Fragments of Notes

“Improving Teaching Through Teaching Portfolio Revisions: A Context and Case for Reflective Practice.” by John Zumizarreta, Inspiring Teaching, pp 123-133.

The Automaticity of Affect for Political Candidates, Parties, and Issues: An Experimental Test of the Hot Cognition Hypothesis,” by Milton Lodge and Charles Taber, Unpublished Manuscript,

The Neural Basis of Economic Decision-Making in the Ultimatum Game,” by Alan Sanfey et al, Science, 13 June 2003, Vol 300 pp 1755-1758,

Notes from three articles for two seminars, today. They appear below the fold, so I’ll put up a rand above the fold:

Incompetence, combined with an uncovered-within-seconds coverup, by an office I rarely interact with soured my morning and threatened to derail a timely graduation. It is karmically balanced by unexpected kindness and generosity from a department I rarely interact with, but it still smarts…. Grr.

“For example, a recent draft of my own portfolio — written exclusively for my improvement — includes the following areas:
1. Statement of Teaching Responsibilities
2. Teaching Philosophy
3. Analysis of Strategies, Methods
4. Teaching Materials: Syllabi, Handouts, Exams, Essay Topics, Reading Lists, Web Pages and Sites
5. Collaborative Scholarship with Students
6. Assessment of Student Learning
7. Examination of Student Ratings
8. Survey of Peer, Chair, Dean Evaluations
9. Study of Impact of Improvement Activities: Conferences, Workshops, Committees
10. Teaching Goals” (Zumizarreta 126)

“Find ways of making reuired assessment and evaluation activities integral dimensions of portfolio revisions…” (Zumizarreta 131)

Standard economic models of human decision making (such as utility theory) have typically minimized or ignored the influence of emotions on people’s decision-making behavior, idealizing the decision-maker as a perfectly rational cognitive machine. (Sanfey et al 2003 1755)

The latter, quite robust, experimental finding is particularly intriguing, demonstrating that circumstances exist in which people are motivated to actively turn down monetary reward. (Sanfey et al 2003 1755)

On the basis of participant reports, it appears that low offers are often rejected after an angry reaction to an offer perceived as unfair. (Sanfey et al 2003 1756)

Unfair offers of $2 or $1 made by human partners were rejected at a significantly higher rate than those offers made by a computer… suggesting that participants had a stronger emotional reaction to unfair offers from humans than to the same offers from a computer. (Sanfey et al 2003 1756)

One clear expectation — given that affect permeates all thinking and reasoning — is that most citizens most of the time will be biased reasoners, finding it difficult to evaluate new, attitude-relevant information in an evenhanded way (Redlawsk, 2002).
(Lodge and Taber 1-2)

Note first that the self is the strongest node in the network and that identity (here, female, black) and self-esteem are the strongest links in the network.
(Lodge and Taber 4)

Critical to the hot cognition postulate is that one’s feelings are triggered automatically on the mere presentation of the concept; accordingly, the predicted facilitation and inhibition effects should only show up in the short SOA condition when priming activation is at peak.
(Lodge and Taber 14)