i.shui.tech

A great video from TED. Robert Full: Learning from the Gecko’s tail. The combo of biology and robotics make this a fun lesson. Dr. Full also demonstrates the nature of scientific discovery by following each discovery with another concise question that can be answered through experimentation. If I were a teacher, I’d have my students first watch the video on their own and individually try to count the number of times he asks a question, then watch it in groups to pull the questions and describe how each one was answered.

Some months ago, I wrote a post on multitasking teens. A recent article from the New York Times points to some new research on enhancing concentration through the use of visual stimuli, much like the stimuli we receive from a television.

When something bright or novel flashes, it tends to automatically win the competition for the brain’s attention, but that involuntary bottom-up impulse can be voluntarily overridden through a top-down process that Dr. Desimone calls “biased competition.”

In the nearer future, neuroscientists might also help you focus by observing your brain activity and providing biofeedback as you practice strengthening your concentration.

Cool info, but this is what I got out of the article:

Ms. Gallagher advocates meditation to increase your focus, but she says there are also simpler ways to put the lessons of attention researchers to use. Once she learned how hard it was for the brain to avoid paying attention to sounds, particularly other people’s voices, she began carrying ear plugs with her. When you’re trapped in a noisy subway car or a taxi with a TV that won’t turn off, she says you have to build your own “stimulus shelter.”

She recommends starting your work day concentrating on your most important task for 90 minutes. At that point your prefrontal cortex probably needs a rest, and you can answer e-mail, return phone calls and sip caffeine (which does help attention) before focusing again. But until that first break, don’t get distracted by anything else, because it can take the brain 20 minutes to do the equivalent of rebooting after an interruption. (For more advice, go to nytimes.com/tierneylab.)

The now “infamous” American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has passed both House and Senate riding on the Democrat majority. How big is it? According to the gop.gov website:

According to the Federal Reserve, $789.5 billion is almost as much as all the money currently in circulation in the U.S. ($829 billion). If the “stimulus” legislation were a nation’s GDP, it would be the 16^th largest economy in the world.

Yes, it is big, and yes, it probably represents one of the largest pork barrel spending efforts in history. However many earmarks have been slipped in, there are a few positive points. One being the American Opportunity Tax Credit… presuming the nation gets a positive return on this investment. Which is pretty large in and of itself (also from the gop.gov site):

College Tax Credit: Creates the American Opportunity Tax Credit, which gives tax credits to students and parents for the cost of post-secondary tuition and expenses.  The conference report provides $2,500 in tax credits per student and in 2009 and 2010.  40% of this tax credit would be refundable.  This provision would cost $13.9 billion.

So how can $13.9 billion help everyone, especially if it targets only college students (and possibly their parents) and consist of a partially refundable tax credit? The tax credit implies paybacks to those not even paying taxes. In GOP lingo, this amounts to a welfare program:

Refundable Tax Credits: Contains billions in refundable tax credits to provide direct payments to individuals that that pay little or no income taxes. Unlike tax cuts, these refunds do little to spur growth, create more jobs, or stimulate the economy and are more similar to new spending through tax policy than actual tax cuts.

Congressman Fattah’s H.R. 106, which I’ve mentioned in a previous post, doesn’t exactly create jobs, but it does make college students work for the tax credit. And will make better college graduates. Let’s start with the immediate return on the investment.

Any one of us, even those at the top of the economic ladder, are effected by organizations such as the American Red Cross. It might be a house fire, environmental event, or even receiving blood at a hospital. And this help comes from tireless volunteers that take the time to provide basic services in times of need that the government can’t. Perhaps if we chose a socialist government, we wouldn’t need volunteer services. Until then, these organizations are the life blood for many. It isn’t about welfare. It’s about helping in times of need. The more volunteers we have, the less these non-profit agencies must rely on government support. Service is fundamental to the American ideal. College students and retirees make up a considerable portion of the volunteer population. HR 106 can turn the American Opportunity Tax Credit in the American Recover and Reinvestment Act into an investment for service that will effect all Americans, not just college students.

And the part about making better students? Service Learning is about students applying what they learn in the classroom to real world experiences. They don’t do this as employees (they aren’t professionals yet), but rather as volunteers. This authentic component to learning has been proven to be effective in increased student achievement. It also ties students to their communities. They have the opporunity to learn the needs of the world outside of college, making them better prepared to enter the workforce. And the connections are lasting. Relationships are built with these organizations and their communities which create better citizens and leaders. HR 106 is a good long term investment in the future of our nation’s workforce.

Here’s some additional impact I can see:

1. Students who need the extra income to pay for college expenses can fore go the fast-food employment for volunteer work that is meaningfully connected to their studies. Those jobs can be made available to others in need.
2. Non-profit groups dependent on fund raising to pay for positions are feeling the economic pinch just like businesses. HR 106 can provide necessary volunteers needed to fill once-paid positions until the crisis abates.
3. Our economic and political model depends on non-profits and church organizations to fulfill the role of social organizations. Service is fundamental to the American way of live. Students need to have this ideal ingrained to continue to support this effort after graduation.

