Ian’s blogomatic

And it's already effecting the quality of journalism students. Brisbane Times http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/staff-walk-out-of-queenlsnad-universities-20090916-fq16.html

 

image Mr. Jaigh

I’ve been listening to Barry Everitt on the Health report discussing studies into addiction, and particular on the link between poor impulse control and addiction. His colleague, Jeff Dalley determined what sub-population of rats had poor impulse control by delaying a signal that food was available. The poor impulse control rats started looking for the food before they had the signal to say where it was, therefore making mistakes. These rats made up about 20% of the population.

Having identified the poor impulse control rats, further experiments found these other connections:

1) When exposed to unlimited cocaine poor impulse control rats take larger doses than the general rat population
2) When exposed to adverse consequences for the drug taking, the general rat population stop, but the poor impulse control rats continue.

Impulse control has wider implications than just as a predictor for addictive behaviours. In a 1960’s experiment conducted at Standford University in the US, Walter Mischel tested four-year-old childrens' ability to defer gratification. He gave them a marshmallow and promised another if they could wait 20 minutes without eating the first one. As one can imagine, some children were able to wait it out, but other succumbed to temptation and took the instant, but smaller reward. When these children were followed up on in adolescence, the children with better impulse control were (according to surveys of teacher and parents)  “better adjusted” and “more dependable” as well as scoring higher in a scholastic test.

A similar investigation using a wrapped gift and four year olds was carried out in the 70’s by David  Funder and Jeanne and Jack Block. When they followed up on these children seven years later, the boys who had shown poor impulse control were “irritable, restless and fidgety, aggressive, and generally not self-controlled” while the girls “tended to go to pieces under stress, to be victimised by other children, and to be easily offended, sulky, and whiny”.  Amongst the children who could delay their gratification, the boys were found to be “deliberative, attentive, and able to concentrate” and the girls “intelligent, resourceful, and competent”.

My childhood was full of advice about deferring gratification. This has to do with the character of my parents (who had both lived through hard times) and the middle class values of the period. Margot Prior sees this changing as more children are spoilt by indulgent parents who think children need “treats” and rooms full of toys they don’t value. She says “who hasn’t noticed the hapless mother complying with the strident demands of her pre-schooler who must have what he wants from the supermarket shelf instantly.”

To stretch the evidence just a little, we seem to have:

spoilt children -> poor impulse control -> addictive, low concentration ability adolescents

The similarity between the descriptions of the children who could not delay gratification and control their impulses and the spectrum of ADHD behaviours is marked and is even more interesting in light of another of the findings Barry Everitt discusses. The impulsive rats (in a different investigation into aiding abstinence following an addiction) were able to medicate their impulsiveness by self-administering cocaine. The similarity between this and the use of low dose amphetamines to treat ADHD is unavoidable.

Where does this leave us as educators? Well, in some of the tests on gratification in children, the children who did well often used self-distracting behaviours. They did something else, walked around the room, sang a song or put the temptation out of sight to shift their attention away from the desired object. In essence, they controlled their own concentration. This seems exactly like the sort of thing that can be taught, and is, with techniques such as mindfulness meditation and cognitive behavioural therapies. I have some optimism that these self-control behaviours can be taught in schools, even if only with younger children.

Either way, I can’t see the cocaine-for-kids program getting off the ground.

links:

Barry Everitt interviewed by Norman Swan on the Radio National Health Report
Juliet Lapidos on peaking at the end of the book on Slate
Margot Prior speaking on gratification on Ockhams Razor, Radio National

 

I spent Wednesday at the Department’s ‘Vacation School’ in a session with Gavin Morris on the School Improvement and Accountability Framework. This could have been a pretty dry subject but Gavin put a lot of effort into connecting it with frontline teaching, and revealed his passion for government education in the process. My particular interest in this topic is that I’m reading the lay of the land for the new political future of public school teaching, and I’m pretty sure it is league tables and assessment of schools purely on standardised test results. This push is just too tempting for politicians.

My issue with it is that the test results to not encompass all of the things that schools do, or at least should do. There is no NAPLAN result for a school where the students and teachers treat each other with respect, no NAPLAN result for a school where a kid picks up a piece of rubbish that is not theirs and no NAPLAN result for a school where people look out for each other. If we use standardised test results to judge schools and teachers I have no doubt we will get better test scores, I’m just not sure if that will indicate more successful students or better scores.

I am happy that an increased emphasis on testing is showing that our standards have slipped because this matches my personal view. Maths books written for year seven in the 1970’s have suitable content for high school students now. Where the blame for this lies is an interesting question, and my first guess is Curriculum Framework, with it’s emphasis on developmental progress rather than achievement levels, is the major suspect. The lack of teacher support embodied in the Framework (whereby every teacher in the state have to write their own syllabus each year) is another likely factor.

I’m also happy that the tests are soundly written, at least in my mathematics area. The question of whether they are valid is a little more complex. They are written against someone’s idea of what maths should be taught rather than the WA curriculum, however there is a massive overlap so this is not a particular concern. Presumably as the National Curriculum and supporting documents are rolled out there will be a prefect match of curriculum and test content. One hopes that the WA DET exemplars, that are to be used for grading now levels are gone, are aligned with the National Curriculum so they don’t have to be re-re-invented.

