The Google Effect?

In an interesting article published online in Friday's Science, Dr. Betsy Sparrow talks about her study assessing the effects of the Internet on people's memory. Do we, as modern people, rely on the Internet as a giant, collective memory bank and save our own brain-space for the things that are most important to us (and not readily available online)?

Sparrow's study provides some convincing evidence that this may be exactly what we are doing. If we know that we are more likely and able to look something up in the future, we are less likely to retain that content in our own brain.

What are your thoughts on how this might effect the future of education? Not just online learning, but the classroom experience, as well?

Arsenic and Scientific Controversy

The June 3 issue of Science contained a research article written by a NASA astrobiologist fellow, Felisa Wolfe-Simon, and her colleagues titled “A Bacterium That Can Grow by Using Arsenic Instead of Phosphorus.” The manuscript reports on research in which the bacterium GFAJ-1 was grown in an environment low in phosphorous and high in arsenic, traditionally considered a toxic and unstable metal. The authors hypothesize that not only does the bacterium tolerate arsenic, but it thrives in the environment, replacing some of the phosphorous normally used to manufacture biomolecules such as DNA, with arsenic. Steven Benner, an astrobiologist at the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution in Gainesville, Florida stated that if the authors’ hypothesis proves true, it would “set aside nearly a century of chemical data concerning arsenate and phosphate molecules.”

While the findings of the research are significant, even more remarkable is the discussion and debate that began after the article was first published online by Science on 2 December 2010. By the time of its print publication in the June 3 issue, the manuscript had spawned a record eight Technical Comment articles that were published in the same issue, and a Response to the Technical Comments by the lead author Wolfe-Simon. Several of the Technical Comments questioned whether the DNA was simply contaminated with arsenic instead of having incorporated it into its genome. Others questioned whether arsenate compounds would be stable enough to be utilized in the bacterium’s DNA. In her response, Wolfe-Simon provides further explanation of their work and interpretations. But the controversy over the hypothesis will take much longer to play out. Bruce Alberts, Science’s editor-in-chief, remarked in a note introducing the Technical Comments that “The discussion published … is only a step in a much longer process.” That process will likely involve further research, additional publications, and continued debate until a preponderance of evidence eventually supports or disputes the hypothesis put forth. The research stimulated by scientific controversy is not only a healthy aspect of scientific discourse, it is, in many ways, essential to the process of science as we know it. As we wait for this particular controversy to play out, you can read more about the role that controversy plays in scientific discovery in our website module Scientific Controversy.

What's the value of higher education?

There have been a number of articles recently discussing the "value" of a college education (such as this one in the New Yorker) . In other words, given the cost in time and money, is it a good investment to make? Traditional wisdom, with research to support it, is that people with college degrees earn significantly more over a lifetime than those with only a high school diploma, so that even discounting the intangible benefits of higher education, it's still a good investment. So what is driving these new discussions?

The first is that many recent college graduates are struggling to find jobs in the current job market. The unemployment rate in the 20-24 year old age group is 15%, nearly 6% higher than the overall population. Even those with college degrees are struggling, and it's as bad as it's been since 1970.

The second is that the cost of a traditional four-year private University is now around $50k a year (tuition + lodging). Nearly a quarter of a million dollars is a lot of money, especially with the prospect of no job or a low paying job waiting for you when you graduate. With more students graduating with heavy debt burdens, the need to find a job is even more pressing.

The third is the rapid change in skillsets in demand in the workforce. In the technology world for example, four years is a very long time and skills that might have seemed important then are far less relevant now. Consider that the iPhone was introduced just four years ago, and the app store three years ago. Are colleges properly preparing students for the jobs that are actually out there? Do they adjust fast enough to stay relevant?

Finally, there is a large amount of education material available online now, from Visionlearning to OpenCourseWare and Kahn Academy. Why spend money living in an expensive area and taking classes from well paid professors when can you do it all online for free or cheap?

These are interesting discussions to have, but I feel it's important to remember one thing: higher education isn't so much about the actual content that you cover but about how you go about learning it. By physically placing students together in groups (e.g. a class) and working on difficult problems over the course of a semester, they learn skills that are useful in just about any job. The real value of the education is not in the course material but in the process of attainment.

It still would be nice to find a job though, wouldn't it?

Another editorial about teaching the process of science

There have been a lot of editorials in Science and other venues over the past couple of years, calling for more teaching of the process of science. The latest is in the most recent issues of Science, entitled Measuring Student Development, and written by David J. Asai, the director of Precollege and Undergraduate Science Education Programs at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Asai says, "An effective program should enable students to demonstrate an understanding of the process of science, regardless of their academic discipline."

I completely agree. In developing materials for Visionlearning about the process of science, we found it to be very difficult to assess our students' understanding in a single course - it simply does not provide enough time to see change. Asai's suggestion to approach this at a programmatic level reflects the complexity and nuance involved in understanding the process of science, and that it requires building skills over time, as should be the case in an undergraduate program.

Not that assessment at the programmatic level is any easier, but it will undoubtedly produce interesting results that can inform how we integrate the process of science into our teaching.

