Category: Thoughts

WSJ: How to Avoid a Bonfire of the Humanities

Michael S. Malone contributed an article titled “How to Avoid a Bonfire of the Humanities” to the Opinion section of the October 25, 2012 issue of the WSJ. The article describes how disciplines in the humanities are resurgent in necessity to innovation. A specific example is cited with a quote from Santosh Jayaram that “English majors are exactly the people I’m looking for.” The thought continues that “storytelling” is a rare talent and today goes a long way towards competitive advantage. I would actually pose this is as great prospects for the hybridization of humanities thinking with science, engineering and business. We have already seen it in various ways – the graphical user interface (GUI) is a hybridization of art and technology. Usability is a hybridization of engineering, design, architecture  and psychology.

We can use the notion of “storytelling” with the 90-second elevator pitch approach as well as the executive summary framework from Garage Technology Ventures. Together, youth can learn to be compelling and noticed.

TIME: Reinventing College

“Reinventing College” is the featured topic in the October 29, 2012 issue of TIME. It is made up of several articles (some short, some long) where viewpoints and ideas are shared. It pulls together multiple current and thought-provoking elements such as Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC), affordability and purpose (my variation on TIME managing editor Richard Stengel’s identification of “access, cost and quality” as being the “three interrelated problems” in the foreword.)

In my view, the problem is actually over-dilution of traditional college education – not access and quality. I think that cost/affordability is a side-effect of the problems in access and quality. While I was reading the article on MOOCs (titled “College is dead. Long Live College!” and authored by Amanda Ripley), I am reminded of the example of a college graduate who ends up working for a rental car company as a customer service representative, sometimes simply sitting for hours in the booth that checks cars out. This is obviously a position where soft skills are suited – and not the knowledge from a college education. This is a mismatch between the argument that employers are seeking college graduates, and the argument that employers are looking for soft skill talent (see “Hard Unemployment Truths About ‘Soft’ Skills'” by Nick Shulz in the September 19, 2012 issue of the WSJ). In his TED talk on creativity, Ken Robinson identifies this as a “process of academic inflation” where degrees have to become less of a credential over time.

Let’s frame some things about traditional college:
(1) a relatively small proportion of entering college freshmen know what they really want to do after college (let alone, in college),
(2)  a relatively small proportion of entering college freshmen today are adequately prepared for rigorous scholarly thinking in college (eg, skill in expository writing),
(3)  a relatively small proportion of entering college freshmen will find careers that exactly match the knowledge they gain in college,
(4)  relatively few graduating college students can remember even half the knowledge they “learned” in college – at the time of graduation (less so later),
(5) relatively little knowledge gained or work done  in college will be re-used in a career.

Undergraduate education has been and still is an opportunity to solidify a passion for lifelong learning. It is also a time to tier students into achievement and skill levels – based on their ability to integrate their existing knowledge with new knowledge from other disciplines (some distantly connected, others possibly close – hence, the depth and breadth requirements in the undergraduate degree requirements). University education is about going through phased development of thinking, interpretation and ideation skills; these phases are roughly segmented into undergraduate, masters graduate, doctoral graduate, and post-doctoral. The scope is largely limited to a research basis where a successful outcome would be a graduate who goes on to conduct high-impact research that stretches the domain of knowledge and information – a Professor (or as Ken Robinson figuratively describes as people who “look upon their body as a form of transport for their heads…”) Branching is possible but usually the trunk is research; the branches are the deviations from staying in a university for life.

Here, a short comment on the article by Amanda Ripley on MOOCs (the best article of this feature by far): I very much enjoyed reading this article because it persuasively raises numerous ponderous issues and hints at a solution to the over-dilution problem that I earlier mentioned. I position MOOCs in the evolution line of the continuing education branch where perhaps 40 years ago, people relied on compact self-help books (that’s when I read a book on Automaton Theory) and more recently, people are learning from YouTube (where I have been trying to teach myself to play a ukelele) – and not to forget textbooks becoming e-textbooks or supplemented online texts. The relationship I perceived from Ripley’s description of the Udacity Physics course video featuring Andy Brown was that between fundamental knowledge and an excellent PBS documentary (aren’t they all great?) such as NOVA. It’s accessible, understandable and caters to how the “brain learns” through casual attentiveness. As Ripley put it, it was “like Rick Steves’ Physics.” With this in mind, MOOCs do not replace traditional college education – they create another layer positioned for accessibility to those learners not able to enter traditional college. We know people have different learning methods – the bulk of whom are not suited to a rigorous college challenge. MOOCs thus provide hugely lateral branches for learning but offer little in vertical progression as required in academia. MOOCs should become globally popular for the breadth and accessibility, but users will likely remain in the “proof” level of the YCISL Leadership Objectives schema. If learners begin to select MOOCs as their alternative (note: not substitute) to entering college, then I would hope the over-dilution will ease and the sense of purpose will return.

