# data[].attributes.body
Both texts mention "transfer", and even though the term has multiple meanings in different contexts, there is a shared theme at work.
In HLW, transfer of knowledge is key; from prior knowledge to working knowledge. Chapter One points out that learning is a process. It is active and learner-centered. A key component to learning is transfer of prior knowledge to a new educational setting and demand.
How teachers gauge, recognize, structure and enhance this knowledge is critical to students' success.
The authors also touch on linguistic "transfer" and draw an analogy between LI linguistic structures helping or hindering L2 language acquisition. As an ESL teacher, this has always been a double-edged sword in the classroom. One's L1 can be both a curse and a blessing when learning another language. Just as one's prior knowledge, if appropriate, accurate and organized, can be extremely helpful in acquiring new knowledge, it can also hinder that acquisition if it is none of the above.

# data[].attributes.body
In Chapter 1 of ELW,  deeper leaning is defined as, "the process through which an individual becomes capable of taking what was learned in one situation and applying it to new situations (i.e., transfer)." The theme of transfer is rooted in the notion that deeper learning by definition is transferring "old" learning to "new" situations. This is very similar to the idea of prior knowledge transferring to current knowledge.
The means by which we achieve deeper learning is through the competencies gained through cognition, inter and intrapersonal domains. The connection is later made in Chapter 2 that 21st Century Skills are "knowledge that can be transferred or applied in new situations." This fits well with the idea that what we are really trying to do as teachers is not transfer knowledge, per se, but transform how students use knowledge to learn.

# data[].attributes.body
Anthony and me getting ready for Halloween way too early! I'd like to share this response via audio, just to change things up a little.

# data[].attributes.body
A different purpose

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Now for something completely different...

# data[].attributes.body
I'm intrigued by the idea of how to dispel misconceptions. I really enjoyed reading this part in HLW because it seems like such a part of human nature to resist changing long-held beliefs. I suppose there is some evolutionary or cultural principle behind this resistance. The text mentions that it is difficult to change misconceptions because sometimes they are correct, they are long-held and they are reinforced. The solution proposed in the writing is "bridging" that gap with similar knowledge that is correct and appropriate. Using practical argumentation, reasoning and rational dialogue can also help students give up misconceptions. In today's political and social climate (where rational dialogue seems forsaken to the ash heap of history) this teaching and learning skill is even more critical.

# data[].attributes.body
I am equally fascinated with how the brain organizes knowledge. Like a maze, our thoughts connect with each other, but how? HLW points out that organization of knowledge is contextual and culturally dependent. I think it is fair to say it is linguistically dependent as well. How a student organizes knowledge is equally as important as the knowledge itself. After all, if you cannot access it, it is useless. Luckily for us teachers, there are ways to help with this organization. HLW suggests a few, such as: helping students to see patterns, concept maps, providing explicit organizational structures and a host of others. Sometimes we cannot see the forest for the trees, as our organizational structures of knowledge are complex and built from years of experience. Our students' are not. They need guidance in creating organizational patterns that work for them.

# data[].attributes.headline
Let your "Conscientiousness" be your guide.

# data[].attributes.subject
Let your "Conscientiousness" be your guide.

# data[].attributes.body
In ELW there is some very interesting research regarding the effect that cognition, inter and intrapersonal skills have on education and life outcomes.

The most noteworthy meta-analysis of these kinds of data is by Poropat (2009), who examined studies of the simple correlations between personality factors and school grades in primary, secondary, and higher education.1 He found a significant positive association between conscientiousness and grades in primary school through college (p. 54)

The authors' conclusion is that of all the inter and intrapersonal competencies, conscientiousness has the highest correlation with academic and life success. If this is true, shouldn't we teachers be focusing on this idea of conscientiousness? But what exactly is that in the context of learning and education? Does it simply mean responsibility? Reliability? Planning? Discipline? In my experience, these are truly gifted to only rare individuals. The rest of us have to learn and practice these as skills, not traits that we are born with. If I can make this a focus of my teaching, it will help my students succeed. How to do this is the real trick. I think the first step is acknowledging its importance and then making it a priority in teaching methods. Not an easy task. We have to learn to be conscientious, but we must be conscientious to learn. A true paradox.

# data[].attributes.body
If cognition is less important than interpersonal and intrapersonal skills for academic and life success, how do we teachers impact change of curricula that is heavily weighted in favor of the former and negligible with regard to the latter?

# data[].attributes.body
If the authors of HLW text were forced to rank the importance of social, linguistic, cultural and academic prior knowledge in regard to which help and which hinder new knowledge and why, I wonder what that ranking would look like?

# data[].attributes.body
I would like to know from a psychologist's perspective what the very first knowledge organizational patterns and structures look like in the infant brain (without having to open up any of those brains, of course). Do they begin before birth, in response to sound and touch? Are they acquired along the lines of sensory inputs? Perhaps sound and touch first, followed later by smell, taste and sight? What do those patterns look like? If they have anomolies in them (like perhaps an autistic child might have), what causes these anomolies and how might they be remedied? How might such irregular patterns affect future learning?