From the category archives:

Resources

FYC Visual Rhetoric Paper

by Dr Davis on December 5, 2011

Scientific American has some interesting information for visual rhetoric.

[R]esearchers found that an attractive image is not more likely to be recognized. Rather “mem­orability seems more related to strangeness, funniness or interestingness,” says Phillip Isola, a graduate student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a lead researcher on the study.

Having people in the picture—even if they are strangers—also help make a photo more memorable, as does the impli­cation of movement, such as a person running or waves crashing. Human-scale objects—chairs and cars rather than valleys and planets—similarly plant themselves in our mind.

Still, scenes that lack these attributes are not doomed to be forgotten. Simple changes can increase their mem­orability, such as the presence of a tiny hiker in the back­ground of a mountainous panorama. So the next time you’re out to take a memorable shot, make it interesting—not just pretty.

Very useful information for my students, I think. I will have to look up the study, if the conference proceedings are available. It was “presented at the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition in June.”

{ 0 comments }

Design Thinking: Too Late to Catch the Wave?

by Dr Davis on November 25, 2011

public domain from pdphoto.org

At SXSW (South by SouthWest) two or three years ago, all the videographers were dismayed to realize that videography had already reached a peak. But when one of them said this, those who were presenting said, NO. You guys are on the forward edge so it seems to you like it has all been done, but behind you is an entire ocean that has not yet been surfed.

This seems to be the same question/perception that is being discussed in Is Design Thinking Dead? Hell, no.

The author, Grant McCracken, says that the moving force behind design thinking, Bruce Nussbaum, has declared that design thinking “has given … all it has to offer.” BUT…

In this world, designers can continue to create extraordinary value. They are the people who have, or could have, the laterality needed to solve problems, the sensing skills needed to hear what the world wants, and the databases required to build for the long haul and the big trajectories. Designers can be definers, making the world more intelligible, more habitable. But this won’t happen if, confronted by the inevitable difficulty of the early days, they take their balls and go home.

In sum, it is wrong to say that design thinking has given us “all the benefits it has to offer,” and it’s wrong to call it a “failed experiment.” I think we should be arguing that design thinking is just getting started. And a good thing, too; we need this approach more than we ever did.

I think McCracken is right.

And I think it is the same problem videopodcasters at SXSW had a few years ago. They were too far ahead of the wave to see the entire ocean behind it.

{ 0 comments }

Keeping Your Brain Active

by Dr Davis on November 23, 2011

Scientific American has an article on training your brain which includes three reading/listening recommendations.

The books are:
Healing at the Speed of Sound

In the Thinking Life

The podcast is:
NeuroScene

{ 0 comments }

Tip 57: Engaging Lectures (Not an Oxymoron)

by Dr Davis on November 17, 2011

How can we engage students when we lecture?

Have you ever given a lecture to a class where everyone sat still the entire class period? One where the students did not jump and run as soon as (or even before) the bell rang? If you have, how often have you wondered exactly how you managed that? If you haven’t, do you dream of this or just give it up as an impossible dream?

According to Robert B. Cialdini, students can become engrossed in a lecture with a single, simple feature at the beginning. They will listen raptly, eagerly and not even shift when the bell rings, if we start our lecture with it. They will clamor to know the answer, even when they should be out the door on to their next class.

What is this single feature that we can add to the experience?
If you are intrigued, not just wanting to know the answer, but wondering when I will give it, then you won’t be surprised to hear that the key to engaging the audience is a mystery.

No, I don’t mean we don’t know. I mean it is a mystery, a puzzle, a tale that involves questions. It’s a mystery story.

What if I told you that in sixty minutes, I could increase your average college grades by a half a letter grade–for the next four years?

That’s the mystery I offered my students yesterday. Now the research has been done (though only using minority students) and I know the answer. I can increase their college averages by simply letting them know, making them believe, giving them sufficient examples to show that everyone is confused by college. Apparently many people are unaware that college students are often doubtful of their decisions, frustrated with their efforts, and confused about what to do next. Learning that is sufficient to increase their confidence and their grades.

Can I give you a more extended example?
That’s a short example and certainly not one that engages attention for a long time, at least not as I set it up here.

But is there a way to extend an example? Of course there is. Here is one from Cialdini’s 2005 Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology article.

One of the most successful book sections I registered was written by an astronomer. He began a 20–page section with a puzzle: How can we account for what is perhaps the most spectacular planetary fea- ture in our solar system, the Rings of Saturn? There’s nothing else like them. What are the Rings of Saturn made of. anyway?

Then, he deepened the mystery by asking how three internationally acclaimed groups of scientists could come to wholly different conclu- sions on the answer. One, at Cambridge University, proclaimed they were gas. Another group, at MIT, was convinced they were made up of dust particles. The third, at Cal Tech, insisted they were composed of ice crystals. How could this be? After all, each group was looking at the same thing, right? So, what was the answer?

