1788: "What the Gateway Process Actually Proved"
Interesting Things with JC #1788: "What the Gateway Process Actually Proved"
An Army officer examined Gateway in 1983. Decades later, his report circulates as CIA proof of manifestation. Somewhere between those two events, an assessment became an answer it never established.
Curriculum - Episode Anchor
Series: Interesting Things with JC™
Episode Title: What the Gateway Process Actually Proved
Episode Number: 1788
Host: JC
Audience: Grades 9–12, introductory college, homeschool, lifelong learners
Subject Areas: Psychology, scientific reasoning, history, English language arts, information literacy
Access: Free curriculum materials available on the website, no login, no paywall.
Classroom Use: Free classroom use with attribution to Interesting Things with JC™ and Jim Connors LLC. No resale.
Essential Question: How can we distinguish a documented claim from demonstrated evidence, and how might thought influence outcomes through behavior?
Central Takeaway: A government document can establish what someone investigated or believed without proving that explanation correct. Research on attention, memory, and planning provides a separate way to investigate how thoughts can influence actions and outcomes.
Lesson Overview
Lesson Length: 60 minutes, with an optional extension
Instructional Approach: Audio-first inquiry, primary-source analysis, causal reasoning, evidence-based writing
Prerequisite Knowledge: Basic understanding of claims and evidence; no background in quantum physics required
Learning Objectives
Identify the author, institutional origin, and purpose of the 1983 Gateway assessment.
Explain why declassification does not constitute scientific validation.
Distinguish documented history, proposed mechanisms, research findings, and illustrative examples.
Explain mental rehearsal, prospective memory, and implementation intentions.
Construct a testable comparison with a defined intervention, comparison condition, and measurable outcome.
Develop an evidence-based argument that acknowledges uncertainty and alternative explanations.
Success Criteria
I can distinguish what a document says from what its evidence demonstrates.
I can explain a possible behavioral pathway between thought and outcome.
I can convert a general goal into a specific cue-action plan.
I can identify evidence that would strengthen or weaken a proposed explanation.
Evidence Boundary
The episode’s business example is hypothetical. Its concluding behavioral explanation is a plausible interpretation, not a controlled finding from McDonnell’s report. Evidence supporting a particular planning technique does not validate every component or claim of Gateway.
Key Vocabulary
Declassification (dee-klas-uh-fih-KAY-shun): Removal of a government security classification. It does not establish that the document’s claims are scientifically correct.
Provenance (PROV-uh-nuhns): A source’s origin and history, including who created it and where it has been preserved.
Primary source: Original material from the period, event, or investigation being studied. A primary source can contain speculation, errors, or unsupported conclusions.
Scientific validation: Evaluation of a claim through appropriate evidence, methods, measurement, and critical scrutiny.
Mechanism (MEK-uh-niz-um): A process that explains how a proposed cause produces an effect.
Mental rehearsal: Mentally practicing an action or sequence before performing it.
Prospective memory (pruh-SPEK-tiv): Remembering to carry out an intended action later.
Implementation intention: A plan linking a recognizable situation with a specific action: “If this happens, then I will do that.”
Focus 10: A Gateway program label describing a state characterized as “mind awake/body asleep.”
Focus 12: A Gateway program label describing expanded awareness. The label itself does not establish an independently measured scientific state.
Patterning: The goal-focused exercise described in the Gateway report, involving the mental representation of a desired outcome.
Confounding variable: Another factor that could account for an apparent relationship between an intervention and an outcome.
Replication: Repeating an investigation to examine whether its findings can be obtained again.
Confirmation bias: Giving greater attention or weight to information that supports an existing expectation.
Narrative Core
Historical Anchor
In 1983, Lieutenant Colonel Wayne M. McDonnell prepared an Army assessment of the Gateway Experience. Its later inclusion in the CIA’s declassified collection created an opportunity for readers to confuse archival custody with scientific endorsement. The document’s authorship, preservation, and evidentiary value are separate questions. [1–2]
Central Problem
An authentic document can contain an unverified explanation. The presence of official letterhead, technical language, or a government archive does not replace the evidence needed to demonstrate a mechanism.
Comparing Explanations
The same outcome can have different possible explanations. Imagine someone visualizes starting a successful business and later gains customers. What caused that result?
1. Direct Influence Through Thought
The person believes that imagining customers directly helped bring them into their life, without any action connecting the thought to the result.
