The collection of discarded and non-working gadgets has been growing so the boys and I gathered some of them together to do some creative deconstruction. We pulled up chairs to the work bench, gathered some screw drivers and other tools, and set about taking apart and exploring the old electronics. Primo took the screws out of a pair of computer speakers that no longer had any connection between the volume they put out and the position of the knob meant to adjust the sound. We cut the wires connecting the power supply to the circuit board and I had the boys tell me how they thought it worked. I’m not much of a flesh and bones techie but that didn’t really matter. We weren’t try to reverse engineer anything, rather we wanted to explore through destruction. We wanted to take apart the items on our table and see if we could put them back together if we needed to. Once we talked about how the speakers worked the boys started pulling off the transistors and capacitors with pliers.

Sometime down the road we will try to build simple machines but I want to get the boys correctly using tools and having fun taking things a part to see how they work. The more we take a part the more we see how similar things are inside and how the differences determine how the electronics work. I don’t know if they’ll catch the engineering bug like their Grandpa Tom Tom but I hope they will have a healthy knowledge of how things work and to fix the things they can. I also hope that they will see the art and creativity in how things are put together and how they come apart.

Traditional lecture formats are a staple for modern education (Source: Andrew Scott, on Flickr)

Eric Mazur is a professor of physics at Harvard. Like many successful academics, he was trained to teach in the same way he learned — standing in front of a room filled with students and lecturing them on the fundamentals of Newtonian mechanics (among other things). If his course evaluations and lack of empty seats are an indication, Mazur is apparently quite good at this.

“For a long time, I thought I was doing a really, really good job,” Mazur told NPR in a radio segment earlier this week. After encountering some articles by Arizona State physicist David Hestenes, he re-assessed his teaching philosophy.

The lecture is an old form of education. In the days before printing, it arose as a means of mass producing books. One person would read a master copy, and others would write what they heard. In the digital age, however, we are a couple major technological paradigm shifts from that being an efficient way to disseminate information. Arguably, it was never the best way to learn.

What Hestenes realized is that physics was being taught in a way that rewarded parroting formulas, not understanding concepts. Exams demanding qualitative analysis and application of physical laws of nature aren’t solved with a general formula unless the students understand what the calculus represents. Together with a colleague, Hestenes’ response to this insight was to develop a way to assess how well students understood conceptual physics: the Force Concept Inventory (PDF).

The FCI focuses on the Newtonian concept of force, without which the rest of mechanics is meaningless. The example used in the NPR story was the problem of two same-sized objects of different weights falling from the same height. The possible answers favor the heavier or lighter object, or that they will both take the same time to fall. While the FCI is a way to measure the effectiveness of past instruction, it can also become an approach to teaching the concepts in the first place.

For Mazur, his well-received teaching style demonstrated only a modest gain in understanding. His physics class has since changed, making the students debate as the primary means of learning. 100 students will break up into small groups to discuss questions like those posed in the FCI, using mobile tech to vote for an answer before and after they do so. Mazur noted that student understanding triples through this process, culminating in a “peer instruction” session to reinforce the reasons behind the answers.

This re-working of traditional sage-on-the-stage education is a philosophy of education gaining some traction, thanks to open information platforms like YouTube. Khan Academy calls it flipping the classroom, where the information transfer takes place outside of school and working through the concepts together is the best use of time with instructors. Sitting passively in crowded classrooms has other consequences, too. Researchers in Amsterdam announced a significant positive relationship between physical activity and academic performance.

While there appears to be some consensus among professors that lecturing isn’t effective, few are willing to innovate. Many are threatened by what modern technology might do to their job security. Mazur argues that educators need to realize their role in the classroom is changing for the better, from a source of information to a guide in how to use it.

Listen to the full 7-minute segment on NPR.

The Phantom Tollbooth 50th Anniversary Edition & The Annotated Phantom Tollbooth.