The American Recovery and Investment Act is bloated. Let’s make the best of it by supporting legislation that can redirect how some of the funding is dispersed. HR 106 is an excellent example of insuring a positive return on this huge investment.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 just passed the House and Senate. A summary from the Ways and Means Committee with regards to the American Opportunity Education Tax Credit:

“American Opportunity” Education Tax Credit.  The bill would provide financial assistance for individuals seeking a college education.  For 2009 and 2010, the bill would provide taxpayers with a new “American Opportunity” tax credit of up to $2,500 of the cost of tuition and related expenses paid during the taxable year.  Under this new tax credit, taxpayers will receive a tax credit based on one hundred percent (100%) of the first $2,000 of tuition and related expenses (including books) paid during the taxable year and twenty-five percent (25%) of the next $2,000 of tuition and related expenses paid during the taxable year.  Forty percent (40%) of the credit
would be refundable.  This tax credit will be subject to a phase-out for taxpayers with adjusted
gross income in excess of $80,000 ($160,000 for married couples filing jointly).  This proposal is estimated to cost $13.907 billion over 10 years.

Congressman Fattah (D-PA) details the impact of the stimulus package on this press release:

“This legislation provides a significant down payment on the concepts contained in H.R. 106, the American Opportunity Tax Credit Act of 2009, which I introduced on the first day of the new Congress. Modeled after President Obama’s campaign pledge of college education for all, the package will provide $2,500 refundable tax credits for college tuition for young people from low income families who might otherwise miss this opportunity to improve their prospects in the work force. This tax credit is partially refundable – a critical provision for low-income students. The Stimulus also directs the Treasury Department to study the feasibility of requiring 100 hours of community service in exchange for the tax credit.

President Obama has been touting a new proposal to trade a tuition tax credit for community service. The timing couldn’t be better. The economic downturn will adversely effect American’s opportunity for higher education. Students and parents will be struggling to make tuition payments, especially as public higher education institutions find themseves with significant funding cuts.

On the other side of the university green, community hospitals, non-profits, and K-12 schools are just as effected. Lack of funding is stalling projects and stretching resources. There is a resource these agencies and organizations has relied on for years to bring poorly funded projects to life: volunteers.

Congressman Chaka Fattah (D-PA) has introduced one of the best ideas I’ve seen yet for addressing tuition and service: H.R. 106: The American Opportunities Tax Credit. The idea is simple: a $4000 tuition tax credit in exchange for 100 hours of community service. The language of the bill with regards to implentation is vague. How it works on the tax credit side is left to the Secretary of the Treasury. How the colleges and universities insure the 100 hours of community service is left to the Secretary of Education. To be honest, even I’m reluctant to say I understand the implication of this being a tax credit, but if it means that $4000 comes back to me somehow, I’ll be happy.

At the University of OKlahoma, we’ve been knee deep in an large community engagement initiative. President and former Senator David Boren has been pushing student service initiatives since taking office. In 2007 he saw an opportunity to institutionalize the effort. The K20 Center has become increasingly successful at pulling off partnership initatives, which is just what a university wide service initative needed. It couldn’t just be another mandate from the president’s office. It needed to be grassroots with local leadership taking charge. He took the director of the K20 Center, Mary John O’Hair, and promoted her to Vice Provost for School and Community Partnerships. This provided the necessary administrative power to structure partnerships within the university.

Two immediate effects came from this: formation of the Community Engagement Committee, and a university-wide audit of community engagement activities. The audit and committee demonstrated the need to develop a formalized student tracking system that would inform the committee and provide service transcripts to students. OU Engage was born.

It has been my responsibility to bring OU Engage to life. I’ll go into the details of the tracking system in another post. Here I want to talk about my own opportunity to show support for the link between community service and tuition credits.

Two weeks ago I contacted Congressman Fattah’s inquiring about the bill. My inquiry was simple… how did they see the Secretary of Education tracking those community hours? The conversation turned to what the University of Oklahoma was doing above and beyond the tracking of hours. And that prompted an invitation to Washington D.C. by Fattah. Four days later I was on a plane to sit in on a congressional panel. My presentation on the panel is available on Slideshare and Google Docs.

After the presentation, I was fortunate to be able to visit with Senator Wofford (D-PA, retired), Congressman Dan Boren (D-OK), and Congressman Tom Cole (R-OK). I expressed my interest in the Act and suggested each consider suporting it.

There is one other important point about the bill. Funding for the American Opportunity Tax Credit is layed out in the Stimulus package under the same name. It was in HR 1 when it left the House. Now the Senate has it. I’m keeping my fingers crossed it stays. I’ve already written to Oklahoma Senator Coburn and Senator Inhofe. If I were to ask my blog readers anything, I’d ask then to do the same.