To support that explanation, researchers would need controlled, repeatable evidence that rules out ordinary actions, chance, and other explanations. The Gateway report does not establish this.
2. Changes in Behavior
Imagining the business might lead the person to prepare a sales pitch, contact potential customers, or follow up on an opportunity. Those actions could help produce the result.
To test this explanation, researchers would track whether the exercise changed the person’s actions and whether those actions contributed to gaining customers.
3. Selective Interpretation
The person might remember occasions when their imagined outcome happened while overlooking occasions when it did not. That could make visualization seem more consistently effective than it was.
To investigate this explanation, researchers would record predictions before outcomes occur and track both successes and failures.
Key Question: Did thought directly influence the event, change the person’s behavior, or affect how the person interpreted what happened? A successful outcome alone cannot tell us which explanation is correct.
Resolution
A successful outcome does not, by itself, reveal what caused it. The lesson asks students to evaluate competing explanations, including the episode’s own behavioral interpretation.
Square educational cover graphic on aged cream paper. At the top, small black text reads “Interesting Things with JC #1788.” Below, large black and gold text reads “What the Gateway Process Actually Proved.” The center features a vintage scientific illustration of a human head surrounded by intersecting geometric planes, grids, axes, and measurement lines, suggesting the Gateway Process concepts of consciousness and altered awareness. Smaller technical diagrams and waveform graphics appear along the sides. The lower third is intentionally left mostly blank with a lightly weathered paper texture.
Transcript
Interesting Things with JC #1788:
“What the Gateway Process Actually Proved”
In June of 1983, Lieutenant Colonel Wayne M. McDonnell of U.S. Army Intelligence submitted a 29-page report called “Analysis and Assessment of Gateway Process.” He had been asked to examine the Gateway Experience, a Monroe Institute training system using relaxation, sound, meditation, and altered states of awareness. McDonnell went through the training himself, then tried to explain what might be happening.
The report eventually became part of the CIA’s declassified document collection, and that association helped create a persistent claim: that the CIA proved manifestation is real. But that isn’t what the document shows. McDonnell was an Army intelligence officer conducting an assessment. Declassification means the document was released to the public; it does not mean the CIA scientifically validated the theories inside it.
And those theories went far beyond visualization. McDonnell explored brain synchronization, resonance, quantum mechanics, consciousness, and a holographic model of reality. Gateway moved participants through different states of awareness, including Focus 10, described as “mind awake/body asleep,” where the body was deeply relaxed while awareness remained active. From there came Focus 12, described as expanded awareness, and an exercise called patterning.
In McDonnell’s description, a person in Focus 12 concentrated on a desired physical, emotional, or intellectual objective, experienced it as though it had already been achieved, and projected that mental pattern outward.
That sounds remarkably similar to what we now call manifestation, but it’s also where Gateway makes its largest leap. The report proposed that consciousness itself might interact with a larger reality and help produce the desired physical outcome.
Science has not demonstrated that mechanism.
Remove it, though, and something recognizable remains. You relax the body, reduce distraction, narrow your attention, construct a vivid representation of a future state, imagine yourself occupying it, and return to ordinary life with a clearer representation of what you’re trying to accomplish.
Psychology has studied pieces of that process independently. Mental rehearsal lets us simulate actions before performing them. Prospective memory helps us remember intended actions later, while implementation intentions connect goals to situations: when this happens, I will do that. Research has found that these techniques can improve prospective memory and help people respond to relevant cues when they encounter them.
So consider someone repeatedly visualizing starting a business. The exercise doesn’t make customers appear, but that person may notice an opportunity they once would have missed, remember to make a call, prepare differently for a meeting, persist longer after a setback, or finally make a decision they had been postponing.
None of those moments has to be dramatic. There can simply be hundreds of them.
Over time, small changes in attention and behavior can accumulate into a different outcome. If that outcome eventually resembles the future someone has been imagining, it may genuinely feel as though circumstances began lining up around them.
And in one sense, the probability really did change. The question is what changed it.
Gateway proposed that focused consciousness could reach outward and influence reality directly. Science has not demonstrated that. But there’s another possibility requiring no paranormal mechanism: the exercise changes the person making the choices, and that person becomes one of the causes producing what happens next.
Thought can matter without being magic.
The Gateway report went looking for a mechanism that might allow consciousness to change reality.
The more defensible mechanism may have been closer than that.
The reality being changed first was the person.
These are interesting things, with JC.
