behavior Window.” The purpose of the Behavior Window is to determine if “a problem exists, who owns it, and what skill can be used to solve it” (Gordon Training International, 2005–2007). If the student owns the problem, the second step for the teacher is to engage is active listening. Active listening occurs when a teacher listens and reflects back to a student their understanding of the conflict. This process communicates to the student that the teacher cares and is genuinely engaged in the conversation. If the teacher owns the problem, Dr. Gordon suggests that the second step of the resolution process begin with an “I-Message”. This means that the teacher will initiate the conversation by explaining her feelings to the student. The purpose of the I-Message is to confront someone else’s misbehavior without being confrontational. The final step is the “No-Lose Conflict Resolution.” The purpose of this final step is to come up with a solution that everyone can be invested in. If both parties participate in creating a solution, the solution is more likely to work!

References:

Gordon, Thomas. (1978). A Credo for My Relationship with Others. Retrieved June 12, 2007 from http://www.gordontraining.com/popup-a-credo-for-my-relationships-with-others.html

Gordon Training International.(2005–2007). Retrieved June 11, 2007 from http://www.gordontraining.com.

Implementation
The implementation of Thomas Gordon’s theory of conflict resolution must be based on helping student relations grow positively out of conflict, rather than degenerate. This can be accomplished by discussing and agreeing on common resolutions in a role-play situation before implementation into the classroom. The main components of the theory should be modeled, discussed, and then actively practiced for proper implementation. These components include active listening and the usage of I-messages to form a common resolution of a dispute.

In an elementary setting, Thomas Gordon’s theory of conflict resolution can be implemented through a “Peace Walk.” The peace walk is designed for two students to walk together through specific steps that lead to peaceful resolution of conflict. Each student is to practice active listening, as well as the usage of I-messages. One student is the color red, while the other is blue. The steps include:

Step 1: RED: use an I-message to tell how you feel. BLUE: Listen and retell what you hear. Step 2: RED: Suggest a solution. BLUE: Listen and retell what you hear. Step 3: BLUE: Suggest a solution. RED: Listen and retell what you hear. Step 4: RED: Agree on a solution. BLUE: Agree on a solution.

In a secondary setting, Thomas Gordon’s theory of conflict resolution can be implemented through a “Peace Table,” which is permanently located in a section of each classroom. If a conflict among students occurs in a classroom setting, the students are required to sit at the “Peace Table” and discuss their individual feelings. The peace table is equipped with a graphic organizer, which lists the steps students are required to take in order to resolve the conflict. The steps are as follows:

1.  Student A uses I-messages to explain how he/she feels about the present situation. 2.  Student B practices active listening while Student A shares his/her feelings. 3.  Student B uses I-messages to explain how he/she feels about the present situation. 4.  Student A practices active listening while Student B shares his/her feelings. 5.  Students A and B agree on a common solution after their discourse is complete.

Implementation of the peace walk and the peace table should be preceded with appropriate modeling of the conflict resolution theory. Students should have the opportunity to practice active listening and the usage of I-messages through role-plays in the classroom.

In an elementary setting, a teacher can provide students with generated social conflicts, which students may practice resolving through the peace walk process. Students can practice active listening and the usage of I-messages. They can then determine an appropriate resolution to the generated conflict, in which both students are equally invested.

In a secondary setting, a teacher can create a role-play scenario, in which students are to conference peacefully about a specific global issue. Students are required to practice active listening while another is speaking. In discussing the global issue, students are required to use I-messages to present information about the issue, as well as express how they are personally feeling. Near the end of the discussion, all students are required to agree upon a common resolution, in which everyone is invested.

Professional Critique
According to Thomas Gordon, the basis for a manageable classroom is developing positive relationships with students. Many other educators support this idea through the use of I messages and active listening; some have even gone as far as to include it as part of a curriculum.

Amy Martin, from the Morningside Center for Teaching Social Responsibility, has created lesson plans for teaching the use of I-Messages in the classroom. Martin’s use of I-Messages supports Gordon’s philosophy in that it provides resources for teachers and parents to resolve conflicts constructively with their children. Martin focuses on the fact that I messages do not put blame on the individual, but rather allow for a strong statement about one’s feelings while remaining positive. Similar to Gordon, Martin recognizes that peaceful resolutions help individuals to grow in positive relationships after a conflict. In addition to using this method in times of conflict, Martin claims it is important to create a routine where students can practice using I-Messages before hectic times of day such as recess and other transitions. She states “These are times of the day when strong emotions can take over and interfere with clear expression. Because our days are usually over-packed with teaching and learning, it is important to really plan this activity into your schedule” (Martin)

Other curriculum companies such as Success for All have actually created manuals like Getting Along Together to teach conflict management at the very beginning of the year in order to create an environment filled with positive relationships. This manual uses an activity called “The Peace Path” (Success for All, 2005). This activity supports Gordon’s philosophy of creating positive relationships out of conflict by giving students specific steps for resolving conflicts. The first step calls for one child to use an I-Message to express their feelings. At this time, the other student must use active listening to listen and restate what he or she heard. The next step has the first student suggest a solution while the other student listens and restates the first student’s solution. Then, the second student suggests a solution while the first student listens and retells the other student’s solution. Finally, both students agree on a solution (Success for All, 2005). This particular activity focuses on Gordon’s primary components of conflict resolution and supports the building of positive relationships in the classroom.

Resources

Martin, Amy. I-Messages and the Assertiveness Line. Retrieved June 15, 2007 from http://www.teachablemoment.org/elementary/imessages.html

Success for All. (2005).

Thomas Gordon Critique:

