Rationality as a Goal of Education

Abstract Those who believe education should involve more than learning facts often stress either (a) development or (b) thinking skills. A focus on development as a goal of education typically entails a conception of knowledge as organismic, holistic, and internally generated. In contrast, thinking skills programs commonly assume a mechanistic, reductionist perspective in which good thinking consists of some finite number of directly teachable skills. A conception of rationality as a goal of education is proposed that incorporates the complementary strengths and avoids the limitations of the developmental and thinking skills approaches. Rationality is defined as the self-reflective, intentional, and appropriate coordination and use of genuine reasons in generating and justifying beliefs and behavior. Philosophically, rationality is a justifiable goal of education, not only because it is a means to worthwhile ends but because it is an important end in itself and because it can be promoted via non-indoctrinative means. A psychological account of progressive rationality is provided that postulates continuing multiple interactions of (a) domain-specific developmental stages, (b) the learning of specific thinking skills, and (c) content-specific knowledge. Suggestions are made for fostering rationality at various educational levels. Finally, it is argued that the proposed conception of rationality as a goal of education complements and clarifies a variety of other educational goals

Abnormal Dosage Compensation of Reporter Genes Driven by the Drosophila Glass Multiple Reporter (GMR) Enhancer-Promoter

In Drosophila melanogaster the male specific lethal (MSL) complex is required for upregulation of expression of most X-linked genes in males, thereby achieving X chromosome dosage compensation. The MSL complex is highly enriched across most active X-linked genes with a bias towards the 3′ end. Previous studies have shown that gene transcription facilitates MSL complex binding but the type of promoter did not appear to be important. We have made the surprising observation that genes driven by the glass multiple reporter (GMR) enhancer-promoter are not dosage compensated at X-linked sites. The GMR promoter is active in all cells in, and posterior to, the morphogenetic furrow of the developing eye disc. Using phiC31 integrase-mediated targeted integration, we measured expression of lacZ reporter genes driven by either the GMR or armadillo (arm) promoters at each of three X-linked sites. At all sites, the arm-lacZ reporter gene was dosage compensated but GMR-lacZ was not. We have investigated why GMR-driven genes are not dosage compensated. Earlier or constitutive expression of GMR-lacZ did not affect the level of compensation. Neither did proximity to a strong MSL binding site. However, replacement of the hsp70 minimal promoter with a minimal promoter from the X-linked 6-Phosphogluconate dehydrogenase gene did restore partial dosage compensation. Similarly, insertion of binding sites for the GAGA and DREF factors upstream of the GMR promoter led to significantly higher lacZ expression in males than females. GAGA and DREF have been implicated to play a role in dosage compensation. We conclude that the gene promoter can affect MSL complex-mediated upregulation and dosage compensation. Further, it appears that the nature of the basal promoter and the presence of binding sites for specific factors influence the ability of a gene promoter to respond to the MSL complex

Mapping Peptidergic Cells in Drosophila: Where DIMM Fits In

The bHLH transcription factor DIMMED has been associated with the differentiation of peptidergic cells in Drosophila. However, whether all Drosophila peptidergic cells express DIMM, and the extent to which all DIMM cells are peptidergic, have not been determined. To address these issues, we have mapped DIMM expression in the central nervous system (CNS) and periphery in the late larval stage Drosophila. At 100 hr after egg-laying, DIMM immunosignals are largely congruent with a dimm-promoter reporter (c929-GAL4) and they present a stereotyped pattern of 306 CNS cells and 52 peripheral cells. We assigned positional values for all DIMM CNS cells with respect to reference gene expression patterns, or to patterns of secondary neuroblast lineages. We could assign provisional peptide identities to 68% of DIMM-expressing CNS cells (207/306) and to 73% of DIMM-expressing peripheral cells (38/52) using a panel of 24 markers for Drosophila neuropeptide genes. Furthermore, we found that DIMM co-expression was a prevalent feature within single neuropeptide marker expression patterns. Of the 24 CNS neuropeptide gene patterns we studied, six patterns are >90% DIMM-positive, while 16 of 22 patterns are >40% DIMM-positive. Thus most or all DIMM cells in Drosophila appear to be peptidergic, and many but not all peptidergic cells express DIMM. The co-incidence of DIMM-expression among peptidergic cells is best explained by a hypothesis that DIMM promotes a specific neurosecretory phenotype we term LEAP. LEAP denotes Large cells that display Episodic release of Amidated Peptides