This year, the celebrated children’s book The Phantom Tollbooth turned 50. It’s a fantastic story about a boy named Milo “who didn’t know what to do with himself — not just sometimes, but always.” It’s a book about being bored and uninterested, and discovering a whole new way of looking at, well, just about everything. Five decades later, the book still rings true — perhaps even more than ever, as our kids are constantly bombarded with the next new thing in the hopes of staving off boredom.

Norton Juster happened to live upstairs from Jules Feiffer at the time he was writing The Phantom Tollbooth, which is how Feiffer came to illustrate the story in his inimitable style: loose and full of movement. It’s hard to picture Milo and Tock the watchdog looking like anything else. This year, Random House published two new versions of the book to celebrate its anniversary. The first, The Phantom Tollbooth 50th Anniversary Edition, includes the original story printed as it appeared 50 years ago (down to the pagination), in a nice hardcover with a clear plastic dust jacket. (I’ll admit — I’m not hugely fond of the dust jacket, which is kind of slick and hard to keep on.)

The 50th Anniversary Edition also includes several essays: there’s a brief intro by Juster himself, explaining briefly how he came to write The Phantom Tollbooth to begin with. (Key word: procrastination.) That’s followed by an “appreciation” by Maurice Sendak, written in 1996 for the book’s 35th anniversary. But at the back of the book are several more essays celebrating Milo’s journey, some from writers you may have heard of and some you haven’t. There’s Michael Chabon, whose article ran earlier this year in the New York Post. Also included are Jeanne Birdsall, author of the Penderwicks series; Suzanne Collins, author of The Hunger Games; Philip Pullman, best known for His Dark Materials; and Mo Willems of the famed pigeon series.

There are also a few people that you may not have heard of, but their reflections on the book are also insightful. One by Bev Walnoha recounts her own experiences using the The Phantom Tollbooth in her fifth grade class for thirty-three years, having her students write letters to Juster and exploring these new lands along with Milo. Maria Nikolajeva, a Russian-born professor of education, was especially moving, as she described how the “arbitrary and incomprehensible” rules in the book reminded her of her own country, and how children’s literature can be a very subversive, incendiary thing in a totalitarian regime. For her, The Phantom Tollbooth took on specific, very important meanings, teaching her to think independently.

If you already own a copy of The Phantom Tollbooth, you may not need this new edition. However, I know that I recently had to replace my old paperback copy (which I’d had since I was a kid) because it was completely falling apart. It’s good to know that this hardcover will hold up to repeated readings — which it certainly will get.

The other new edition is The Annotated Phantom Tollbooth. This also preserves the same pagination, but with extra-wide margins for all the annotations by Leonard Marcus, a children’s literature scholar (and also children’s book writer). If you’re a fan, this is a treasure trove of marginalia: Marcus explains the origins of many of the phrases and idioms used throughout the book, relates earlier versions of passages, and even includes some of Feiffer’s sketches and studies for particular illustrations.

The introductory essay by Marcus is also extensive, informative, and very well-researched. He discusses Juster’s life in a lot of detail, talking about his childhood anxieties about inanimate objects, his literary influences, his education. He then talks about Feiffer (without quite as much detail, but still a good deal of information), and then relates how the two ended up working together. Finally, there is quite a lot about The Phantom Tollbooth itself, the writing and illustration process, its reception early on and later. The entire essay is about 30 pages long, and is fascinating reading.

The Annotated Phantom Tollbooth isn’t one that you can easily set in your lap while curled up in a cozy chair — it’s more of a desktop reading book, and not a replacement for your battered paperback copy. But if Milo, Tock, and the Humbug have captured your imagination, it’s a terrific way to delve deeper into their world.

The 50th Anniversary Edition retails for $24.00 and the annotated version is $29.99.

Disclosure: GeekDad received review copies of both books.

Kids + Robots = Engineers

The world needs engineers. For many of us geeks, we have an engineer in our life (or are one ourselves) and have been exposed to the impact engineering has on society and industry in the United States. For many folks in the U.S., especially teens, the glorious and productive field of engineering is not something they have been exposed to, and it’s creating a gap between the jobs available and the amount of qualified engineers looking for them. The problem isn’t lack of interest, the problem is lack of exposure.