While Thomas Gordon’s theory on classroom management has many positive aspects, it is important to critique any theory before implementation in the classroom. Thomas Gordon focuses mainly on how to solve problems in the most kind and effective way possible. He believes that by using his method of solving conflicts, relationships are going to strengthen. One might critique Gordon’s theory because he focuses mainly on resolving conflict after it arises. Gordon does not take any preventative measures in avoiding conflict. Theorist Jacob Kounin, however, is a firm believer in preventing misbehaviors from occurring in the classroom by setting expectations at the start of the year. If expectations are not set right from the start, students are likely to misbehave, simply because they are unaware of how their teachers expect them to behave (http://wik.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/Kounin,_Jacob, June 14, 2007). After teachers elicit clear and concise expectations for their students, other forms in which to prevent misbehavior include the creation of engaging lessons, teacher preparation and organization, and a focus on movement. Kounin believes there are five important roles a teacher must exhibit in the classroom: Withitness, Overlapping, Momentum, Smoothness and Group Alerting. When a teacher is “with it,” he or she knows exactly what is happening in the classroom at all times. Overlapping is having the ability to do more than one thing at a time. Momentum has to do with the flow of the lesson. A teacher must be prepared during a lesson, but also willing to be flexible if necessary. Smoothness refers to the ability to stay on task within a lesson and refrain from using tangents. Group Alerting is the way in which a teacher keeps students actively involved and engaged in a lesson. If a teacher exhibits these five roles, students will refrain from misbehaving in class (http://wik.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/Kounin,_Jacob, June 14, 2007). Thomas Gordon has also been critiqued on his usage of I-messages. I-messages are ways in which a person can express him or herself without placing blame on another person. They are designed to be used in a positive manner, however, Dr. Jane Bluestein (2007) believes I-messages are ways in which to control and manipulate others. Dr. Bluestein gives an example of a negative I-message in an article entitled, “What’s Wrong with ‘I-Messages?’” Her example is as follows: “I feel ____ when you _____” (Bluestein, 2007). In other words, your behavior causes me to have a specific, usually negative, feeling. Dr. Bluestein (2007) argues that one should always take responsibility for how one is feeling and never place burden on another. She writes, “We certainly don’t want to burden others, especially our children with the overwhelming—and impossible—responsibility for our hap¬piness and well-being. Remember that personal growth and self-responsibility typically involve learning to separate who we are and how we feel about ourselves from other people’s behav¬iors” (Bluestein, 2007). Everyone has very different needs, and when a person attempts to please others, that person’s individual needs are often not being met. Bluestein (2007) also argues that I-messages can create an opposite reaction than they are intended. After hearing an I-message, a person may feel resentment toward the other person and may not be willing to change behaviors for the person. Instead of using I-messages, Bluestein argues that it is important to set boundaries. If a child is misbehaving, an adult should step in and be assertive with the child. Misbehaviors should not be supported or condoned, and the child who is misbehaving should not have to feel responsible for how another person is feeling about their behavior. That child should take responsibility for his or her own actions without feeling blamed by another.

References:

Bluestein, J. (2007). What’s Wrong with I-Messages? [Electronic version]. Instructional Support Services, Inc., www.janebluestein.com/articles/whatswrong.html, 2007.

http://wik.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/Kounin,_Jacob, June 14, 2007.

Our critique:

After carefully researching Thomas Gordon's classroom management theory and articles from his colleagues, we have concluded that Gordon's theory is only one piece of the puzzle. Gordon’s use of I-Messages and Active Listening can be a very useful tool for addressing one’s own feelings. However, we believe that the use of I-Messages still poses blame on another party. We feel it is important for students to recognize that feelings from an action are subject to that individual’s personality; no one can make you feel something. We believe it is important for students to take responsibility for their own feelings and not blame them on another person. In Gordon’s implementation of I-Messages as student would state: “I feel (feeling) when you (action).” We disagree with the use of I messages in this format because the blame is still being placed on another individual. Perhaps a way to change this is by never using the word you in an I-Message. For example, “I feel (feeling) when (action) happens.” One of Gordon’s goals in his management theory is for students to develop positive relationships out of conflict; we believe there is a better way to meet this goal than using Gordon’s model of I-Messages.

Questions
1. What techniques that Thomas Gordon uses to solve conflicts? List at least three techniques.

2. Evaluate. How you could implement Gordon’s model of conflict resolution in your classroom management plan?

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Applied History of Psychology/History of Research on Attention

There has been a large increase in research activity in the area of attention since the 1950s. This research has focused not only on attention, but also how attention is related to memory and executive functioning. Human learning and behaviour are dependent on our ability to pay attention to our environment, retain and retrieve information, and use cognitive strategies. An understanding of the development of attention is also critical when we consider that deficits in attention often lead to difficulties in school and in the work force. Thus, attention is an important topic in the study of psychology, specifically in the areas of development (see Part II of this book), learning (Part III), and psychological disorders (see the section on ADHD in Part IV). There is no doubt that an understanding of attention and related concepts is critical to our understanding of human cognition and learning.

Introduction to The History of Research on Attention
The study of attention is a major part of contemporary cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience. Attention plays a critical role in essentially all aspects of perception, cognition, and action, influencing the choices we make. The study of attention has been of interest to the field of psychology since its earliest days. However, many ideas about attention can be traced to philosophers in the 18th and 19th centuries, preceding the foundation of the field of psychology.

The topic of attention was originally discussed by philosophers. Among the issues considered were the role of attention on conscious awareness and thought, and whether attention was directed voluntarily or involuntarily toward objects or events. The characterization of attention provided by each philosopher reflected that individual's larger metaphysical views of the nature of things and how we come to know the world. For instance, Joan Luis Vives (1492–1540) recognized the role of attention in forming memories. Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716) introduced the concept of apperception, which refers to an act that is necessary for an individual to become conscious of a perceptual event. He noted that without apperception, information does not enter conscious awareness. Leibniz said, "Attention is a determination of the soul to know something in preference to other things". In summary, many philosophers gave attention a central role in perception and thinking. They introduced several important issues, such as the extent to which attention is directed automatically or intentionally. These topics continue to be examined and evaluated in contemporary research. Although they conducted little experimental research themselves, their conceptual analysis of attention laid the foundation for the scientific study of attention in ensuing years.

The philosophical analyses of attention led to some predictions that could be tested experimentally. In addition, in the mid-1800s psychophysical methods were being developed that allowed the relation between physical stimulus properties and their corresponding psychological perceptions to be measured. Wilhelm Wundt, who established the first laboratory devoted to psychological research in 1879, was responsible for introducing the study of attention to the field. In addition, the relation between attention and perception was one of the first topics to be studied in experimental psychology. Wundt held that attention was an inner activity that caused ideas to be present to differing degrees in consciousness. He distinguished between perception, which was the entry into the field of attention, and apperception, which was responsible for entry into the inner focus. He assumed that the focus of attention could narrow or widen. This view that has also enjoyed popularity in recent years. At the end of the 19th century, Hermann von Helmholtz (1821–1894) argued that attention is essential for visual perception. Using himself as a subject and pages of briefly visible printed letters as stimuli, he found that attention could be directed in advance of the stimulus presentation to a particular region of the page, even though the eyes were kept fixed at a central point. He also found that attention was limited: The letters in by far the largest part of the visual field, even in the vicinity of the fixation point, were not automatically perceived.

William James's (1890/1950) views on attention are probably the most well known of the early psychologists. In his famous Principles of Psychology (1980), James asserted that "the faculty of voluntarily bringing back a wandering attention, over and over again, is the very root of judgment, character, and will." His definition of attention is also widely quoted. According to James (1890), “It is taking possession by the mind, in clear and vivid form, of one of what seem several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought. Focalization, concentration, of consciousness are of its essence. It implies withdrawal from some things in order to deal effectively with others, and is a condition which has a real opposite in the confused, dazed, scatterbrained state."

Moreover, according to James, the immediate effects of attention are to make us perceive, conceive, distinguish and remember, better than we otherwise could –both more successive things and each thing more clearly. It also shortens “reaction time”. James’s definition also mentions clearness, which Titchener (1908/1973) viewed as the central aspect of attention. Pillsbury (1908/1973) agreed with Titchener, indicating, “the essence of attention as a conscious process is an increase in the clearness on one idea or a group of ideas at the expense of others”. Researchers at the beginning of the 20th century debated how this increased clearness is obtained.