Student Worksheet
Student Name: ____________________
Class / Date: ____________________
Directions: Answer in complete sentences unless otherwise instructed. Refer to the transcript and numbered references. Clearly identify conclusions that remain uncertain.
Comprehension
Who wrote the Gateway report, in what year, and for which institution? How does that differ from the institution whose archive later held it?
Explain why declassification and scientific validation are different processes.
Distinguish mental rehearsal from prospective memory. Provide one original example of each.
Analysis
Classify each statement as documented history, reported theory, research-supported finding, or illustrative inference. Explain your reasoning for one answer.
StatementClassificationA. The Army produced a Gateway assessment in 1983.____________________B. Gateway patterning could project a desired outcome into a larger reality.____________________C. Implementation intentions have improved prospective-memory performance under studied conditions.____________________D. A person imagining a business might become more prepared for meetings.____________________E. McDonnell participated in the training, according to his introductory memorandum.____________________
Compare the historical report in reference 1 or 2 with the research paper in reference 3. Identify each source’s purpose, the type of evidence it contains, and one conclusion it cannot establish.
Identify one sentence near the end of the episode that offers an interpretation. Rewrite it to make its uncertainty explicit while preserving its central idea.
A student visualizes earning a higher grade and then earns one. Give 3 possible explanations and identify information that could help distinguish them.
Application
Turn “I want to finish my assignment” into an implementation intention. Identify the cue, action, and an observable completion measure.
Design a study comparing a general intention with an if-then plan. Specify how people would be assigned to conditions, the common task, a measurable outcome, one possible confound, and a way to reduce that confound. Explain why the study would not test paranormal manifestation.
Reflection
In 150–200 words, answer: “What can this report establish, and what would require different evidence?” Use 2 sources, distinguish one fact from one inference, and explain a limitation.
Difficulty Scaling
Level 1: Use the vocabulary list and this sentence frame: “This source establishes ___, but does not establish ___ because ___.” Complete questions 1–4, 8, and a shorter response to question 10.
Level 2: Complete all questions with supporting source references.
Level 3: Add a paragraph explaining how a study could distinguish behavioral changes from selective reporting of successful outcomes.
Student Output: Completed responses, one study design, and one evidence-based paragraph.
Academic Integrity Guidance: Identify paraphrases, quote accurately, and consult the sources you cite. Disclose permitted AI assistance. Do not present a hypothetical result or unverified citation as established evidence.
Teacher Guide
Quick Start: Play the episode or read the transcript aloud. Provide the historical report’s introductory memorandum and patterning passage, together with the abstract of the research paper in reference 3. Keep answer keys separate from student copies.
Materials
Episode audio or full transcript.
Student worksheet and writing materials.
Historical report through references 1–2.
Research abstract or paper through reference 3.
Board or shared document with columns labeled “Claim,” “Evidence,” and “Limitation.”
Pacing Guide — Audio First
0–5 minutes: Present the claim “A government report proved manifestation.” Ask students what they would check before accepting it.
5–12 minutes: Play or read the episode. Students record one historical fact, one proposed mechanism, and one interpretation.
12–20 minutes: Examine the report’s authorship and purpose. Complete worksheet questions 1–4.
20–30 minutes: Compare the historical report with the research paper. Discuss questions 5–7.
30–40 minutes: Develop a cue-action plan and study design for questions 8–9.
40–49 minutes: Write question 10. Exchange responses and identify the claim, evidence, and limitation.
49–57 minutes: Complete the quiz independently.
57–60 minutes: Submit an exit ticket identifying one thing the report establishes, one thing it does not, and one observation that could change the student’s confidence.
Discussion Prompts
What changes when a claim appears on official letterhead?
Can a document be authentic while an explanation inside it remains unsupported?
What would count as evidence against your preferred explanation?
Why might a technique help under some conditions without helping every person?
How could an outcome feel extraordinary even when ordinary actions contributed to it?
Formative Checkpoints
After listening, students identify the Army as the authoring institution.
During source comparison, students distinguish an assessment from experimental evidence.
During planning, students specify a recognizable cue and a concrete action.
During writing, students identify the business example as hypothetical.
Answer Key — Student Worksheet
Lieutenant Colonel Wayne M. McDonnell wrote the assessment in 1983 as an Army intelligence officer. Its later presence in the CIA archive concerns custody and release, not authorship.
Declassification concerns a document’s security classification. Scientific validation concerns whether appropriate evidence supports a claim.