Overall, this TIME feature has made me more aware of what some thought leaders are thinking, and I appreciate that. However, I firmly believe that the problem is primarily in secondary education where education reform is far more urgent – think about it… are the problems of “access, cost and quality” more dire in secondary or tertiary education?

Thoughts: On taking a position

Today’s story on FaceBook making plans to allow younger people to sign up for accounts is full of cross-opinion.

Think of other issues that the YCISL participants may relate to differently because of their age.

Thoughts: Why are some textbooks so off-target?

This entry is about a personal peeve that has flared me up numerous times in the past, and has done so once again this evening. The worst prime examples I have come across are just about every California Math textbook I have seen. Previously, it was the Scott Foresman series and today it is the Prentice Hall edition. With bad textbooks like these, how can anyone not explain the struggles that students have learning and teachers have teaching? Grades and scores don’t measure proficiency, they reflect the results of a sporting competition (ie, could be one result on a particular day, and another on the next). Here are the specifics…

In one Scott Foresman California Math textbook, there was a word problem involving calculating the number of tiles needed to tile a bath. Now just how many kids have tiled a bath? Then there are the problems involving building a picket fence and taking connecting buses to reach a destination. How hard is it to know these are hardly contextual across the scope of the students? How could the editors be so negligent in their responsibility to create a functional learning platform?

To today’s case with the Prentice Hall Practice book. There are several problems (section 2.2) about multi-step problem solving. The examples in the textbook show how to set up a single variable problem. Several of the word problems are actually two variable problems (and hence two equation problems). – just search for solutions to these problems on the Internet and you will find that all provide a multi-variable solution. And some of the word problems are also significantly out of audience context – Cell phone bill?! Vacation expenses?! – these are cases where adults are presenting adult problems for learning. This is SO WRONG.

So, one can expect a significant portion of students to not immerse themselves in the context (isn’t that the point of word problems?) and hence not to be able to solve the problem without help and hints. Even with help, these practice problems serve no useful purpose as applying the same logic to a similar problem mathematically is not possible because of un-relatable context. What a waste of time (oh yes, one of those Homework issues – where homework problems are extensions of classroom examples and not interwoven). But some may contend that this confusion and irrelevancy is intentional – aimed at creating scoring striations – you have to include some problems where a segment of students will almost certainly get wrong – that’s how we differentiate students and justify grade differences. These would be adults who are in the business of teaching, but not in the business of learning (teaching being the external phenomenon, and learning being an interfacial phenomenon). I got this cynical viewpoint from the time I read that the difficulty of SAT questions are periodically adjusted so that a  fairly smooth distribution of scores can be predicted and attained – to evenly distribute across percentiles. Great for assessment, loathsome for learning.

To relate to the YCISL format, our aim is to make our learning accessible to all participants. We attempt to accomplish this by using fun as a motivator and fun is mainly be derived by being within relatable context. With motivation and context, we can readily demonstrate empowerment and useful experience. To borrow from Daniel Pink’s “Drive,” in our program design we strive to set up exposure to Mastery, Autonomy and Purpose in YCISL. We enable mastery by not laying out traps intentionally to thin the herd; we set objectives then observe and answer questions to inculcate Autonomy and steer away from one-size-fits-all; and by encouraging user-generated youth context settings, we establish a Purpose that clarifies individual leadership ability and teamwork mindsets that present natural lifelong learning lessons and growth opportunities.

Thoughts: Lessons from the Y2E2 Experiment

In my view, the Jerry Yang & Akiko Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building at Stanford University is unsuccessful in so many respects and in total – but we can chalk that up to the experimental nature of the building. But still, one would hope that diligent experimental design would have produced a better experiment. This is one experiment that should end so that another can be started. Accept the failure and learn from the lessons.