Intel Corporation, always on the cutting edge of educational initiatives in the United States, is once again working towards affecting the educational system through direct intervention. They don’t just sit back and conduct surveys, they create programs to involve and engage students and invest tons of money in their efforts. It all starts with a survey, as it always does. The latest survey was to find out how much teens knew about the field of engineering and what would inspire them to pursue it.

One of the most critical points to creating more engineers is nurturing that interest at an earlier stage than college or technical school. It’s important to rakethe brains of high school students across the coals of engineering. While some teens like myself (that is, when I was a teen) happened to be constantly exposed to engineering (my father, the mechanical and electrical engineer) many teens have no idea what the profession offers to society, and more importantly – to them. Teens need reasons to show interest in something, and while the field of engineering isn’t always glamorous, it is essential and it is interesting.

According to a recent study by researchers at Indiana University and the University of Virginia, there is a real problem with students dropping out of STEM programs (science, technology, engineering and mathematics.) It also showed that the decision to enter a STEM program was made during high school, unfortunately these decisions might have been made without proper education, which might account for the drop out rates. The study even states that the flow of students into STEM programs might be misguided, as they aren’t 100 percent sure what educational track they are entering into.

There are many facets to engineering, from design to implementation to things such as robotics and advanced theory and invention. Once teens were exposed to this information, about what engineers actually do and specifically how much money they earn on average, more than half of surveyed teens showed interest. That is, they at least will now have engineering in a consideration state, rather than something they would have never thought of. Of course, the field of engineering takes something not all teens have – intelligence. I guarantee if you look at the intelligence quotas of surveyed teens it was the more intelligent ones seriously considering engineering as a career.

The reality is that the money has a lot to do with it. In a world where unemployment is high and the working world is in turmoil, salary has a lot to do with many life decisions. Entering college, many students want to have some sort of faith in the reality that they will leave college with a job that provides them the ability to not only live well, but pay off loads of student loans. According to the survey, about 60 percent of teens are influenced by the potential earnings. That makes sense. They were also interested after hearing about some of the more impacting results of engineering (especially when attached to news stories) such as: playing a role in rescuing the Chilean miners who were trapped in 2010, delivering clean water to poor communities in Africa, designing the protective pads worn by athletes and constructing dams and levees that protect entire cities.

“The results of this survey show the importance of providing teens with opportunities to gain knowledge about engineering,” said Intel CIO Diane Bryant. “We need to offer teens real-world, hands-on engineering experience and interaction with engineers, like that found in robotics programs and science competitions, to improve the likelihood that they’ll get hooked on the subject and pursue it in college.”

Intel has proven they are doing just that through being long time sponsors of two of the world’s largest annual pre-college science and engineering competitions, the Intel Science Talent Search which collects 40 high school seniors in Washington, D.C., to showcase their original scientific research and compete for $630,000 in awards and prizes. The other competition is the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair where over six million young scientists compete for over four million dollars in awards and scholarships.

There is also the annual FIRST Robotics which is full of Intel volunteers and helps to highlight some of the more creative aspects of a career in engineering. Who doesn’t like robots? As well, Intel fully supports the Presidential Jobs Council’s initiative to graduate 10,000 more engineers each year from U.S. colleges and universities by doubling the number of engineering internships offered in 2012. They are following this up with a new program to send Intel executives to college campuses to speak about the benefits of engineering careers.

The direct results of the survey are handily provided via this neat-o infographic. Along with robots, everybody loves infographics!

Ooh.. infographic!

So what can we, as parents and educators, do to help kids find their path in engineering? Well, first we need to better identify those that have the skill-set and interest in STEM careers, rather than just flowing them into a program when they hit college, wasting their time and the resources of the schools. We need to inform teens as to what engineering is all about, improving their understanding of what exactly goes on in an engineer’s life. An important factor in that is not dumbing down what engineers do and what they are responsible for. My father told me the gritty details of re-manufacturing a circuit board to specific specifications, the tedium involved and how success is a badge of honor when faced with difficulty.