Mental rehearsal example: mentally practicing the steps of a presentation. Prospective memory example: remembering to give a classmate a handout when the classmate arrives.
A: documented history. B: reported theory. C: research-supported finding, limited to the investigated conditions. D: illustrative inference. E: a documented first-person account of participation, not evidence that the program’s proposed mechanism worked.
The historical report documents an assessment and proposed explanations. The research paper investigates specified memory tasks through experiments. Neither establishes direct mental control of external events.
Accept revisions such as: “One plausible possibility is that changes in a person’s attention and actions contributed to the later outcome.” Reward precise qualification rather than agreement with the narrator.
Possible explanations include more studying, tutoring, an easier assessment, changed grading, or chance variation. Useful information includes study time, prior performance, assessment difficulty, and comparison data.
Example: “When I put my dinner plate in the sink, I will open my assignment and complete the first question.” Cue: putting the plate in the sink. Action: completing question 1. Measure: a written answer that evening.
Strong designs use assignment procedures that reduce preexisting differences, consistent tasks and cue opportunities, an observable completion measure, and controls for unequal prompting. The study tests remembered action, not influence without action.
Use the assessment rubric. Require a distinction between provenance and validity, 2 relevant sources, and a limitation. Accept well-supported disagreement.
Common Misconceptions
“The CIA hosted it, so the CIA proved it.” Archival custody and experimental confirmation are different.
“An unsupported claim is automatically impossible.” Insufficient evidence warrants withholding acceptance; it does not establish every alternative.
“Research on one component proves the complete program.” The intervention, participants, conditions, and measured outcomes must match the claim.
“Successful outcomes show that someone thought correctly.” Outcomes also depend on resources, circumstances, other people, and chance.
“The episode’s ending demonstrates what happened to Gateway participants.” It offers a possible explanation rather than measurements of those participants.
Differentiation
Additional Support: Provide a classification organizer and short, preselected source passages.
Advanced Learners: Require operational definitions, outcomes specified before data collection, and a plan for independent replication.
English Learners: Preview vocabulary and permit oral explanations before written responses.
Accessibility / UDL: Provide both audio and text, permit typed or spoken responses, and use descriptive labels rather than color alone.
Homeschool / Lifelong Learning: Discuss the source comparison aloud and apply cue-action planning to a household, learning, or work task.
Optional Extension — Planning Demonstration
Randomly assign students to a general-intention condition or an if-then-plan condition.
Give both groups the same task: draw a small star on a response slip when a blue square appears during a short slide sequence.
Ask the planning group to write a specific if-then statement. Ask the comparison group to restate the general goal. Provide equal preparation time.
Present the same slide sequence to everyone, including the target cue once.
Record anonymous completion totals for each condition.
Calculate completion percentage: completions divided by the number of students in that condition, multiplied by 100.
Discuss cue visibility, peer influence, expectations, small samples, and chance.
Interpretation: This is a classroom demonstration. Whether the groups differ or not, the results do not establish the general effectiveness of a technique or test Gateway’s proposed paranormal mechanism.
Teacher Accuracy Notes
The transcript is preserved as supplied.
The statement that “the probability really did change” occurs within a hypothetical explanation; the episode does not provide a measured probability.
Printed page numbers and PDF sheet counts can differ. Do not assess students on the transcript’s page-count detail.
No altered-state exercise is required for this lesson.
Quiz
Directions: Select one answer for questions 1–6. Answer questions 7–8 in 2–3 sentences.
Scoring: Questions 1–6 are worth 1 point each. Questions 7–8 are worth 2 points each. Total: 10 points.
Who authored the assessment discussed in the episode?
A. A CIA laboratory team
B. Army officer Wayne M. McDonnell
C. A modern social-media researcher
D. A congressional committeeDeclassification primarily concerns:
A. Replication
B. Statistical significance
C. A document’s security classification
D. Scientific consensusWhich statement is an implementation intention?
A. “I will be successful.”
B. “I hope I remember.”
C. “I picture an excellent grade.”
D. “When class ends, I will put the worksheet in my folder.”Remembering to perform an intended action later is:
A. Prospective memory
B. Declassification
C. Resonance
D. ReplicationWhy does a successful outcome after visualization fail to identify its cause?
A. Visualization always prevents success.
B. Other factors could explain the result.
C. Personal reports are always fabricated.
D. Causes cannot be studied.Research supporting an if-then strategy directly supports:
A. All Gateway claims
B. Direct control over external reality
C. That strategy under the investigated conditions
D. Every future business outcomeDistinguish evidence that the report exists from evidence that a mechanism it proposes works.