The session looked at the high-level analysis tools embodied in Schools Online (part of the DET’s public web and intranet). These are the tools administrators can use to assess teaching if they don’t want to walk into classrooms. According to Gavin, teachers should be allowed to use these tools, but the access needs to be granted by line managers. We discussed several distributions of student results comparing a schools performance against the state results and against “like” schools. The like schools are chosen by the schools Socio-Economic index which takes into account single-parentness, parent occupation etc and is a good indicator of school performance. Some attendees seemed concerned that remoteness or school size were not taken into account, but according to Gavin these turn out to not be major factors in school performance.

I’m glad I did this course. Gavin was a persuasive presenter discussing a topic of considerable interest to me. It is always good the meet people from Central Office that are passionate about teaching and it’s importance and I’ve gained some insights into the forces outside my classroom that will affect my students and teaching over the next few years.

I had the luck to have a look around a large public high school in Perth last week. Unfortunately I was hung over with the flu, so I probably didn’t get as much out of it as I could have. A few things seem worth mentioning however.

The first was just the shock of the size of the place. With roughly the same number of staff as my school has students there was a little culture shock to get over. With this scale comes the necessary regimentation. In my school the staffroom whiteboard is a communication medium anyone can use – excursions, staff birthdays, important visitors and even significant AFL games all get added at various times by anyone walking past. With over a hundred staff, such a casual approach can not work, and staff members are strictly forbidden from adding events as they please.

It did feel weird to wander through groups of students without them calling out greetings to me and I straightaway started to build a stereotypical view in my head of a much less personal atmosphere. The evidence did not support this however. A closer look revealed plenty of genuinely warm interactions between staff and students. Students smiled and made way in the crowded corridors for the country bumkin teachers on tour. I was surprised that there was no bells signalling the period changes, but then why would they have any greater need of them than we do?

In conversations with the principal and the teachers I met I was amazed at their enthusiasm and dedication to their craft, as well as their willingness to share it with us. This really is one of the great things about being a teacher – other teachers have such an interest in education they are happy to share what they are doing with you, to listen to your challenges and contribute ideas to help you.

 

I was interviewed by DET’s PR company this week for an advertising campaign to recruit new teachers, especially to the country. I think I have lots of thoughtful stuff to say on this subject, but I’m pretty sure I didn’t say any of it. Mesmerised by the lights and the large video camera I was rendered inarticulate. I stumbled through the questions, forgetting where I was up to, um-ing and ah-ing and not being myself. My wife, who was teaching in the background, assures me I even made up a word. I think we can safely assume none of it will be usable.

The shortage of teachers (in some areas) over the last couple of years has been well publicised in WA. There has been a concerted effort to address this by recruiting overseas teachers by the department with mixed success. When I applied to teach as a graduate at the end of 2007 there was no interview. The fact that I had the piece of paper to say I was qualified was enough. My understanding is that new teachers in WA are still not interviewed. Meanwhile in other states the process is much more rigorous. In Queensland, aspiring teachers present a portfolio and are interviewed by a panel including department people and principals. Every applicant is graded. Only the best are appointed.

It seems logical to me that as a result of this, new teachers appointed in QLD are probably of a better calibre than those in WA. Some teachers rejected by the Queensland system end up teaching in WA, perhaps they go on to be great teachers – I hope so. The solution to this shortage is to make teaching more desirable so more people want to do it, then we can cherry pick the good ones, or at least not employ the dud ones just because we want to put a body in front of every class. Although there are many ways of making teaching more desirable, I think the advertising campaign could help.

So, what are the things I would say to someone thinking about teaching, possibly in the country, from my perspective of mid-life career change…..

1) Studying is exhilarating. I loved studying again – it was hard work but fun. I met a heap of people I wish I had more time to catch up with now. The people you meet will be a valuable resource later.

2) Teaching is hard. The stakes are high and resources are limited. Every decision is a compromise. Any offhand word you say to a child might scar them forever. Even if there were a consensus on the best way to teach students you would never have enough time or resources to implement it. You are working for an employer who often seems to not value you, most of your students say they would rather be somewhere else, many parents, often encouraged by stories in the media, will distrust you and may blame you for problems you think could be addressed by them. If you are a male, any two girls could ruin your career in an afternoon by making up a story about you. Your profession will frequently be infected with academic fashions, and all sorts of obviously stupid ideas will have to be implemented by you as a result of politicians feeling they need to do something. The problems of the students you deal with will usually not be solvable by anything you can do on your own, if at all.

3) Teaching is incredibly rewarding, meaningful work. If you do it right you can make a real, positive difference to someone’s life. You can enjoy the success of the kids you work with. People in the education system will support you – they want you to succeed because they have the same passion for students to become the best people they can be.

4) Country schools (based on my very limited experience) are great places to start a teaching career. I have small class sizes, I know every kid in the school, and when I walk around the school in the morning I am followed by the sound of “Good morning Mr Bailey!” I know most of the parents and the community is supportive of the school. The school is very supportive of new teachers. I feel there is not a single person on the staff (and I mean the entire staff here – cleaners, EA’s, gardener, administrators, teachers and office staff) who would not help me with anything I asked them about.