Teaching about Ethics

I asked students in my research preparation class to read our module on Scientific Ethics, and started the next class by asking them their thoughts and questions about it. One student asked, "How much fraud is happening in science that we don't know about?" The simple answer, of course, is, "We don't know!"

But despite not knowing for sure, I said we can be reasonably confident that there is very little outright fraud going on. Why? I started to support that statement by comparing it to the frequency of fraud in society as whole, but I stopped myself as I remembered recent convictions of high-profile executives on Wall Street and the volume of spam email that I receive. I thought to myself that there is probably less fraud among scientists than in the general population. How could I support this wild claim?

My co-instructor jumped in and pointed out that most of the ethical questions he faces have nothing to do with fraud but are really about not being lazy. It is easier not to follow up on questions brought up by reviewers in the publishing process, for example, or to not take good notes in the lab or the field and then just fudge the data a little bit - those are the ethical issues we face everyday that affect the quality of our science. Cases of outright fraud are rare, indeed, possibly because the rewards are less tangible than the financial gains won through fraud on Wall Street.

With a room full of students embarking on their first research experience, therefore, we turned the conversation to developing scientific habits that foster ethical behaviors: taking detailed and methodical notes on procedures, acknowledging funding sources, adequately citing sources and contributions from other research group members, not being worried about having to get a particular result in order to be successful. The extreme examples they read about helped them see the importance of those little steps in their own research, and motivated them (I hope!) not to be lazy.

Thinking One Level Up

I was walking through the Cantor Arts Center at Stanford University a couple weeks ago, and stumbled upon a group of high school students in one of the galleries, with a tour guide and a couple of teachers.  The tour guide was talking about one of the paintings, describing the artist, and pointing out details in the scene.  He was providing a lot of valuable information, yet about half the students weren't really paying attention.  I could see them shuffling their feet, staring at another piece of art, whispering to a friend, or looking at their cell phones and iPods.

Perhaps some were not interested in art or at least not in the particular details the tour guide was talking about.  Maybe they were busy thinking about their weekend plans.  It started me thinking about what I would do differently to keep their attention.

Your brain has the built in ability to absorb and process information, and then come to conclusions that are beyond the collection of facts you just absorbed.  The absorption part is natural, and it works best when you are working on a problem or thinking one level up.  This doesn't necessarily mean trying to solve complicated problems, but just a problem for which you need the information you're trying to learn.  The best demonstrations of your brain's incredible ability is on display constantly, from walking across a room to catching a baseball.  Each of those amazing feats requires advanced knowledge of physics, mechanics, and more, and cannot be easily replicated by our best robotic efforts to date.  But you didn't need to study any of those topics to get your favorite toy as a toddler: that was your one level up problem when you first starting walking, and your brain figured it all out.

Now let's head back to the art museum.  Rather than trying to have students absorb facts about the artwork, I would ask them to think about some problems.  Why did the artist choose the medium that he or she painted on?  Why is the subject off center?  Why is there so much red?  How old do you think the artist was when the work was created and why?  What would you do differently?

By acting as a facilitator instead of lecturer, we let the students build the core knowledge by thinking and then by talking. This process engages the students, and will likely draw in some of the disinterested students.  Finally, by thinking about and discussing the problems, they'll start generating their own questions and some specific interests of their own.  And the only way to answer those questions is to seek information -- which is what we wanted them to do in the first place.  It's like a learning sneak attack by asking questions, thinking one level up, and then listening instead of talking at the students.

This post was written by Peter Mangiafico, an educator, techie and private pilot living in Silicon Valley.

Do you use this approach in your classroom or study plan? Share how it's working either here or on our Facebook page.

Celebrating Diversity

It's been a devastating two weeks in terms of weather and natural events. Floods in the Southern US, tornadoes in the Midwest, volcanic eruptions in Iceland...I guess we should be glad that the greatest earthquake in the history of Earth didn't strike on Saturday. It's been hard to watch all the destruction. However, it's important to remember that change is a precursor of great things -- even if it's hard to imagine what those great things can be just yet. Adaptation to change is never easy, but it is because of that adaptation that we are able to see so much diversity in the world.

As a respite from all this upset, we thought we'd share some of the more wonderful discoveries from the very recent past (courtesy of Discovery News) that highlight the intriguing and sometimes comical ways nature adapts.

Take, for example, the Darwin bark spider that builds its webs along rivers. In addition to having the strongest spider silk known, it builds some pretty darn long webs -- the longest recorded was 82 feet! That's pretty impressive for a spider less than an inch in size. Go to Discovery News to see a picture of this cute little arachnid. It even seems to have a smiley face on its head!

Or, we can celebrate the discovery new fungi. In Oregon, scientists found the first mushroom that fruits underwater; in the forests of Brazil, a glow-in-the dark 'shroom that resembles Glow Sticks. Out of the estimated 1.5 million species of fungi on the planet, only 71 are thought to be bioluminescent.

Then there is the discovery of a rust-eating bacteria living off the remains of the Titanic. (Not good for the boat, but possibly great for the environment.)

What are some of your favorite species-discoveries of the last few years? Share with us here, on our our Facebook page!