Name one feature that would strengthen a study of planning and one limitation that could remain.
Answer Key
B. Authorship and archival location are different facts.
C. Declassification does not evaluate scientific validity.
D. The statement specifies a recognizable cue and an action.
A. Prospective memory concerns remembering a future intention.
B. An event occurring after another does not, by itself, establish causation.
C. Extending a finding beyond the tested conditions requires additional evidence.
2 points: Clearly distinguishes an authentic historical record from evidence testing its proposed cause-and-effect process. 1 point: Identifies only one side of the distinction. 0 points: Equates existence with confirmation.
2 points: Identifies a suitable feature, such as random assignment, and a valid remaining limitation, such as an unrepresentative sample. 1 point: Provides only one valid element. 0 points: Neither element is valid.
Assessment
Performance Task: Submit the evidence-based paragraph from worksheet question 10 and the study design from question 9.
Required Evidence
Accurate distinction between authorship, archival custody, and scientific validation.
Appropriate use of 2 sources.
Clear separation of fact and inference.
Consideration of an alternative explanation.
A study design with a measurable outcome and an acknowledged limitation.
Assessment Rubric
Criterion4 — Accomplished3 — Proficient2 — Developing1 — BeginningHistorical and conceptual accuracyCorrect authorship, custody, and concepts; avoids unsupported equivalenceAccurate main distinctions with minor imprecisionOne substantial conceptual confusionRepeatedly equates authority with proofEvidence and citationUses 2 relevant sources accurately and explains their limitsUses 2 sources with mostly clear connectionsOne usable source or weak connectionsNo traceable supportCausal reasoningSeparates fact from inference and evaluates an alternative and limitationMakes the main distinctions and identifies a valid limitationPartially distinguishes causes and outcomesTreats sequence or anecdote as proofStudy design and communicationClear comparison, assignment procedure, measure, and confound controlUsable comparison and measure with minor omissionsIncomplete or difficult to testNo meaningful test or unclear response
Rubric Score: 16 possible points. An absent component earns 0 in the relevant criterion.
Suggested Proficiency: 12/16, with no criterion below 2.
Combined Score: Rubric plus quiz equals 26 points. Teachers may retain separate scores to distinguish reasoning from factual recall.
Feedback and Revision
Ask students to revise one overstatement and improve one proposed measurement before final submission.
Transfer Check
Present a different authentic document containing a disputed claim. Ask students to apply the same questions about authorship, evidence, and limitations.
Standards Alignment
Alignment Scope: These are connections between lesson tasks and standards or instructional frameworks. They do not constitute certification or complete coverage of a standard. Descriptions below paraphrase the relevant expectations.
NGSS — Science & Engineering Practices
Practice 7 — Engaging in Argument from Evidence: Students compare competing explanations and support an argument with evidence. Measured through worksheet question 10 and the causal-reasoning rubric.
Practice 8 — Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information: Students evaluate the purposes and limitations of historical and research sources. Measured through worksheet question 5.
Scope: Alignment is to scientific practices. This lesson alone does not fulfill a complete NGSS performance expectation or provide instruction in quantum mechanics. [5]
CCSS Reading — History / Social Studies
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.11-12.1 — Key Ideas and Details: Students support analysis of primary and secondary sources with specific evidence. Demonstrated through the 2-source paragraph.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.11-12.8 — Integration of Knowledge and Ideas: Students evaluate an author’s premises, claims, and evidence against other information. Demonstrated by identifying and qualifying an unsupported inference. [6]
CCSS Writing — History / Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.WHST.11-12.1 — Text Types and Purposes: Students develop a subject-specific argument using evidence and considering an alternative explanation.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.WHST.11-12.8 — Research to Build and Present Knowledge: Students select relevant information from authoritative sources, evaluate limitations, and provide citations. [7]
Grade Adaptation: These codes apply to grades 11–12. Teachers using the scaffolded activities in grades 9–10 should map them to the corresponding local grade-level requirements.
ACRL — Introductory College Information Literacy
Authority Is Constructed and Contextual: Students explain why institutional custody can establish provenance without validating every claim in a document.
Research as Inquiry: Students identify unanswered questions and propose evidence needed to investigate them. [8]
Bloom’s Taxonomy
Remember: Identify authorship and historical context.