We can help give engineering a face, rather than a clouded image of pocket protector wearing geeks locked in a field of cubicles armed with soldering irons and protractors. The Intel outreach programs are a great outlet for this, as well as events such as FIRST. We can also provide more education on the great and emotional impact of engineering, such as saving lives (as previously mentioned) and creating clean energy.

In the end, creating interest in engineering is paramount to keeping our society from becoming the future society of Idiocracy, a society of fools without the means to create a competent standard of living. Engineers are needed for the advancement of society as a whole, for invention and re-invention – to keep the world running.

Additional information (from the the press release):

This survey of U.S. teenagers was conducted online between Oct. 11 and 18, 2011, by Penn Schoen Berland on behalf of Intel. Participants included 1,004 teenagers ages 13 to 18. Demographics were aligned as closely as possible to U.S. Census data. The margin of error is +/- 3.06 percent.

Over the past decade alone, Intel has invested more than $1 billion, and its employees have donated close to 3 million hours toward improving education in more than 60 countries. To get the latest Intel education news, visit www.intel.com/newsroom/education, and join the conversation on Facebook and Twitter. To join Intel’s community of people sharing their stories with the hope of becoming a catalyst for action and a voice for change in global education, visit www.inspiredbyeducation.com.

Intel (NASDAQ: INTC) is a world leader in computing innovation. The company designs and builds the essential technologies that serve as the foundation for the world’s computing devices. Additional information about Intel is available at newsroom.intel.com and blogs.intel.com.

Photo Credit: Anton Olsen

Over at Motion Math Games, a developer GeekDad has long admired for bringing math to kinesthetic learners, they have put their app where more apps should be – under the researcher’s microscope. They invested their own funds and partnered with the GamesDesk Institute to have a look at the real educational value of the iPad and their app and whether it indeed supports and improves children’s ability to learn math, specifically fractions, which their Motion Math app is based on.

The recently released study is called Motion Math in Class.

There is a lot of anecdotal evidence about the value of the iPad, many would say so overwhelming that the significant investment being made by School Districts into mobile technologies and tablets isn’t worthwhile. But, without any decent research or proven randomized trials to demonstrate the educational effectiveness, anyone making claims about the huge educational benefits of certain technologies, apps or other new product is not doing it based on any rigor or serious testing. So, it is heartening to see at least this developer recognizing the importance of putting their money behind some work to try to establish whether there is educational value behind not just what they are doing, but what we are all doing as our children move into a world of mobile technologies.

The value of such research is not really in the final percentage breakdowns listing the achievements of children and whether they have benefited or not from using an app or a piece of mobile technology. The real value is understanding the nuances and grappling with questions that app developers in this space should be tackling like:

• What aspects of the design contribute to improved learning?
• How do children engage with the tools as learning devices and what can we learn from this in improving our development?
• Is it the app itself that supports learning, or the nature of the device, or a combination – and what is that combination and how can we better use it to improve learning?

Of course, there will be people who ask questions about the independence of research that has been invested in by an interested company, but nevertheless, we have to start somewhere and hats off to Motion Math Games for taking the initiative and being part of that beginning.

The study is driven by the fact that more than 600 school districts nationwide have adopted 1:1 iPad programs, excited by the potential for more interactive, engaged learning. But, there are critics who question whether this costly technology actually improves learning – see for example Larry Cuban’s critique. Tech-evangelists may see this criticism as negative and impacting on innovation, but in public policy arenas those interested in making sure this type of significant investment leads to worthwhile outcomes know that evidence is as important as prototyping.

An assistant professor at USC conducted an experimental study to determine whether Motion Math, a fractions game designed for the iPad, iPhone, and iPod, improves students’ fractions knowledge and attitudes. The main take aways from the “Motion Math In Class” study are:

• Knowledge of fractions is essential for future success in mathematics, yet according to national data, the vast majority of US students fail to become proficient in fractions.
• Results show that fifth graders’ fractions test scores improved an average of over 15% after playing Motion Math for 20 minutes daily over a five-day period, a significant increase compared to a control group.
• Students’ self-efficacy for fractions, as well as their liking of fractions, each improved an average of 10%, a statistically significant increase.
• Additionally, virtually all students rated Motion Math as fun and that the game helped them learn.