In summary, around 1860, the philosophical approach dominated the study of psychology in general and attention especially. During the period from 1980 to 1909, the study of attention was transformed, as was the field of psychology as a whole, to one of scientific inquiry with emphasis on experimental investigations. However, given that behaviourism came to dominate psychology in the next period, at least in the United States, the study of attentional mechanisms was largely delayed until the middle of the 20th century.

Although one often reads that research on attention essentially ceased during the period of 1910-1949, attention research never disappeared completely. However, there was an increase in interest in the topic with the advent of contemporary cognitive psychology. Lovie (1983) compiled tables showing the numbers of papers on attention listed in Psychological Abstracts and its predecessor, Psychological Index, in five-year intervals from 1910 to 1960, showing that studies on the topic were conducted during these time periods. Among the important works on attention was that of Jersild (1927) who published a classic monograph, “Mental Set and Shift”. Another significant contribution during this era was the discovery of the psychological refractory period effect by Telford (1931). He noted that numerous studies showed that stimulation of neurons was followed by a refractory phase during which the neurons were less sensitive to stimulation. Stroop (1935/1992) also published what is certainly one of the most widely cited studies in the field of psychology, in which he demonstrated that stimulus information that is irrelevant to the task can have a major impact on performance (see below for John Ridley Stroop and the impact of the Stroop Color-Word Task on research on attention). Paschal (1941), Gibson (1940) and Mowrer, Rayman and Bliss (1940) also conducted research on attention such as that on preparatory set or mental set. In sum, although the proportion of psychological research devoted to the topic of attention was much less during this time period than during preceding decades, many important discoveries were made, which have influenced contemporary research on the topic.

The period from 1950 to 1974 saw a revival of interest in the characterization of human information processing. Research on attention during this period was characterized by an interplay between technical applications and theory. Mackworth (1950) reported experiments on the maintenance of vigilance that exemplified this interaction and set the stage for extensive research on the topic over the remainder of the 20th century. This research originated from concerns about the performance of radar operators in World War II detecting infrequently occurring signals. Cherry (1953) conducted one of the seminal works in attention during this period, studying the problem of selective attention, or, as he called it, “the cocktail party phenomenon”. He used a procedure called dichotic listening in which he presented different messages to each ear through headphones. Broadbent (1958) developed the first complete model of attention, called Filter Theory (see below). Treisman (1960) reformulated Broadbent's Filter Theory into what is now called the Filter-Attenuation Theory (see below).

In the early 1970s, there was a shift from studying attention mainly with auditory tasks to studying it mainly with visual tasks. A view that regards attention as a limited-capacity resource that can be directed toward various processes became popular. Kahneman’s (1973) model is the most well known of these unitary capacity or resource theories. According to this model, attention is a single resource that can be divided among different tasks in different amounts. The basic idea behind these models is that multiple tasks should produce interference when they compete for the limited capacity resources. Also, in this time period, the first controlled experiments that used psychophysiological techniques to study attention were conducted on humans. These experiments used methods that allow brain activity relating to the processing of a stimulus, called event related potentials, to be measured using electrodes placed on the scalp. In sum, the research during this period yielded considerable information about the mechanisms of attention. The most important development was the introduction of detailed information processing models of attention.

Research on attention blossomed during the last quarter of the 20th century. Multiple resources models have emerged from many studies showing that it is easier to perform two tasks together when the tasks use different stimulus or response modalities than when they use the same modalities. Treisman and Gelade (1980) also developed a highly influential variant of the Spotlight Theory called the Feature Integration Theory to explain the results from visual search studies, in which subjects are to detect whether a target is present among distracters (see below). Priming studies have also been popular during the most recent period of attention research. In such studies, a prime stimulus precedes the imperative stimulus to which the subject is to respond; the prime can be the same as or different from some aspect of the imperative stimulus.

In addition, a major focus has been on gathering neuropsychological evidence pertaining to the brain mechanisms that underlie attention. Cognitive neuroscience, of which studies of attention are a major part, has made great strides due to the continued development of neuroimaging technologies. The converging evidence provided by neuropsychological and behavioral data promises to advance the study of attention significantly in the first half of the 21st century. Finally, significant advances have also been made toward expanding the theories and methods of attention to address a range of applied problems. Two major areas can be identified. The first one concerns ergonomics in its broadest sense, ranging from human-machine interactions to improvement of work environments such as mental workload and situation awareness. The second major area of application is clinical neuropsychology, which has benefited substantially from adopting cognitive models and experimental methods to describe and investigate cognitive deficits in neurological patients. There is also work being done on the clinical application of attentional strategies (e.g., mindfulness training) in the treatment of a wide range of psychological disorders (see section on mindfulness).

Timeline

 * Pre-1880s: Franciscus Donders uses mental chronometry (the study of the temporal sequencing of information processing in the brain) to study attention with reaction time experiments. Wundt develops a research program to justify experimental psychology as a separate discipline; he uses introspection as a method of gathering information into psychological processes.
 * 1880s-1890s: At the Leipzig institute, using well-defined, quantitative, and easily reproducible experimental methodology, Wundt conducts studies on: sensation and perception, reaction times, attention and feeling, and association.
 * 1894: Helmholtz defines what is now known as ‘covert attention’ during a visual perception task. Scientific study of covert attention did not re-surface until the 1950s.
 * 1900-mid 1950s: Due to the popularity of behaviorism in psychology (emphasizing the association between a stimulus and a response, but without identifying the cognitive operations that lead to that response), research on attention is neglected.
 * 1924: Electroencephalography (EEG) is invented, which will become important in later neurological studies of attention.
 * 1935: John Ridley Stroop, in his article entitled Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions, discovers the Stroop effect (slower reaction times and an increase in mistakes when a word is printed in a color differing from the color expressed by the word's semantic meaning)
 * 1946: Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is invented, which will become important in later neurological studies of attention.
 * 1950s: Research psychologists (including Donald Broadbent) renew their interest in attention in a shift from positivism to realism in psychology, deemed as the cognitive revolution (admitted that unobservable cognitive processes can be studied scientifically).
 * 1952: Broadbent begins to publish his research findings from dichotic listening experiments on speaking and listening simultaneously, listening to synchronous messages, and failures of attention in selective listening.
 * 1953: Colin Cherry first describes the Cocktail Party Effect (the ability to focus our listening attention on a single talker talker among a mixture of conversations and background noises, and to pay attention to a stimulus that grabs our attention suddenly, such as our names).
 * 1957: Broadbent develops his mechanical model of attention.
 * 1958: Broadbent becomes clinical director of the Applied Psychology Unit at Cambridge. His book, Perception and Communication, is published, which describes his filter model of attention (an early selection model). This model was highly influential but was criticized for being too “inflexible”.
 * 1960s: Advent of information processing as the dominant perspective in cognitive psychology. Stroop’s work was rediscovered.
 * 1964: Use of Stroop Color-Word task as a measure of attentional and linguistic processes rose quickly
 * 1969:Treisman proposed her Attenuation Theory, which addresses how unattended information may get through to consciousness (not explained by Broadbent’s original model).
 * 1971: Broadbent’s second book on the topic of attention, Decision and Stress, is published, using his filter model as a starting point in his new theory, and taking into account findings from Cherry, Treisman, and others.
 * 1975: Broadbent wins a Distinguished Scientific Contribution award from the APA for being the first person to systematically study humans as an information-processing system and using a structure that could be investigated by experiment.
 * 1980: Treisman and Gelade publish their seminal paper which was the basis for Treisman’s Feature Integration Theory.
 * 1988: Treisman interprets the pop-out effect as evidence for a pre-attentive mechanism in perception. (Pre-attentive processes are based on perceptual analyses that simply signals the presence of a difference in the visual scene, rahter than on the action of focused attention.)
 * 1993: Following Broadbent’s death, numerous tributes and obituaries are published in his honour, and to recognize that his elaboration of the idea of the human organism as an information-processing system lead to a systematic study of attention.