Understand: Explain declassification and scientific validation.
Apply: Construct an implementation intention.
Analyze: Compare sources and proposed mechanisms.
Evaluate: Assess evidence and competing explanations.
Create: Design a testable investigation.
Universal Design for Learning
Representation: Provide audio, transcript, vocabulary, and comparison tables.
Engagement: Allow students to choose a relevant learning, household, or work goal.
Action and Expression: Permit written, typed, or spoken demonstrations of reasoning.
Career Readiness Competencies
Evidence Appraisal: Evaluate the quality and relevance of information before making a decision.
Task Planning: Convert a general objective into a specific action linked to a cue.
Communication: Explain a conclusion with evidence and appropriate qualifications.
Quality Control: Identify assumptions, confounds, and missing information.
Additional Framework Connections
C3: Source analysis, inquiry, and evidence-based explanations.
ISTE: Evaluation of digital information and responsible use of sources.
CTE: Planning, decision-making, and evaluation of evidence in workplace settings.
England National Curriculum: Adaptable to source evaluation and scientific inquiry. Teachers should map tasks to the relevant subject and key stage.
International Baccalaureate: Suitable for examining knowledge claims, evidence, interpretation, and the role of authority.
Cambridge: Adaptable to source evaluation, research skills, and reasoned argument within the relevant course syllabus.
NCAS: No direct arts-standard alignment is claimed for the core lesson.
International Alignment Note: There is no single UK-wide national curriculum. International connections are instructional applications, not claims of alignment to unverified syllabus codes.
Show Notes
Episode: Interesting Things with JC #1788: “What the Gateway Process Actually Proved”
Description: An Army report, a CIA archive, and a claim that outran its evidence. This episode examines what Gateway proposed and how ordinary changes in attention, memory, and action might offer a more testable explanation.
Classroom Focus: Historical sources, scientific evidence, causation, prospective memory, and goal-directed behavior.
Discussion Starter: What would you need to observe before calling a proposed mechanism demonstrated?
Keywords: Gateway Process, Wayne McDonnell, Army intelligence, declassification, scientific evidence, prospective memory, implementation intentions, mental rehearsal, media literacy
Watch: youtube.com/@interestingthingswithjc
RSS / MP3 & Curriculum: JimConnors.net
Access: Free curriculum materials available on the website, no login, no paywall.
Classroom Use: Free classroom use with attribution to Interesting Things with JC™ and Jim Connors LLC. No resale.
Copyright: © Jim Connors LLC. All Rights Reserved.
References
Historical and Research Sources
McDonnell, W. M. (1983, June 9). Analysis and Assessment of Gateway Process. U.S. Army Operational Group, U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command. The government catalog identifies the Army and Defense Department as the originating institutions.
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GOVPUB-D101-PURL-gpo152943Analysis and Assessment of Gateway Process. Historical report reproduced by Hemi-Sync. Provides a readable version of the memorandum and report. The hosting organization has a commercial connection to the subject; distinguish the reproduced document from the host’s claims. This is another access route to reference 1, not independent corroboration.
https://hemi-sync.com/research-papers/analysis-and-assessment-of-gateway-process/Smith, R. E., McConnell Rogers, M. D., McVay, J. C., Lopez, J. A., & Loft, S. (2014). Investigating how implementation intentions improve non-focal prospective memory tasks. Consciousness and Cognition, 27, 213–230. Experimental research examining implementation intentions in specified prospective-memory tasks. It does not test Gateway’s proposed direct influence on external reality.
Research abstract:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24929276/
Full text:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4113409/Chen, X.-J., et al. (2015). The effect of implementation intention on prospective memory: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Psychiatry Research, 226(1), 14–22. Research synthesis for additional teacher context. Pooled results should not be treated as proof about a particular individual or an entire training program.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25639373/
Standards and Framework Sources
NGSS Lead States. Appendix F: Science and Engineering Practices in the NGSS.
https://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/ngss/files/Appendix%20F%20%20Science%20and%20Engineering%20Practices%20in%20the%20NGSS%20-%20FINAL%20060513.pdfCommon Core State Standards Initiative. History / Social Studies, Grades 11–12.
https://www.thecorestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RH/11-12/Common Core State Standards Initiative. Writing in History / Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects, Grades 11–12.
https://www.thecorestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/WHST/11-12/Association of College and Research Libraries. Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education.
https://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework
