i.shui.tech

For the last few weeks, my 7 year old daughter, Willow, and I have intensely been engaged in Will Wright’s newest game creation, Spore.

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).

Well, not really, but I just had to post a paragraph from Devendra Sahal’s classic paper, Technological guideposts and innovation avenues (ref below). Sahal brings classic literature into an economic treatise on innovation and weaves the story to accurately make his point. It’s brilliant!

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.)

I’ve been attending the Advanced Weather and Society Integrated Studies WAS*IS Workshop: Beyond Storm Warnings: A collaboration between stakeholders, the National Weather Service (NWS), and the Hazardous Weather Testbed (HWT).

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.

Environmentalists can be too quick to lay blame on the energy industry for global warming. A recent summit in Oklahoma of alternative energy hosted by Congressman Tom Cole, R-Oklahoma, was a reminder of the difficulties of the blame game: energy consumption is consumer driven.

This was not a summit on energy conservation, although sustainability was mentioned in light of how long the energy alternatives would maintain our current and future needs. For example, Tom Price, of Chesapeake Energy, had stated that natural gas reserves could keep us going another 100 years. Not surprisingly, energy needs were always shown as increasing over time.

While increasing demand might be a favorable model for any manufacturer discussing their business growth, increasing energy use is a new challenge. What other examples can you think of where a mass produced product was being blamed on a global crisis? If we weren’t so addicted to cheap energy, these companies would likely be out of business. Is it a stretch to ask a manufacturer to help their customers use less of their products?

I asked the Larry Nichols, one of the panelists and CEO of Devon Energy, what, if any, research is being done by Devon and the energy industry towards increasing efficiencies in production and use. “As an example, what if natural gas could keep us going for the next 200 years,” I asked. His answer was obvious: whether discussing production efficiencies, conservation policy, or any industry research, it is consumer driven.

As long as the company stakeholders require profits, policy supports free markets, and consumers demand cheap energy, Devon and other energy producers have no incentive for reducing consumer use.

Perhaps it was silly to ask a conservation question at an energy summit convened by leading energy producers. But I wanted to know if there was anything Devon and the energy industry could do to curb our own addiction for cheap energy. Mr Nichols reminds us that we must face addictive behaviors on our own. In the meantime, it will be business as usual for the energy industry.

If I am not willing to make significant changes in my own use of energy, why should I expect the energy industry to change their practices?

Arthur RothKopf, senior VP of the US Chamber of Commerce, wrote a decent response to another question at Politico.com:

Jan Morrison of the Gates Foundation recently posed a rhetorical question that perfectly sums up the state of K-12 education: “Do our schools still look like they did in the 1950s – now ask yourself, do our companies still look like they did in the 1950s?”

Most of what comes out of the US Chamber of Commerce I’m at odds with. They are big supporters of the Bush administration, NCLB, big oil, etc. But this post was more neutral than most. (Perhaps he’s gearing down for the next president?) It was this comment that struck a cord:

Is NCLB perfect? Of course not, but thanks to the reforms of the Act, we can finally evaluate the shortcomings of our education system and ensure that appropriate action is taken on behalf of our students. Just as we expect our schools to change, improve, and evolve over time so, too, do we expect education policy to change, improve, and evolve.

He does, as another commenter pointed out, mention the need for “better teachers”. I know this is a contentious point. But I also know what working conditions teachers must contend with now and we need to give those that are ready for productive change a chance before throwing them out with the bath water.

Here’s my complete reply, posted as a comment:

There are volumes of research available and in progress that demonstrate effective teaching and learning. And yet, few, if any, public education institutions are in a position to implement the change necessary. Scrapping the whole thing and starting over is plausible, but not realistic.

Research tells us effective schooling is a broad endeavor involving multiple stakeholders at the community level. Systemic and sustainable change can only occur if all stakeholders have buy-in and play an active role in the process. Education is a community effort. But this does not entail a community that insist on finger pointing and threats of reduced funding. This means a community that must make every effort to insure the success of the children. It means a Professional Learning Community brought together by knowledgeable agents of change.