John Ridley Stroop and The Stroop Effect
For over half a century, the Stroop effect has been one of the most well known standard demonstrations in undergraduate psychology courses and laboratories. In this cognitive task, participants asked to name the color of the ink in which an incompatible color word is printed (e.g., to say “red” aloud in response to the stimulus word GREEN printed in red ink) take longer than when asked to name the color in a control condition (e.g., to say "red" to the stimulus XXXXX printed in red ink). This effect, now known as the Stroop effect, was first reported in the classic article “Studies of Interference in Serial Verbal Reactions” published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology in 1935. Since then, this phenomena has become one of the most well known in the history of psychology. However, less is known about the man behind this landmark cognitive task. In the following section, a biography of John Ridley Stroop, the creator of the Stroop Color-Word task and discoverer of the Stroop Effect, will be outlined.

John Ridley Stroop was born near Murfreesboro, Tennessee, on March 21, 1897. His middle name derived from a preacher whom his parents admired, and Stroop was known by that name both personally and professionally all through his life (MacLeod, 1992). Stroop was the second youngest of six children. As an infant, Stroop was not expected to live, which led his parents to shelter him during his childhood. Unlike the other the family members, he was not required to do heavy physical work on the family farm (MacLeod, 1991a).

Stroop's initial schooling was at Kitrell County School, where he graduated at the top of his elementary school class. He continued his education in nearby Nashville at David Lipscomb High School, graduating in 1919. In 1921, he obtained a diploma from David Lipscomb Junior College, where he was selected to be Valedictorian. On December 23, 1921, during his second year in college at the age of 24, Stroop married Zelma Dunn, great niece of Mr. David Lipscomb. Over the next seven years, they had three sons. To be able to support his growing family, Stroop taught at David Lipscomb College and worked as a janitor and as a librarian while in graduate school (MacLeod, 1992).

Stroop’s university years were spent at George Peabody College (now part of Vanderbilt University) in Nashville. There, he received his BS in 1924, his MA in 1925, and his PhD in 1933. His doctoral degree was in Experimental Psychology with a minor in Educational Psychology and an elective in Education. Stroop’s dissertation research was carried out under the supervision of Dr. Joseph Peterson, a former president of the American Psychological Association, at the Jesup Psychological Laboratory. Stroop developed these color-word tasks partly because the naming-reading comparison was of interest to Dr. Peterson in his individual differences research (MacLeod, 1991a). However, his real interest was on interference between conflicting processes. His research followed studies being conducted at the time on interference or inhibition but using materials that were similar in nature to those employed in color naming-word reading studies (Stroop, 1935). For instance, Stroop referred in his article to studies on color-word naming that were conducted by John James McKeen Cattell (1886), who at the instigation of his doctoral supervisor, Wilhelm Wundt, investigated differences in reaction times to naming objects, the properties of those objects, as well as the corresponding words. Catell reported that reading words took less time than naming the objects or properties, the latter including color (Macleod, 1991b). However, it was not until Stroop's research that anyone thought to combine the word and object/property dimensions, creating the now famous situation of response conflict (MacLeod, 1991). Stroop’s PhD dissertation went to become his classic paper, which over the years became one of the most cited articles in the history of the Journal of Experimental Psychology.

Stroop teaching career began long before the completion of his doctoral degree. He was principal at a Mississippi Consolidated School in 1921-1922. Then, he returned to David Lipscomb College. There, he began as an instructor in Mathematics and English (1922–1923), and then switched to Modern Languages (1924–1928). Between 1928 and 1932, he was Professor of Psychology and Education, serving as Dean of the Faculty for the 1928-1929 academic year. After completing his PhD, Stroop conducted research for the Tennessee Educational Commission (1933–1934), then serving briefly as a special instructor in Psychology and Education at Tennessee Polytechnic Institute. He returned to David Lipscomb College, where he taught for almost his entire 40-year career.

After completing his PhD, Stroop had planned to continue his line of research. However, when Dr. Peterson died in 1935, Stroop never again conducted research in psychology. As Macleod (1992) noted, it was probably this event more than any other that led Stroop to discontinue his psychological research. His wife also wrote in her biographical sketch of him: "His major professor at Peabody, Dr. Joseph Peterson, invited him to collaborate with him on a research project furthering the study of [Stroop] 's doctorate thesis. Dr. Peterson's unexpected death prevented such from happening. This was probably the changing of his work as he became more involved in teaching the Bible and writing in that field." (in MacLeod, 1991a). Stroop published just four papers in psychology throughout his career. One concerned with group versus individual judgments (1932), and the other three related to color-word processing including his classic paper (1935), a critique of work on the color-word issue (1935), and a test of a possible explanation of the Stroop effect (1938). Although his research career ended following the publication of these papers, Stroop remained in psychology and chaired his department from 1948 until 1964. After this period, Stroop's interest shifted away from psychology, and he devoted his attention to his religion for the rest of his life.

Stroop was a Christian who preached every Sunday in and around Nashville, often taking a train out into the country and being paid with a chicken or a bag of potatoes. He also kept a card file indicating for each Sunday where he had spoken and what his topic had been (MacLeod, 1991a). Moreover, Stroop taught bible classes in college in addition to teaching psychology. He was known to colleagues and students as both Dr. Stroop and Brother Stroop. Stroop’s major contributions were in the area of biblical studies. He wrote seven books based on his biblical teachings, beginning with Why Do People Not See the Bible Alike? published in 1949 and ending with Restoration Ideas on Church Organization published in 1966. His major work was a trilogy entitled God’s Plan and me, which was published in 1950s. He received awards for these books, which were popular as textbooks in Christian schools. The bible then rather than psychology was Stroop’s life work. John Ridley Stroop retired in 1967. He spent 1967-1968 as Dean of Ohio Valley College in Parkersburg, Virginia, after which he took up the position of Emeritus Professor of Biblical Studies at David Lipscomb College (MacLeod, 1991a). He died on September 1, 1973 at the age of 76.