As a liberal, socialist, and Democrat, I’m glad to hear the Republican senate has refused to bail out the big three automakers. We do not need a government that will reward poor business practices with corporate welfare. The auto industry, or any industry, should not be a welfare project. Global competition demands business and industry to remain one step ahead at all times. The US auto industry is a classic example of attempting to guide a behemoth industry in following short term gains. The swift changes in a 21st century global market favors smaller businesses that can retool quickly. For corporate behemoths, survival will require diversification or very strategic long term outlooks. Hoping consumers will open their wallets for SUVs, or any poorly designed vehicle out of patriotism, makes for rotten strategic planning. And the alternative vehicle research marketing ploy has not swayed consumer confidence.

Nothing depresses innovation like a rescue package. As I’ve said before, innovation shows the greatest gains in times of need. But for very large corporations, the ship turns slowly and the time to innovate is well ahead of the curve. Detroit had plenty of time to retool for the future.

It will be unfortunate that so many autoworkers will be lose their jobs. If congress wants to make a difference, it will support the autoworkers by hiring them for short-term national infrastructure rebuilding while providing education programs for new skills. And support the creation of truly innovative transportation industries that can hire the workers at competitive (not UAW) salaries.

In fact, I would bring Shai Agassi in to take over GM, fund a total retool of the company, and put the autoworkers to work building a national electric grid infrastructure to support the vehicles. Big Oil would need to shift to alternative energy (including…Gasp! “Nuculear!”… another post on that later). We could become energy independent in four years.

Recently, I found a few copies of Popular Science magazine dated from the 1950’s. What I found remarkable was not the new products created by large companies, but the sheer number of innovations to existing technologies presented. It was not the biggest and newest and most sophisticated, but the little innovations often by ordinary people.

The 1950’s were both a time of prosperity and a time of scarcity, at least by today’s standards. Admittedly, I wasn’t there, but I’ve heard a considerable amount of nostalgia from those that were. It was time of scientific and innovative equality. This equality was demonstrated by a respect for common individual’s participation in discovery, and even greater respect for those that had made discovery their lifelong pursuit. And from these ideals came a time of economic growth unprecedented in history. The US set an example that the world would struggle to match. And match they did.

The generation that followed grew up comfortable and secure, while the rest of the world looked on with envy and enthusiasm. In the time it took the new generation to mature, economic superpowers have emerged and today have begun taking their share of the global resource pie. Our complacency has come back to bite us.

What do we do when something breaks or we need a solution? A look at our nation today would show we head to Walmart. As a nation of consumers, we can expect that someone, somewhere would have created a solution and we surely can find it on the local supermarket shelf or at the very least, on Amazon. And in the very unlikely event that we cannot find the solution, most would find satisfaction in the next best thing. This is the hallmark of a nation of consumerism and complacency. And this has been exacerbated by not only consumption, but consumption on credit. We cannot continue down this path and expect economic security.

In order to reverse this trend, we need to return to the paradigm of American ingenuity. We need to once again become a nation of innovation. As the renowned economist Peter Drucker points out, innovation is work. As a nation, we must work together. We cannot expect, as we have been taught as faithful consumers, that others will have the expertise to provide solutions for us to purchase. We cannot assume that innovation can only come from factories overseas.

“Sacrifice” has rarely entered the political lexicon in the past three decades. It has become the proverbial “four letter word.” It is un-American. But what do we really have to lose? Our ability to buy anything, anytime with a never ending line of credit? The providence of wastefulness, for both products and energy, since “it can always be replaced”? We must change our habits. And like a large corporation, it starts with leadership and learning.

Yesterday, the nation elected our 44th president, and one of the few that would dare to consider that sacrifice is on the table for Americans. That our problems our in our hands, that the government cannot bail us out just to continue down the same path. That there will be no quick fixes. And that we must work to make change happen. We have the first of many steps towards leadership.

Taking on the role of change requires leadership at every level of society, from the president to the parent. Every citizen must learn what their habits are and what can be done differently to lead this nation towards a path of innovation and independence. We as a nation should no longer expect government bailouts, nor the next best gadget, to fix our problems. Every citizen must be leaders of their own domain, including work, family, and personal, and be ready and willing to be innovative and to take action.

Learning, specifically education, has been a contentious issue in the past few decades, especially as we’ve come to assess the progress of our students. It is clear from business and industry that the caliber of graduates are not up to expectations. And for that reason, those companies that can afford it, will and are taking knowledge centers overseas. While content expertise, especially in math and science, is undoubtably a necessary asset for a technological workforce preparation,  innovative capacity is often overlooked.

Innovation is a complicated topic and only recently researched, but the fundamental concepts are being to emerge. Innovation is not entrepreneurism, nor invention, but is the precursor to both. Importantly, innovation can stand on its own. Innovation can simply be tweaks to processes or new uses for existing technologies. Innovation is also about streamlining and finding ways to conserve resources. Innovation can be accessible by everyone, especially when immersed in an innovative environment with the right leadership and a willingness to explore.

We have all of the right ingredients to create a new innovative workforce. It starts with leadership, education, innovative learning environments, and inquiry based instruction. And it will require the help of every citizen.