School boards could be insuring community resources are available to assist every aspect of the school. This should include not only repair and maintenance, but guest speakers, mentorship opportunities, staffing assistance, and access to workforce expertise. Local colleges and universities should play a role in insuring students are prepared for entering higher education. Learning needs to happen in the context of the community, bringing relevance and real-world examples into the classroom.

Administrators should be intimately aware of organizational change theory and action research. Administrators should be the bastions of research and data driven decision making. They should insure a shared vision and shared leadership is in place. Discipline needs to be left to other dedicated staff.

The National Academies’ call for 10,000 teachers is one piece of the puzzle that can help. Adequate instruction requires personalized attention provided in the way of mentors and facilitators. Ideally, there would be one teacher for every six students in primary grades and one teacher for every twelve students in secondary. But this also requires teachers have adequate time for collaboration, teamwork, planning, and professional development. Teachers need to model life-long learning, but must be given the time and resources to do so.

Students need to be engaged. Technology is fundamental, but it must be student-centered and used to bring authentic, real-world community-based issues to the classroom. Collaboration and problem-based learning should be the norm. Standardized testing needs to reflect the needs of business and industry today, where complex problem solving and soft skills have replaced encyclopedic knowledge.

So what are the barriers? Standardized tests based on memorization and out-of-context equation solving, lack of personnel, lack of systemic community-based support infrastructure, lack of research driven educational technology, and interference from politics.

This isn’t impossible. In fact, it is being accomplished in some research-based schools. Schools that were not scrapped, but chose to work with their communities to bring reform to the educational system. And for a fraction of our costs to engage the war on terror, we could be insuring our economic prosperity.

Oklahoma education doesn’t get much praise, but I find it hard to sit quietly when others take issue with our few accomplishments. Adam Schaeffer at the Cato Institute started a debate on Oklahoma’s Preschool “successes” as reported by USA Today last week. He states:

There’s just one tiny problem. Oklahoma’s achievement scores on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, AKA “the nation’s report-card”) suggest that the state’s universal preschool program is at best ineffective and at worst harmful to student achievement.

Sara Mead at the New America Foundation took issue with his comments in her own blog posting. While she sites various possible variables that may effect NEAP scores in OKlahoma, her last paragraph really hits the nail on the head:

More broadly, no one should look at pre-k as an “innoculation” that, administered once at age four, delivers improved academic performance without further follow-up through children’s schooling. That’s not how learning works. High-quality elementary schools must build on the base of improved skills and knowledge children bring with them from pre-k. If elementary schools are poor quality or otherwise unable to provide supports and curricula that build on pre-k learning gains, those gains will be squandered. That’s why efforts to improve early education can’t stop at pre-k, but need to continue through the early elementary years and indeed throughout a student’s K-12 education. But that doesn’t mean quality pre-k doesn’t make an important contribution in getting that process off on the right foot. Oklahoma has done a good job in putting a high-quality pre-k program in place for the vast majority of its students. Now it needs to work to improve its kindergarten and elementary programs in order to sustain the documented gains children are making in pre-k.

Mr. Schaeffer retorts with more facts, figures, and charts looking at hispanic populations, poverty rates, etc. (which, unfortunately, Ms. Mead initially threw onto the fire), but he is still missing the broader picture.

NCLB really is a two-edged sword. Accountability is great, but numbers often can be misleading. The first real assessment for preschool programs comes at the fourth grade, and Mr. Schaeffer seems bent on numbers telling the whole story:

So I challenge you, Sara, and any other preschool activist out there, to find the nefarious factor that has destroyed all the gains from pre-k. By all means, take this data and run it through statistical software with whatever controls you’d like related to documented demographic and education changes (as long as you include the national averages as a control).

NAEP and NCLB will not cure the woes of public education. Unfortunately, there just is no magic bullet. And no matter how you wrangle the current numbers, it will not provide you with the data needed to accurately assess student achievement. Mr. Schaeffer admits in another post:

And that is why non-experimental analysis can only provide suggestive evidence, with a heavy dose of uncertainty. Among the available research methods, the only way to be fairly certain an educational treatment has had an effect on students is to conduct a controlled experiment akin to those used in medicine or drug testing. Researchers randomly assign each person to either get the treatment or to not get the treatment.