Stroop’s article has become one of the most cited articles in the history of experimental psychology. It has more than 700 studies seeking to explain some nuance of the Stroop effect along with thousands of others directly or indirectly influenced by this article (MacLeod, 1992). However, at the time of its publication, it had relatively little impact because it was published at the height of Behaviourism in America (MacLeod, 1991). For the next thirty years after its publication, almost no experimental investigations of the Stroop effect occurred. For instance, between 1935 and 1964, only 16 articles are cited that directly examined the Stroop effect. In 1960s, with the advent of information processing as the dominant perspective in cognitive psychology, Stroop's work was rediscovered. Since then, the annual number of studies rose quickly, until by 1969 the number of articles settled in at just over 20 annually, where it appears to have remained (MacLeod, 1992).

The discovery of the Stroop Effect and the development of this Color-Word task has had a lasting impact on cognitive psychology. As MacLeod (1991a) has noted, “There are few phenomena in psychology so robust that they appear in virtually every introductory text and are known by researchers in almost every sub-area of the discipline. The Stroop effect is one of these rare phenomena. John Ridley Stroop was a pioneer, instrumental in providing one of the tools most valued by cognitive psychologists. A half century later, the task that bears his name continues to be a challenging puzzle for experimental psychologists to solve. (MacLeod, 1991a)” This landmark cognitive task has been widely used to index attentional and linguistic processes. Understanding the Stroop effect may ultimately lead us to a fuller comprehension of how attention works and of the place of attention in a more general theory of cognition.

Donald Broadbent and Dichotic Listening
Donald E. Broadbent has been praised for his outstanding contributions to the field of psychology since the 1950s, most notably in the area of attention. In fact, despite the undeniable role that attention plays in almost all psychological processes, research in this area was neglected by psychologists for the first half of the twentieth century (Massaro, 1996). During that time, behaviourists ignored the role of attention in human behaviour. Behaviourism was characterized by a stimulus-response approach, emphasizing the association between a stimulus and a response, but without identifying the cognitive operations that lead to that response (Reed, 2000). Subsequently, in the mid-1950s, a growing number of psychologists became interested in the information-processing approach as opposed to the stimulus-response approach. It was Broadbent’s elaboration of the idea of the human organism as an information-processing system that lead to a systematic study of attention, and more generally, to the interrelation of scientific theory and practical application in the study of psychology.

Broadbent was born May 6, 1926, in Birmingham, England (American Psychological Association, 1976). He was originally interested in the natural sciences, and thus, when he joined the Royal Air Force (RAF) in 1944, he began his study of aeronautical engineering. As he spent time in the RAF he observed that human difficulties often arose from psychological, as opposed to physical, causes (Craik & Baddeley, 1995). More specifically, he noted that communication difficulties, such as problems listening to a specific stream of auditory information when presented with numerous streams, were frequently caused by inefficient processes of attention, perception, or memory, rather than by failures of hearing or technical equipment (Craik, 2000). Upon this observation, Broadbent’s interests changed from the subject of engineering to that of psychology.

At that time, however, the field of psychology was virtually unheard of in his home country of England. It was not until Broadbent travelled across the Atlantic to the United States for flying training that he discovered that psychology was being widely studied in North America (APA, 1976). After some time working in the personnel selection branch of the RAF, he began to study experimental psychology at Cambridge. Fortunately for Broadbent, and for scores of future psychologists, the psychology department at Cambridge was an especially suitable place for him due to its natural sciences orientation and its emphasis on practical application (Craik & Baddeley, 1995). Headed by Sir Frederic Bartlett, the department was enthusiastic to apply the cybernetic ideas of the late K .J. W. Craik, with the aim of understanding human behaviour in terms of control systems, to practical problems and psychological theory in general (APA, 1976). By sheer accident, but with fortunate advantage to the field of psychology, Broadbent’s interests in experimental psychology and practical application allowed him to find his place in the Applied Psychology Unit at Cambridge.

It was during his 25 years, from 1958 to 1974, as director of the Applied Psychology Unit that Broadbent was able to study and define models related to his interests in the effects of environmental stressors on cognitive performance, problems related to the detection and understanding of speech, and problems of selective listening and attention (Craik & Baddeley, 1995). Up to that time, most research had shown that noise did not influence performance on psychological tasks. Broadbent wondered, however, if noise would adversely influence performance on untraditional psychological tests (APA, 1976). For instance, he discovered that noise did have an effect on the vigilance tasks invented by N. H. Mackworth, however, these tasks were deliberately long and repetitive, making them tedious to study.

During that time, Broadbent also looked at the problems caused by communicating with gunnery and air control systems, in which many channels of speech communication were delivered at one time. In contrast to the vigilance studies, he found that this problem allowed for short and quick experiments, which contributed favourably to his study of attention and noise (APA, 1976). His work on communication systems indicated that most people spend their lives surrounded by many different types of stimuli, however, they cannot respond or describe the majority of them.

Not only were Broadbent’s contributions to experimental psychology noteworthy for attention research, they also contributed to belief in the need for societal relevance in research (Craik, 2000). It is perhaps through his background in natural sciences and engineering, and his subsequent practical work with the RAF on noise and communication, that Broadbent developed a particular admiration for applied psychological work. In addition, he had an informal speaking style when presenting lectures and essays, as well as used commonplace analogies to represent complicated ideas, which allowed society as a whole to consume his theories. For instance, when initially stated, his mechanical model of attention consisted of a Y-tube, in which two separate channels of ping-pong balls merge in a central channel protected by a filter that allows only one ball to enter (Massaro, 1996). Such an analogy clearly illustrated the limitations of human attention when attempting to attend to two auditory channels at the same time. As stated by Craik and Baddeley, “[Broadbent’s] psychology was intended for society and its problems, not merely for the dwellers in ivory towers” (1995, pp. 303).

After his death in 1993, numerous tributes and biographical acknowledgements were written in Broadbent’s honour. Above all, he is remembered for the unmistakable image that he projected of himself, as “the man, the scholar, the scientist, the philosopher of science, and of his commitments to empirical psychology, to explicit models or theories, and to the application of psychological knowledge to real-word problems” (Massaro, 1996, pp. 141). It is with this clear image in mind that a new generation of psychologists set forth, using Broadbent’s principles of experimental psychology as tools for practical application and research in the area of attention, and more broadly, all psychological processes that influence humankind.

Dichotic Listening Experiments
In 1952, Broadbent published his first report in a series of experiments that involved a dichotic listening paradigm. In that report, he was concerned with a person’s ability to answer one of two messages that were delivered at the same time, but one of which was irrelevant.

The participants were required to answer a series of Yes-No questions about a visual display over a radio-telephone. For example, the participant would be asked “S-1 from G.D.O. Is there a heart on Position 1?” Over,” to which the participant should answer “G.D.O. from S-1. Yes, over.” Participants in groups I, II, III, and IV heard two successive series of messages, in which two voices (G.D.O and Turret) spoke simultaneously during some of the messages. Only one of the voices was addressing S-1, and the other addressed S-2, S-3, S-4, S-5, or S-6. Participants were assigned to the following five groups:
 * Group I: instructed to answer the message for S-1 and ignore the other on both runs
 * Group II: instructed on one run to only answer the message from G.D.O. and on the second run was provided with a visual cue before the pairs of messages began for the name of the voice to be answered
 * Group III: were given the same directions as Group I on one run, and on the other run had the experimenter indicate the correct voice verbally after the two messages had reached the “over” stage
 * Group IV: had the correct voice indicated in all cases, but in one run it was before the messages began (like in Group II) and in the other run it was after the messages had finished (like in Group III)
 * Group V: under the same conditions as Group I, heard the same recordings as Groups I, II, III and IV, but then also heard a two new recordings. One recording had a voice that addressed S-1 and a voice that addressed T-2, T-3, T-4, T-5, or T-6 (thus the simultaneous messages were more distinct than for the other groups). The other recording had this same differentiation of messages, but also had both voices repeat the call-sign portion of the message (i.e., “S-1 from G.D.O., S-1 from G.D.O.)