The study’s conclusion states:

This study offers important evidence that what students learn through gameplay can help them perform better on the kinds of questions asked on state and national standardized tests. In just five days the app shifted the needle on students’ understanding of a topic that has long eluded most learners. Moreover, it shows that gameplay can boost kids’ confidence and enthusiasm for academic subject matter. Taken together, the data from this experimental study offer strong evidence that Motion Math successfully integrates entertainment value with educational value.

The study was a small one, but as I said a beginning. Disappointingly, there was no exploration of the fact that the design of Motion Math may be critical to its success. This isn’t just a series of equations in digital form, the app itself is a form of game-based learning where students have to physically move a floating ball to fall on a number line several times before progressing to the next level. It is not just the mobile technology, but the type of learning styles it offers that is significant. I’d be having a close look at that next.

That said, this will be of interest to those who are going to be handing out mobile technology to their classes and schools after Christmas. There may just be something in this new technology thing.

You can download the full final report at the GamesDesk Institute website.

The resort gave us three $10 vouchers to double any $10 bet we placed at the roulette or card tables.

With the kids waiting in the lobby, I placed a two-for-one bet and won on red.

I came back to announce I had won $20.

What should we do with the winnings? I asked them: We can walk away now with $20 or we can have Mom place a $10 bet with our winnings, leaving us with $10 in winnings.

“Bet it,” they said, recognizing we were playing with money with didn’t have moments earlier.

We returned quickly and shared the bad news. “Mom lost. We have two $5 chips left.”

“I’ll tell you what,” I challenged. “You can each have $5 of our winnings. You can keep the $5 and we can leave right now or you can join together and have me bet your $10.”

It was interesting and fun watching them debate what to do with their money. First eight-year-old Lucas, who badgered me all week about how gambling was “stupid” once I shared my slanted description of the pastime, decided he would keep his $5. 10-year-old Zachary hemmed and hawed and finally decided to have me bet his $5.

When he learned “if Zachary wins, he will keep all the winnings,” Lucas decided to bet his $5 as well. We let them choose which color to bet on, so they would take full responsibility for the outcome.

Zachary put out two hands and asked Lucas to pick one. Lucas chose Zach’s left hand and Zach announced, “Bet on red!”

So Mom and Dad went back to the roulette table and did as we were instructed.

The kids were jumping out of their seats as we approached them. “Did you win?!?!”

Thumbs down. No, we lost, and you could see them deflate. Now we won nothing and lost nothing. I had four $5 chips left. This was the money Beth and I started with. I pushed the lesson further.

“Would you like me to make another bet for you? This would be with your own money. I will lend you $5 and you will pay me back no matter what happens. If you win, you keep everything.”

This time Lucas would not take the bait. He held $5 and saw it go away. Zach “felt bad” about losing the money and wanted a chance to win it back. He took the bet – and when it paid off – he was deliriously jumping around. “I’m so happy!” he danced about his new fortune.

“I could bet it again and you could make even more money,” I taunted Zach.

“NO! NO! No more bets!”

The Next Day
The next day I asked both what they thought of gambling.

“Not a good idea,” said Lucas, now $5 poorer, “because you can lose your money, all the money that you bet. You can win money, and you do another gamble, and then you lose the amount of dollars that you won.”

Zachary said, “I can see how gambling can be addicting for other people because they see they are winning money but then they forget they are losing money too. They might say, ‘I just won! Maybe I can do it the next time!’ And casinos basically make it impossible for you to do any actually winning unless you win in the beginning and you quickly leave. Very few people win big in the casino.”

He concluded, “It’s hard to predict my future but probably, no, I won’t be addicted to gambling because now I’ve learned younger not to play the ‘Cheese Caper’ slot machines.”

Your kids
How have you broached the subject with your kids? Any wisdom to share here?

:: Joe Hage is chief storyteller for Medical Marcom, a medical devices marketing consultancy helping medical companies become more approachable and engaging. ::