Reference Point – The Leslie Shao-Ming Sun Field Station at the Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve of Stanford University. This is a truly amazing structure and space. It embraces sustainable functionality and efficiency, and maintains productivity while continuing to evolve as challenges get addressed.

Architectural – A few of the individual failures include (a) bathrooms opposite faculty offices [see hallway photo at end of this entry] – demonstrates no consideration of how faculty operate, (b) staff administrator offices with no outside windows – the only personnel who typically stay in their offices 8 am to 5 pm and you suppress natural sunlight to their workspace?, and (c) low-height ceilings in lab offices that are reached by going down one floor then up half a floor? There are many more. An exercise for a YCISL workshop could be jotting down the Y2E2 Features on the walls of the red atrium stairwell, and creating a list of failures – and doing a value analysis. Lesson: Ask. Gather information. Do your homework.

Functional – What would one expect to be the main functions of an academic building at Stanford? Teaching? Research? Study areas for students? As for teaching, there is just 1 formal classroom – someone was thinking “one-size-fits-all.” Conference rooms have been partially re-purposed for teaching but you can guess what happens when a space is used for something other than its intended function (many are not great as conference rooms either). Regarding research, look at the distance separating the various researchers in a group, and the distance of faculty offices from their laboratories –  hardly encourages research and collaboration. As for study areas, I would acknowledge that there are a number of small meeting rooms that students can use to meet for group work or discussion – a reasonable success. Even the scattered sofas and padded chairs are a plus – but it’s less than what was in our previous building, the Terman Engineering Center (TEC). Lesson: Focus quality on main requirements.

Operational – During off-hours, the building is locked and inconvenient to access even for legitimate use. Then there’s package delivery for which there is no system – delivery persons are constantly looking for anyone to sign for a delivery so they can move on to their next stop. Yes, there are the “neat” thermostat-controlled actuated louvers that let cool air in on the 1st floor at out the top of the atria – but is there any fresh air in the basement (where the labs and research students are?) Lesson: A little compatibility testing (even simulated) can be a huge value differentiator. Fail often. Fail fast. Do something about the failures.

Social – Sadly, a net zero social environment is acceptable here given the politically combative environment that exists because of logistical arrangements. The social environment is net zero and is reflected by typical long empty hallways and distance between co-workers (a logistical failure). There was a good-intentioned idea to create theme areas in clusters but it resulted in broken existing ties and turf wars. Social is another area where Y2E2 scores well below TEC. Lesson: Sustainability should attract people, not repel them.

Health – The flame-retardant soaked artwork in the atria (especially in the red atrium where food service takes place) showed a lack of care for environmental health. But also look at the lack of water fountains as well as poor ventilation in the bathrooms. Then there are the hard, unpadded staircases and lack of real sunlight in the inner spaces (mental health not considered). Lesson: Sustainability should nurture a healthy ecosystem.

Environmental – One of the most interesting positive features of Y2E2 is the enhanced thermal transfer between floors because of the non-carpeted floors – I mention this to all visitors as a smart feature. But among some of the less-than-smart things is that building warmth is dependent on actual bodies in the building. Whereas the Sun Field Station anticipates the time people will arrive for work and initiate heaters/coolers to get to a comfortable temperature by the appropriate time, Y2E2 will only heat up when a critical number of bodies get in (if they get in). Cooling is just as unreliable with a central controller determining the delivery of cool air with no regard for how individual spaces are used – again “one-size-fits-all.” On the “positive” side, TEC was worse at heating//cooling. Lesson: Sustainability savings through discouraging occupancy is a net loss.

Logistical – It is mind-boggling how usability was not at the forefront in Y2E2’s planning and design. I’d like to mention even one user-friendly logistical arrangement in Y2E2, but I can’t think of one (right now). How about a simple enough problem needing a forward-thinking solution such as bicycle parking? Nope, just as bad as it was at the TEC. Could’ve just visited a truly bicycle-friendly university campus such as UC Davis. There is the cafe in the red atrium first floor – glad there is a food outlet in the building but it’s situated next to the classroom and a couple of key conference rooms (which have clear glass sides facing the cafe so there is massive distraction in meetings), and its ordering line and waiting area extends into an entry area so traffic jams are common. Lesson: Usability supports sustainability.