5) DET does some great things to support new teachers. I love the Graduate Modules the PLI run. As well as being a practical help, they give you some breathing space out of the school to step back and look at what you have been doing. I also benefited greatly from the Graduate Coach program. I had a fabulous coach (thanks Vanessa) who chatted with me once a week about what I was doing and how I thought it was going. This was all confidential and with an experienced educator from outside the school. All the questions I had that I thought sounded too stupid to ask in the school got dealt with this way.

If you like kids and think education is important, if you are willing to learn, if you want to work in an environment where everybody wants you to succeed – teaching could be for you.

I can't be the first to notice this:



(Saturnic moon Mimas via NASA picture of the day)

Looks like this:

via make my mood

I've just listened to an excellent podcast from American Lawyer Doug Lichtman who gives an great summary of the technical and legal aspects of Digital Rights Management. The podcast is titled "Everybody Hates DRM" but is really a very even handed examination of how DRM can and is being used.

As well as looking into some of the disasters, such as Sony BMG's rootkit, it touches on some of the ways DRM can be a benefit to consumers by expanding the range of ways of accessing content. For example, traditionally the only way to enjoy a movie at home might have been to rent a DVD or purchase a DVD. DRM technology allows the movie owner to allow more novel arrangements that it could charge less for - such as 'watch once' or 'watch many times, but only on one device'.

There is a natural tension between the copyright owner using DRM to limit the consumer's use of the copyrighted material and the consumer. This occurs especially in situations where the owner has been less than clear about the limitations, or where consumers have traditionally had an ability to deal with the material in some manner and that ability is removed. Often this tension results in systems being developed to circumvent the DRM. Perhaps the most famous of these is DVD Jon's cracking of the CSS system used to protect DVD's. In these cases, the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) swings into support the rights of the copyright owner.

The DMCA effectively makes it an offence to circumvent DRM or supply tools that enable such a circumvention. Similar provisions apply in Australia under our Australian Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000 - I seem to remember this was part of what we had to pay for the US-AUS Free Trade Agreement in exchange for being able to sell beef to the US with them considering giving some thought towards giving up some of their farm protectionism at some time in the future.

An interesting situation, discussed in the podcast, arises when manufacturers of game consoles (Sony Playstation, Nintendo Wii, Microsoft XBox etc) sell games consoles at a loss, but make their profits on the games. In order for this business model to work, the companies must have control of the games that can be played on their consoles. They use DRM to enforce this, but 'mod-chips' have been developed by hackers for most of the consoles to circumvent this. Naturally this circumvention falls under the DMCA and is therefore illegal in the US. In Australia, shops are able to openly advertise mod-chips and have legitimate businesses installing them. This anomaly arises partly as a result of a court case in which Sony brought an action against a mod-chip seller. In that case the court found, in part, that the devices allowed a legal function - the playing of games legally acquired in other regions in the world. This is perhaps an example of the company using DRM to do more than just enforce their copyright rights, then this being their undoing - although only in Australia.

One DRM technology mentioned in the podcast is the 'fingerprinting' of audio files. One of the problems YouTube has is threats from music companies who don't like their copyrighted music appearing in YouTube videos. To overcome this YouTube purchased a system that scans all the new videos and checks the music against a database to see if it is copyrighted. I've been reading an excellent description of their Audio Content ID system from Parallax this week. He's done a nice job of testing the system with various attacks.

My personal take on DRM in music is that a couple of years ago, you could only purchase music online from a couple of places, there was only a limited amount available and the DRM meant you had to use Windows Media Player and there were limitations on moving it from MP3 player to MP3 player. At the same time, using Napster or one of the other peer-to-peer networks you could download any music you could think of, in minutes with no restrictions. The music companies were making their payed for product less useful and harder to obtain than the free (and illegal) product. This was not a successful strategy.

In 2009 the situation is much better. ITunes has a huge back catalogue of music and it is all DRM free. Searching is as easy as it was on Napster and there are no fakes or spam files. It's a simple thing to purchase credits when I buy my groceries. So now it's at least as easy, and in some ways easier to purchase legal digital music than illegal. This seems like a much better business prospect that having to sue your customers all the time.

There are still a couple of flies in this ointment though. The only way to easily buy digital DRM free music is through iTunes - so I have to use iTunes which means I have to do things the Apple way. Most the time this is fine, but sometimes it bugs me (for example losing some quality when I have to convert through two digital formats to put MP3's on my non-Apple MP3 player). The second is that iTunes has no competitor. The music companies stupidly let Apple do this to them. It's hard to see where some downward pressure on digital music prices would come from without some competition.

We have to give Apple some credit for using their market power to push the music companies towards DRM free, otherwise everyone was losing. The music company's fear of having their product stolen was causing it to be. Apple has obviously made a case for DRM free to the music companies and they've had to listen, with the result consumers can buy the music they want easier than stealing it.

 

This, plus the Milgram effect, can explain the behaviour of Nazi or Israeli soldiers.