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.)

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

First, this is one of the most incredble games I’ve ever played. I cannot begin to express how much fun I’ve had playing this game with my daughter, much less how much I’ve enjoyed it after she’s gone to bed! It is a blast! If you haven’t checked it our fot the entertainment value, it’s worth every penny.

Second, it has been a fantastic educational tool! That really is the focus of this post and future ones about the game. First, a bit on educational gaming theory. The engagement level of this game is profound. As a teaching tool, is does need mentoring to fully gain the educational value of the game. The game was designed for entertainment first and the educational value works when you bring external knowledge into the gameplay.

With that said, Willow has been learning about evolution. We’ve discussed theories of how life started (the game shows an asteroid breaking open in a “tide pool” to reveal your first single-cell organism). We’ve discussed DNA (provided as “points”). We’ve discussed the difference between how creatures evolve in the game (you, as gamer, decides vs Darwinian evolution vs God. And we’ve discussed how Will Wright has unfortunately left out the “fish” stage of evolution: what happens between the tide pool and land creatures (ok… so this is up to debate, but you do see what appears to be a very complex microorganism swim right up onto land).

The game provides an evolutionary timeline, although Willow hasn’t quite grasped the time scale, so that is an additional lesson outside of the game. We’ve spent the last week up on land and have been discussing animal behaviors and what it means to get bigger brains (social behaviors and species eradication by your own species correlate to bigger brain sizes… your creature is learning). The game lets you decide wether to attack another species or befriend them.

Next up: the tribal stage. And due to some events in Willow’s real world, we’ll be discussing race relations and addressing the natural apprehension we feel when encountering tribes that look and act different than we do.

One of the game design elements that I find brilliant is the user-invention facet of the creature pool. Users submit the creature designs to the Spore portal, and the creatures are used to populate gamer’s planets. The creations can also be find on the Spore web portal (look under our username: qgecko).

We are therefore assured that contrary to the narrative of Jack the Giant Killer, Jack had no reason to be afraid of the giant. If the giant were ten times as large as an average man, and had similar proportions, he would indeed be a weakling at best. This is because his weight would be a thousand times that of the average man. However, the cross-sections of his bones would be only a hundred times those of the average man so that every square inch of his bone had to support ten times the weight withstood by a square inch of the average man’s bone. Chances were that the giant could not walk one step without fracturing his thighs. Jack had every reason to feel perfectly safe and sound.

(Sahal, Devendra, 1985.”Technological guideposts and innovation avenues,” Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 61-82, April.)

The workshop has focused on the National Weather Center’s HWT and the role the social sciences and key stakeholders (Emergency Management, public leadership, and the public). Much of the workshop has focused on probabilistic forecasting, a developing technology that will provide more concise hazardous weather forecasting. Emergency management and the public have grown used to a certain paradigm when receiving reports of hazardous weather. The NWS needs to insure roll-out of a new system will not cause errors in public communications, particularly since the issues involve life and death. The workshop audience is primarily NWS personnel and a small mix of social scientists (Sociology, Communication, Anthropology).

Day 1: Lots of background information about HWT, WAS*IS, Center for Collaborative Adaptive Sensing of the Atmosphere (CASA), and Probabilistic Forecasting. We also broke into groups to look at the new probabilistic forecasting model from different societal impact foci.

In a nutshell, what does this all mean from a non-meteorological perspective and education? The most interesting thing if the aspect of dealing with uncertainty in forecasting. Most of us expect some sense of certainty from the weather reports and meteorologist we see on television. Perhaps this comes from this information coming from “officials.” Interestingly, the current forecasting models have even more uncertainty that the new system they hope to roll out. But the new system focuses on probability and this may just be beyond the understanding on most of the general public, not to mention emergency management. The most promising use of this system is reporting that is specific to user’s geographic location. Emerging technologies, specifically information and communication technologies combined with GPS, promise better use of the system. For example, your iPhone will be able directly report to you reporting hazardous weather that is approaching your specific vicinity (as opposed to a radio broadcast that pinpoints your entire county… the current methodology in hazardous reporting). The system allows long-term (hours, in some cases) heads up on impending weather events. Advanced warning can be an issue… how do people deal with warnings that come hours before the event?

The system would make an excellent scenario for digital game based learning. Students could take on the roll of emergency managers. The system would teach probability, critical thinking skills, mathematics, graphing, and communication skills.

The social sciences will need to help collect data on how people respond to this new information. Surveys have been discussed frequently, although some new technologies, in particular Sense Networks, could help provide data on actions taken by people.

From a societal perspective, even if we could better pinpoint hazardous warning, would that change people’s behavior. Ultimately, the goal is to get people to respond by putting themselves in a safe place.

Day 2: Some opening comments on yesterday’s progress. This was the first real response from the social science and psychological perspective. Lots of discussion. And an introduction to updates to the Emergency Alert System (EAS) by changes in the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP). It amounts to an increase in information.

Again, what does this mean for the education community? The National Weather Service is on the crux of unveiling new forecasting methods. Public information will change. If the education community comes to the table, the weather enterprise could begin to suggest the needs for public knowledge to make informed decisions from the forecasts.

Leadership training is another aspect that may need to be considered. More information permits local leadership (i.e. school principals) to make informed decisions that are site specific. Research and practices on innovation diffusion could insure success in this endeavor.

As the education paradigm in the US begins to change, this could be an ideal time to influence the knowledge base of the citizenry. If a core understanding of probability is necessary to make the most informed decisions from the forecast, then the education system should insure high school graduates have the knowledge. While probability is covered by middle school, relevancy is necessary to insure students “get it”.

Probability is an important concept for multiple areas. Climate change is an excellent example. Public availability of raw information requires a better understanding of scientific uncertainty. Math and statistics are not just needed for the sole purpose of improving our nation’s report card. Not only do we tend to question the “facts” reported by media and leadership, leadership is becoming less willing to draw absolute conclusions, partly due to issues of liability. We need a citizenry ready to make personal risks assessments, take probability data, and make their own informed decisions. We need a citizenry that can do inquiry based science, even on a personal level.