Technology – What would it have taken to make the VoIP jacks a different color from the Ethernet jacks? And one has to check in and out a VoIP audio conference speakerphone? Yes, most conference rooms have a Smart Panel to connect a laptop and connection points in the floor and elsewhere – but reliability should be higher. Yes, we have group videoconference units – but they are underutilized because of scheduling policies and lack of support. Lesson: Efficiency also involves time savings. Make it convenient.

Sustainability – I’d like to think that this was a sustainability experiment, but at this time, I wonder whether this was more of a psychology experiment – one in which people’s tolerance for pain, suffering and sacrifice – in the name of sustainability – were tested. This observation has led me to decide that the discussion of sustainability in the YCISL program needs to focus on efficiency, productivity and enhanced health so that intrinsic motivation is optimized, and solutions actually solve problems, not create new ones.

In the picture below: Y2E2 Green atrium area at 9:33 am on Tuesday September 18, 2012. Empty. Un-used. Un-productive. Sustainable – yes.

WSJ: Why Our Innovators Traffic in Trifles

In the Saturday/Sunday July7-8, 2012 issue of the WSJ, there is an article titled “Why Our Innovators Traffic in Trifles” by Nicholas Carr on page C2 (article can be found online at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304141204577508820786062502.html).

The article addresses the immense public awareness and awe surrounding incremental innovations such as Instagram. Carr writes “What we are seeing is not a slowdown in the pace of innovation but a shift in its focus.” He adds “We are getting precisely the kind of innovation that we desire – and deserve.” He points to Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs” and suggests we are experiencing a progression in human desires.

But really, I only heard about Instagram when Facebook offered to acquire them. Even then, I would estimate 98% or more of us look at Instagram’s user interface level to assign a level of innovation quality. How innovative is the whole product from design level to architecture level to structural coding etc? I can’t tell you. Could you? I did, however, work with the Blazer team when Bluelark was acquired by Handspring and the web browser app would become central to the Treo. I knew of its server-side features, its security issues, interface challenges and user experience aims. This level of detail allowed me to appreciate the innovative qualities of the product and process. So, can innovation be judged by the user interface and interaction alone? The answer, broadly speaking is “Yes, but not well.”

I’ve long held the definition that innovation is a term that should exclusively be associated with inventions that had a massively influential effect on life. Some of the best examples are flight, fire, the computer and the pencil. However, now that I think more about innovation as a process than an object, there is room for incremental innovation – for those who have gone through the same process as for true innovation – and yielded something that is unique and provides a valued alternative to existing solutions. By thinking of innovation as a process, we can make it accessible to youth and provide lessons in creative thinking.

And to Carr’s point about focus, innovation is really a matter of perspective and the level of fascination that is realized. While the truest innovations affect all, most of what is held as innovation today is held so by adult eyes and their focal control. At best, these are quasi-innovations – objects that have unique life-changing qualities but only upon a limited segment of people. Therefore, I am looking forward to helping define innovation for the youth segment and differentiating it from the “trifle” that has filled our lives.

Thoughts: A Flurry of WSJ Articles on Innovation

Several articles appeared in the WSJ recently on the topic of “Innovation.” To start, the May 23, 2012 WSJ has an article titled “You Call That Innovation?” written by Leslie Kwoh that describes how “innovation” is an overused term (practically “ubiquitous”) often indicating an intended direction rather than an achievement. Even in the event of accomplished change, the result is usually at best “invention” rather than true innovation (e.g., electricity, flight and my personal favorite, the pencil). The distortion of the term is perhaps understandable with b-schools believing that they can teach innovation (see B-Schools’ Innovation Rush” by Melissa Korn) and stretching the realm to encompass incremental change in order to attract students and provide modern examples for academic learning. Look too at the WSJ May 17, 2012 (Bay Area) issue which has an article titled “Stanford Dean on Teaching the Skill Set of Innovation” by Pui-Wing Tam which reports an interview with Stanford GSB Dean Garth Saloner. The interview discusses the components of the innovation curriculum which is similar on the surface to the components covered by our YCISL program. However, the basic premises and approach are fairly dissimilar. The Stanford GSB approach is based on a belief that innovation is a skill that can be “nurtured.” YCISL treats innovation as a process that can be manifested if chosen; similar to experimental technique. Our YCISL framework also takes a view that creativity, the predominant energy for innovation (our process), is present in everyone and can be made into a journey by anyone who has their barriers lowered. Not focusing on financial outcome is also a key YCISL premise (utilizing intrinsic motivation) and advantage.