Empirical research is very difficult, costly, and takes time. Ideally, all education innovations would be subject to large-scale, double-blind, studies. But with no time in the global competitive race and a government that balks at any research that doesn’t “protect our national interests” (apparently, education does not factor into national security), there will be little opportunity for understanding what works.

Education is a grassroots effort. For many in Oklahoma, preschool works. Certainly, it may need improvement, but given what I know from the front lines, it’s helping Oklahoma. An empirical study would be wonderful, and would do much to point out specific improvements needed in the program.

In the meantime, my challenge to Mr. Schaeffer and anyone wanting to really know the effectiveness of the preschool program would be to visit the Oklahoma communities. Ask the parents and kindergarten teachers what they feel. Observe some Kindergarten classes this Fall. It won’t be large-scale, but you might learn something.

I haven’t been one to use this blog to comment on others, but this posting just irked me. Andrew Coulson with the Cato Institute writes in his most recent post:

Senator Obama sends his own two daughters to the private “Lab School” founded by John Dewey in 1896, which charged $20,000 in tuition at the middle school level last year. Though he says “we” should not be “throwing up our hands and walking away” from public schools, he has done precisely that.

That is his right, and, as a wealthy man, it is his prerogative under the current system of American education, which allows only the wealthy to easily choose between private and government schools. But instead of offering to extend that same choice to all families, Senator Obama wants the poor to wait for the public school system to be “fixed.”

As an advocate of public education, liberty, the environment, etc., I do what I can to uphold my beliefs. But there are a few instances where I draw the line. Being a father is one.

At the moment, my daughter attends a public school. Someday she may not. In fact, it’s a tough choice for me. Her progress (which is completely subjective on my part) will dictate whether or not she remains in public education. This is my prerogative as a parent and has nothing to do with my everyday work improving public schools.

I know of several public school educators that send their children to private schools. Do they believe the public school system needs to be “fixed”? When it comes to being a parent, you do what you feel is best for your children.

Obama is a parent and public figure. As a parent, he should do all he can to insure the best education for his daughters. It makes me wonder if Mr. Coulson has any children. Perhaps he should editorialize about this.

A Memorial Day trip to Dallas included a visit to the Dallas Museum of Art to see an exhibit by On Kawara. On Kawara is probably most famous for his paintings of dates of significant events. (Warning: for the faint of art, Kawara is about as modern as you can get. In the art world it is termed “conceptualism”.)  But my fascination came from what I would term, “the art of OCD”.   He has, among other fascinating collections of… hand compiled data, manuscripts that detailed maps of his wanderings for an entire day, every day, from 1968 until 1979. This is 4740 pages. In the age of GPS and Google maps, this would still be a major feat. From the perspective of social geography, this is fascinating, especially if we Mashup with other geographic city data and/or other people. This is where CitySense comes in.

CitySense is a Mashup application created by Sense Networks:

Sense Networks, Inc. indexes the real world using real-time and historical location data for predictive analytics across multiple industries.

CitySense uses geographic data and real-time cell network data to track the movement of people (currently by opt-in cell phone location data) in San Francisco. Privacy issues aside, the application is impressive. Tracking the real-time flow of people across an urban landscape has applications in just about any social field.

So where does the science come in? One of my favorite researchers, Albert-Laszlo Barabasi, recently co-authored an article in the journal Nature, Understanding individual human mobility patterns. In this study, he and the other researchers were able to track 100,000 cellphone uses over the course of 6 months (in Europe, where privacy laws are… well, more realistic). They find:

After correcting for differences in travel distances and the inherent anisotropy of each trajectory, the individual travel patterns collapse into a single spatial probability distribution, indicating that, despite the diversity of their travel history, humans follow simple reproducible patterns.

Perhaps it’s not new news, and, in fact is somewhat predictable, but we now have evidence to say it is true, as well as means to begin manipulating the data and running scenarios. Barabasi has a fascinating and easy to read primer on network theory, Linked: How Everything Is Connected to Everything Else and What It Means.

I just love connections.