For groups I and II, it is important to note that the overall proportion of failures to answer the correct message correctly was 52%. Results from Groups III and IV indicated that delaying knowledge of the correct voice until the message is completed makes that knowledge almost useless. More specifically, Broadbent (1952) stated:

 * “The present case is an instance of selection in perception (attention). Since the visual cue to the correct voice is useless when it arrives towards the ends of the message, it is clear that process of discarding part of the information contained in the mixed voices has already taken place…It seems possible that one of the two voices is selected for response without reference to its correctness, and that the other is ignored…If one of the two voices is selected (attended to) in the resulting mixture there is no guarantee that it will be the correct one, and both call signs cannot be perceived at once any more than both messages can be received and stored till a visual cue indicates the one to be answered”. (p. 55)

In 1954, Broadbent used the same procedure as discussed above with slight modifications. In that case, he found information that indicated the positive impact that spatial separation of the messages has on paying attention to and understanding the correct message. The dichotic listening paradigm has been utilized in numerous other publications, both by Broadbent and by other psychologists working in the field of cognition. For example, Cherry (1953) investigated how we can recognize what one person is saying when others are speaking at the same time, which be described as the “cocktail party problem” (p. 976). In his experiment, subjects listened to simultaneous messages and were instructed to repeat one of the messages word by word or phrase by phrase.

Information-Processing and The Filter Model of Attention
Cognitive psychology is often called human information processing, which reflects the approach taken by many cognitive psychologists in studying cognition. The stage approach, with the acquisition, storage, retrieval, and use of information in a number of separate stages, was influenced by the computer metaphor and the way people enter, store, and retrieve data from a computer (Reed, 2000). The stages in an information-processing model are:
 * Sensory Store: brief storage for information in its original sensory form
 * Filter: part of attention in which some perceptual information is blocked out and not recognized, while othere information is attended to and recognized
 * Pattern Recognition: stage in which a stimulus is recognized
 * Selection: stage that determines what information a person will try to remember
 * Short-Term Memory: memory with limited capacity, that lasts for about 20–30 seconds without attending to its content
 * Long-Term Memory: memory that has no capacity limit and lasts from minutes to a lifetime

Using an information-processing approach, Broadbent collected data on attention (Reed, 2000). He used a dichotic listening paradigm (see above section), asking participants to listen simultaneously to messages played in each ear, and based on the difficulty that participants had in listening to the simultaneous messages, proposed that a listener can attend to only one message at a time (Broadbent, 1952; Broadbent, 1954). More specifically, he asked enlisted men in England's Royal Army to listen to three pairs of digits. One digit from each pair was presented to one ear at the same time that the other digit from the pair was presented to the other ear. The subjects were asked to recall the digits in whatever order they chose, and almost all of the correct reports involved recalling all of the digits presented to one ear, followed by all the digits presented to the other ear. A second group of participants were asked to recall the digits in the order they were presented (i.e., as pairs). Performance was worse than when they were able to recall all digits from one ear and then the other.

To account for these findings, Broadbent hypothesized that the mechanism of attention was controlled by two components: a selective device or filter located early in the nervous system, and a temporary buffer store that precedes the filter (Broadbent, 1958). He proposed that the filter was tuned to one channel or the other, in an all-or-nothing manner. Broadbent’s filter model, described in his book Perception and Communication (1958), was one of the first information-processing models to be examined by psychologists.

Shortly after, it was discovered that if the unattended message became highly meaningful (for example, hearing one’s name as in Cherry's Cocktail Party Effect, as mentioned above), then attention would switch automatically to the new message. This result led to the paradox that the content of the message is understood before it is selected, indicating that Broadbent needed to revise his theory (Craik & Baddeley, 1995). Broadbent did not shy away from this task. In fact, he saw all scientific theories as temporary statements, a method of integrating current evidence in a coherent manner. According to Craik and Baddeley, (1995), although Broadbent always presented his current theories firmly and persuasively, he never took the position of obstinately defending an outmoded theory. When he published his second book on the topic, Decision and Stress (1971), he used his filter model as the starting point, to which he applied modifications and added concepts “to accommodate new findings that the model itself had stimulated” (Massaro, 1996, pp. 141). Despite its inconsistencies with emerging findings, the filter model remains the first and most influential information-processing model of human cognition.

Anne Treisman and Feature Integration Theory
Anne Treisman is one of the most influential cognitive psychologists in the world today. For over four decades, she has been has using innovative research methods to define fundamental issues in the area of attention and perception. Best known for her Feature Integration Theory (1980, 1986), Treisman’s hypotheses about the mechanisms involved in information processing have formed a starting point for many theorists in this area of research.

Anne Treisman (née Taylor) was born on February 27, 1935 in Wakefield, Yorkshire, England (Anon, 1991). Through the war years, Treisman lived with her family in a village near Rochester, Kent, where her father, Percy Taylor, worked as chief education officer. Forced by the English educational system to choose only three subjects to study throughout secondary school, Treisman’s studies focused on the language arts, a choice which would shape much of her post-secondary pursuits (Anon, 1991).

It was at Cambridge University that Treisman first discovered the pleasures of intellectual exchange. Studying modern languages, she obtained a first class BA with distinction, which earned her a research scholarship (Anon, 1991; Treisman, 2006). However, faced with the prospect of research on a relatively unknown author, Treisman decided to use her scholarship to obtain a second BA in psychology instead. Under the supervision of Richard Gregory, Treisman completed this second degree in one extra year (Anon, 1991). Gregory’s influence on Treisman was profound; in this year, she was introduced to various methods of exploring the mind through experiments in perception, igniting in her the enthusiasm for research that she maintains to this day (Anon, 1991).