Exercise: Uses for a Pail (Multitasking Revisited)

In extension to the entry titled “Unitaskers Bad, Multitaskers Good,” I am thinking that a bucket/pail might be a great object to ponder multitasking. I have several around the house and in the garden.

One approach would be to actually bring one or more pails in. We could do the brainstorming exercise (a) with no visual identification of the object (i.e., just tell them it’s a pail), (b) with an image on a screen or piece of paper (i.e., no 3-d impression), (c) with a pail sitting at the front of the room (i.e., observe from a distance, or (d) actually have participants play with one first or during.

I am also thinking to make this an experiment where we also develop a methodology and collect data for analysis.

We would give the same exercise to individuals not in the workshop to create a reference set of ideas for usage. The reference set would be longitudinal in age, and these references would be used to compare with the results from workshop participants.

Design Challenge: Paper Planes

In today’s WSJ (Thursday May 17, 2012), there is an article titled “Paper Plane Champ Watches His Record Fly, Fly Away” about a controversy in the competitive paper plane world. This reminded me of a time someone suggested that a paper plane exercise could serve as a basis for a YCISL exercise.

The article mentions an iPad app – which I have downloaded. The base version of the app shows how to fold three types of paper planes: Stunt (flips), Dart (distance), Eagle (hang time).

This also reminds me of a scene where kids throw paper planes off a building where the paper has something written in it.

I am thinking that we would use such an exercise for younger students, or perhaps a preview event. Three attempts? Three paper planes? Team or individual?

Could we use recycled material for this exercise? Would newspaper work? Could we use aluminum foil that has been used previously in the chute exercise?

Perhaps as a parallel type exercise, students could design a trebuchet or crossbow or a stomp rocket or a finger blaster or a mentor rocket (reminder, use eye protection).

Could this be set up as a fundraising competition (like a walkathon) where a person is sponsored by the number of paper airplanes made or the time a plane hangs in the air or the distance it flies?

Article link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303879604577408194095860860.html

WSJ: School-Test Backlash Grows

In the May 16, 2012 issue of the WSJ, there is an article that echoes once again the frustration felt about education in the US.

The article starts with “The increasing role of standardized testing in U.S. classrooms is triggering pockets of rebellion across the country from school officials, teachers and parents who say the system is stifling teaching and learning.” It describes attitudes towards standardized testing and propagates the image that US education is in a mess, and going in circles – all true, but again lacking in a promising outcome (what does being absent from standardized testing accomplish?)

As I view it, the problem is NOT standardized testing – in the form of an annual assessment so that useful feedback can be gathered – it’s the paucity of design and useful data that defeats the humanitarian purpose of the exercise. For example, why is there not a balance between the current IQ-based assessment and an EQ-based assessment which together would better predict successful and meaningful learning? Why is the focus on how much knowledge/information a student can absorb and regurgitate? That is a recipe for an experiment with no controls, no frame or reference. In other words, production of useless data. Even worse, that useless data influences actions.

Annual standardized testing would be very useful in comparing educational productivity across cultures and other divides; and may direct our attention to systems that work better (although I don’t think anyone is using this method). Rather, I question the need for continuous assessment where every minute assignment has to result in a letter grade – that is what has taken the creativity out of learning, and the trend to grade lower and lower grades (in some cases, Kindergarten now) has made clear that this is educational bureaucracy’s  focused goal.

I can accept that schools are knowledge transfer centers and that is what they strive to excel at. What is disappointing is the intrusive nature of the educational system which over-reaches by assigning useless and time-based homework as if intentionally aiming to prevent integration with real life. The school’s job could be better – to inspire students to want to learn outside of school times, to relate to the experience out of school, and to learn through self-awareness and other EQ qualities.

Put in the YCISL framework, it appears that while there is creative and critical thinking being exercise (our energy), it is fettered and too weak to make it all the way through the innovation process to create cases of successful leadership. This innovation step must be in a true quantum nature, and not incremental because of compromise.

Article link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303505504577406603829668714.html