In 1957, Treisman began working toward her DPh at Oxford University, under the supervision of Carolus Oldfield (Anon, 1991). She conducted research on aphasia and considered pursing a career in clinical psychology. However, Treisman soon realized that she lacked the appropriate training to effectively help patients and, unwilling to simply use her patients as subjects in graduate research, Treisman’s clinical career aspirations faded. Around the same time, information theory was shifting psychologists’ view of the mind from the traditional behaviourist view of the mind as a switchboard to that of an active processor of information (Goldstein, 2005). Donald Broadbent and Colin Cherry had recently published groundbreaking papers introducing selective listening (also known as the “cocktail party problem”), which launched the cognitive revolution (Broadbent, 1954; Cherry, 1953). Broadbent’s Filter Model of selective attention (1958), also referred to as an early selection model, proposed that unattended information is filtered out early in the process of auditory perception, that is, before incoming information is analyzed to determine its meaning. While this theory was tremendously influential, and could account for much of the cocktail party problem, it has been criticized for being too “inflexible” (e.g., this theory could not explain why unattended information occasionally gets through to consciousness). Guided by Donald Broadbent's book Perception and Communication (1958), Treisman began using a two-channel tape recorder (that she had been using to test aphasics) to conduct research on auditory attention in the normal population (Anon, 1991). After three years of research, she married Michel Treisman, another Oxford graduate student. Two years later, in 1962, she completed her thesis on selective attention and speech perception that earned her the DPh degree (Treisman, 2006).

Treisman spent the next four years working in the Medical Research Council Psycholinguistics Research Unit, conducting more research in selective listening (Anon, 1991). In 1964, Treisman proposed an influential theory that addressed some of the “inflexibility” of Broadbent’s Filter model. This was Treisman’s Attenuation Theory, whereby processing of unattended information is attenuated or reduced, rather than completely filtered out, accounting for the fact that unattended information sometimes reached consciousness. Further, her model proposed that information processing occurs in a hierarchical manner, with processing of physical characteristics occurring at an early stage (e.g., pitch, or tone of voice) and semantic processing at a later point (Treisman, 1964, 1969).

In 1967, while Treisman worked as a visiting scientist in the psychology department at Bell Telephone Laboratories, she published an influential paper in Psychological Review that was central to the development of selective attention as a scientific field of study. This paper articulated many of the fundamental issues that continue to guide studies of attention to this day. While at Bell, Treisman’s research interests began to expand (Anon, 1991). Although she remained intrigued by the role of attention on auditory perception, she was now also fascinated by the way this construct modulates perception in the visual modality.

In the following years, Treisman returned to Oxford, where she accepted a position as University lecturer in the Psychology Department and was appointed a Fellow of St. Anne’s College (Treisman, 2006). Here, she began to explore the notion that attention is involved in integrating separate features to form visual perceptual representations of objects. Using a stopwatch and her children as research participants, she found that the search for a red ‘X’ among red ‘Os’ and blue ‘Xs’ was slow and laborious compared to the search for either shape or colour alone (Gazzaniga et al., 2002). These findings were corroborated by results from testing adult participants in the laboratory and provided the basis of a new research program, where Treisman conducted experiments exploring the relationships between feature integration, attention and object perception (Triesman & Gelade, 1980).

In 1976, Treisman’s marriage to Michel Treisman ended. She remarried in 1978, to Daniel Kahneman, a fellow psychologist who would go on to win the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2002. Shortly thereafter, Treisman and Kahneman accepted positions at the University of British Columbia, Canada. In 1980, Treisman and Gelade published a seminal paper proposing her enormously influential Feature Integration Theory (FIT). Treisman’s research demonstrated that during the early stages of object perception, early vision encodes features such as color, form, and orientation as separate entities (in "feature maps") (Treisman, 1986). Focused attention to these features recombines the separate features resulting in correct object perception. In the absence of focused attention, these features can bind randomly to form illusory conjunctions (Treisman & Schmidt, 1982; Treisman, 1986). Feature integration theory has had an overarching impact both within and outside the area of psychology.

In the early 1980s, neuroscientists were discovering that the primate visual cortex contained areas where neurons were specifically tuned to selective features (e.g., orientation, luminance, colour, shape etc.) (Gazzaniga et al., 2002). These findings perplexed the neuroscience community who was now faced with the question of how the brain solves the “binding problem” (i.e., how does the visual system recombine these disconnected features into unified wholes). Treisman approached this problem by testing patients with selective attention problems. She and her colleagues were first to demonstrate that the binding problem could present itself in everyday life and that one of its solutions involved spatial attention (Treisman and Schmidt, 1982; Goldstein, 2005). Treisman’s theory has had a tremendous impact, providing a starting point for a great number of experiments in the areas of cognitive psychology, vision science, imaging, neuropsychology and cognitive neuroscience.

In 1984, Treisman was made Fellow of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research in their program of artificial intelligence (Treisman, 2006). The fellowship allowed Treisman to collaborate closely with computer scientists who approached the study of perception from a different angle. Two years later, Treisman and Kahneman moved to the University of California, Berkeley, where they were both professors in the Psychology Department (Treisman, 2006). In 1989, Treisman was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society, London, and in 1990, she was awarded the Howard Crosby Warren medal of the Society for Experimental Psychologists. In 1993, Treisman accepted a position as a professor in the Psychology Department at Princeton University in New Jersey, where she still conducts research to this day. Along with her numerous graduate students, Treisman continues to tackle some of the more challenging questions in cognitive psychology.

Treisman continues to receive numerous prestigious awards recognizing her invaluable contributions to the study of perception and attention, including the William James Fellowship of the American Psychological Society (2002) and a D.Sc., granted honoris causa, from the University of British Columbia (2004). Clearly, Anne Treisman has been a key figure in the establishment of cognitive psychology as a science, and a significant contributor to its evolution.

Feature Integration Theory Experiments
According to Treisman’s Feature Integration Theory perception of objects is divided into two stages:

Pre-Attentive Stage:The first stage in perception is so named because it happens automatically, without effort or attention by the perceiver. In this stage, an object is analyzed into its features (i.e., colour, texture, shapes etc.). Treisman suggests that the reason we are unaware of the breakdown of an object into its elementary features is that this analysis occurs early in the perceptual processes, before we have become conscious of the object.

Evidence: Treisman created a display of four objects flanked by two black numbers. This display was flashed on a screen for one-fifth of a second and followed by a random dot masking field in order to eliminate residual perception of the stimuli. Participants were asked to report the numbers first, followed by what they saw at each of the four locations where the shapes had been. In 18 percent of trials, participants reported seeing objects that consisted of a combination of features from two different stimuli (i.e., colour and shape). The combinations of features from different stimuli are called illusory conjunctions (Treisman and Schmidt, 1982). The experiment also showed that these illusory conjunctions could occur even if the stimuli differ greatly in shape and size.

According to Treisman, illusory conjunctions occur because early in the perceptual process, features may exist independently of one another, and can therefore be incorrectly combined in laboratory settings when briefly flashed stimuli are followed by a masking field (Treisman, 1986).

Focused Attention Stage: During this second stage of perception features are recombined to form whole objects.

Evidence: Treisman repeated the illusory conjunction experiment, but this time, participants were instructed to ignore the flanking numbers, and to focus their attention on the four target objects. Results demonstrated that this focused attention eliminated illusory conjunctions, so that all shapes were paired with their correct colours (Treisman and Schmidt, 1982). The experiment demonstrates the role of attention in the correct perception of objects.


text:
User:209.212.21.17

North Edison Library.

title: User:209.212.21.17


text: Quantum Mechanics/Grand Unification?

title: Quantum Mechanics/Grand Unification?


text:
Logic for Computer Scientists/Predicate Logic/Strategies for Resolution

5.8.1 Linear Resolution 5.8.2 Input and Unit Resolution 5.8.3 SLD-Resolution 5.8.4 A Prolog-like Implementation 5.8.5 Iterative Deepening


text:
Talk:Digital Photography/Introduction

Digital versus traditional? You mean "Digital capture, processing and display versus non-digital capture, processing and display", right?
Sorry, but digital IS "traditional" for people who've never used or seen anything else. Perhaps you mean "historic" or "analog" or "current technical generation versus previous technical generations(s)". There's a similar problem in organized academically supported medicine practice versus traditional medicine, which they call "alternative" even though it's been the "traditional" health and healing mainstay for thousands of years longer than the new fangled "medial" stuff. Naming things clearly, unambiguously, timelessly, is a challenge, I know, but I think it's worth it. Give it a try. "Digital capture, processing and display versus non-digital capture, processing and display". There, that even suggests a structure upon which to hang the contents. Many people capture digitally, don't process at all (that they know of) and only see and share (display) digitally. Some people capture non-digitally (or have years of non-digital capture already archived as slides, negatives and prints), want to process and print digitally, and expect to display non-digitally a print they can sell and frame and cherish "just like" the prints they get from the local photo lab (which nowadays are digitally processed and printed, also!). Should I edit your "module" pages or will you revisit them with new eyes? Thanks. -- Peter Blaise Peterblaise 19:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Where are the pictures of digital photography?
Why no illustrations? Isn't photography a visual language? Yeah, I know, if I want something, contribute it! ;-) -- Peter Blaise Peterblaise 19:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Cost Differences
The cost differences between digital and film photography are exaggerated greatly in this article. At a processing cost of roughly $15-$20 USD per roll of 24-exposure film, any serious aspiring photographer that takes a significant number of pictures will quickly find digital photography to be one or two orders of magnitude cheaper than film photography. Yes, the bodies are more expensive, but once the sunk cost of the body is incurred, the cost per photo is drastically lower, regardless of how you compare. If you consider all photos taken, then the cost of keeping digital photos is equal to the proportion of the going rate for hard drive space occupied. If you consider just the "keepers", the difference grows even more stark because all film photographs have to be developed and mounted as slides or printed, even the misses and bad shots. When this cost is amortized over just the keepers, hundreds of thousands of developed photos may have to be taken in order to acquire a single "keeper". In the digital world, just that one keeper would be printed.

title: Talk:Digital Photography/Introduction


text:
Cherokee/Syllabary

Before you continue with learning the Cherokee language, it is important to be able to read and write in Cherokee. That is what this lesson will help you with.

The Cherokee language does not use a alphabet, but a syllabary. That means each Cherokee symbol represents a syllable, not just a consonant or a vowel. Because of this, Cherokee symbols are arranged in a chart, with a column for each Cherokee vowel and a row for each Cherokee consonant.

Below is a chart of the Cherokee Syllabary:

Sounds Represented by Vowels

IPA-sound-representations in [].
 * a (as in father, or short as in rival)[a~ɑ]
 * e (as in hate, or short as in met)[ɛ~e]
 * i (as in pique, or short as in pit)[i~ɪ]
 * o (as in law, or short as in not)[ɔ~o]
 * u (as in fool, or short as in pull)[ʊ~u]
 * v (as in but, nasalized)[ʌ̃]

Exercises
/Yet to come: A good exercise would be to have a whole bunch of words in Cherokee syllabary, and the student can transliterate them, and then check the answer's--and vice versa./

 * Example: o-si-yo (hello). First write the syllable for o then si then yo.
 * Example 2: ᎠᎹ(a-ma') (water). First write the syllable for Ꭰ(a) and then for Ꮉ(ma).

Learning the Cherokee Syllabary is a important part of learning the Cherokee language. Hopefully after these exercises you have gotten familiar with them. You'll continue to get more and more familiar with constant use, and all the next lessons will be in the Syllabary. Don't get discouraged though, if you don't completely know the Syllabary yet. The next few lessons will have the Latin transcription side by side with the syllabary to help you. But pay attention to the syllabary, as the transliteration will slowly be phased out.

One of the better ways to learn the Syllabary is by writing the letters out individually by dictation.

One source of Cherokee Syllabary dictation is: http://www.cherokeelessons.com/Super-Cherokee-Syllabary-Dictation-Practice/

title: Cherokee/Syllabary


text:
User talk:65.94.9.133

Thanks for experimenting with Wikibooks. Your test worked, and has now been removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing material in modules will normally be removed quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our project. Thanks.

Xania talk 20:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:65.94.9.133


text:
User talk:216.78.164.141

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikibooks.

Xania talk 20:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:216.78.164.141


text:
Cherokee/Lesson 1

Lesson 1: Basic Greeting
Perhaps this lesson should be expanded.

Dialogue

 * Jane: ᎣᏏᏲ, ᏙᎯᏧ? o-si-yo, to-hi-tsu? (English: hello, how are you?)
 * John: ᎣᏍᏓ, ᏂᎯᎾ? o-s-da, ni-hi-na? (English: good, and you?)
 * Jane: ᎣᏍᏓᏛ o-s-da-dv (English: good)
 * John: ᎰᏩ! ho-wa! (English: alright!)
 * Jane: ᎦᏙ ᏕᏣᏙᎠ? Ga-do de-tsa-do-a? (English: What is your name?)
 * John: ᏣᏂ ᏓᏆᏙᎠ tsa-ni da-gwa-do-a (English: I am called John)
 * Jane: ᎭᏢ ᎯᏁᎳ? ha-tlv hi-ne-la? (English: Where do you live?)
 * John: ᏓᎵᏆ ᏥᏁᎳ. da-li-gwa tsi-ne-la (English: I live in Tahlequa)

Exercise
Unless you have printed this out, get a clean piece of paper. Without looking at the top, fill in the Cherokee words. (In syllabary as far as you remember, and in Latin)

 * Jane: (1)_______________ (hello, how are you?)
 * John: (2)_________________ (good, and you?)
 * Jane: (3)________ (fine) (in reply to the second person)
 * John: (4)_______ (alright!)

Answers: Here are the answers for questions 1-4: (1) ᎣᏏᏲ, ᏙᎯᏧ? o-si-yo, to-hi-tsu (2) ᎣᏍᏓ, ᏂᎯᎾ? o-s-da, ni-hi-na? (3) ᎣᏍᏓᏛ o-s-da-dv (4)ᎰᏩ! ho-wa!

Notes for those who correct the book

 * ᎣᏏᏧ (O-si-tsu) mean "I am fine"
 * ᏂᎾ (ni-na) or ᏂᎯᎾ (ni-hi-na) for And You?
 * ᏓᏆᏙᎠ da-gwa-to-a or ᏓᏆᏙ 'da-gwa-do''

title: Cherokee/Lesson 1


text:
User talk:196.47.93.50

Thanks for experimenting with Wikibooks. Your test worked, and has now been removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing material in modules will normally be removed quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our project. Thanks.

Xania talk 20:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:196.47.93.50