I will not take you through the whole process of discovery and tell you how the differing backgrounds of the teams—astrophysicists here, as- tronomers there—led them to look at different aspects of the phenome- non and how a crucial measurement error led one team down the wrong path. Suffice it to say that the process of unraveling the mystery was not unlike the process of scientific investigation, wherein hypotheses are generated, implications are tested, nonproductive approaches are taken, errors of interpretation are made, and evidence is marshaled until a sat- isfactory resolution occurs. By the way, this is no small benefit of the use of mysteries in our lectures. The process of resolving mysteries is re- markably similar to the process of science. So, in the use of the mystery approach, we not only give students information about content, we also send them a sub–rosa message about process.
Let us get back to the main point. Which answer was revealed at the end of 20 pages? The beautiful, mysterious Rings of Saturn are mostly dust! Actually, they are ice–covered dust, which accounts for some of the confusion, but they are mostly dust nonetheless.

Now, I do not care about dust, and the composition of the Rings of Saturn is entirely irrelevant to my life. But, that scientist had me turning pages like a speed–reader. Here’s the telling thing: I am sure that I will never forget the answer to the mystery he constructed. Moreover, I am sure that I will never forget how three groups of scientists could have been so confident in their opposing answers to the question. This strikes me as an enormous advantage of mystery stories. They can get our stu- dents to become engrossed in and to remember important material that they otherwise would not care about because it does not seem relevant to their daily lives. Mystery stories do not need personal relevance—they bring their own. (24)

Cialdini doesn’t just offer the mystery story: a mystery, the players in the mystery, a discussion of possible alternatives for answers to the mystery, and finally the denouement as a way to improve lectures. He offers an additional tool as well.

There is another way to improve lectures.

Have you ever noticed that students are riveted by some material, not even noticing that the class period has gone by, while some material has them shifting (or Facebooking) through the entire class?

There’s a reason for this. It’s not really a secret.

Boredom.

When the students are wiggling and tuning us out, it is because they are bored.

Why are they bored?

Students are bored, not because we are boring, we are not inherently boring. All of us can remember an engaging discussion, a particularly well-told joke, or a story that we told to a breathless audience.

Nope. It is not that we are boring.

We are bored.

Yes, I said it. (Well, Cialdini said it first.) We are bored. We know the material isn’t that interesting, so we are bored. Our being bored makes our students bored.

How do WE become engaged in our own lectures?

We find something interesting, something engaging, something we think is fascinating and we add THAT to the lecture.

Just having an addition that is unique, interesting, and engaging TO US is enough to make the lecture more engaging to the student (28). We need to be excited in the classroom. If we are, they will become more excited.

Today’s lecture (in my class) is going to be about a proposing a solution paper. We are in the process of writing those in my fyc classes. But the beginning of the lecture, which is really a repeat of the reading we did yesterday, is a two-minute movie featuring Dr. Davis as Albert Einstein and starring Gandhi as my personal Socrates. There’s a really lame joke on the mispronunciation of precedent being understood as president, a discussion of the principle of fun as a guide for my solution, and a belch. (It is a college class, after all.)

I’m really looking forward to presenting this little two-minute movie, including Gandhi’s Homecoming Queen wave from the moon, in class.

Because I am excited about it, the students will be more excited about it as well.

Ever heard that proverb “like begets like?”

Here’s an example of it in teaching.

{ 0 comments }

11/11/11

by Dr Davis on November 11, 2011

11/11/11 is more than binary beauty. In the United States it is officially the day when we thank the men and women who have served and are serving this country in the military.

Thank you, veterans, for the time, energy, and family time you have given up (especially during times of war/crisis/police actions) so that all of us may live free.

Thank you, also, to the families of the veterans who also sacrificed for freedom.

{ 0 comments }

Thinking about Thinking

by Dr Davis on September 29, 2011

Since I’ve been working on innovation and play, I have noticed a few articles related either directly or tangentially.

How the Brain Science of Attention Will Transform the Way We Live, Work, and Learn

The Internet puts back together all the things the Machine Age broke down: the separation of thinking from making, the separation of thinking from doing, and the separation from kids and their communities. We must break out of the four-walled classroom model and teach children how to use human resources and digital resources at their disposal. That’s a thought process; it’s not a technology process.

More than Child’s Play: Ability to Think Scientifically Declines as Kids Grow Up

To see whether children understand this concept, scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Stanford University presented 60 four- and five-year-olds with a challenge. The researchers showed the kids that certain plastic beads, when placed individually on top of a special box, made green LED lights flash and music play. Scientists then took two pairs of attached beads, one pair glued together and the other separable, and demonstrated that both pairs activated the machine when laid on the box. That raised the possibility that only one bead in a pair worked. The children were then left alone to play. Would they detach the separable pair and place each bead individually on the machine to see which turned it on?

They did, the scientists reported in September in the journal Cognition. So strong was the kids’ sense that they could only figure out the answer by testing the components of a pair independently that they did something none of the scientists expected: when the pair was glued together, the children held it vertically so that only one bead at a time touched the box. That showed an impressive determination to isolate the causal variables, says Stanford’s Noah Goodman: “They actually designed an experiment to get the information they wanted.” That suggests basic scientific principles help very young children learn about the world.

Very interesting stuff.

{ 0 comments }

If People are Searching for Meaning, …

by Dr Davis on September 19, 2011

If people are searching for meaning, where are they finding it?

According to the CIA Factbook, which is where LiveScience got this information:

I would be very interested in seeing if religiosity has increased and, if it has, for how many years. But not interested enough to go look up the information on it.

{ 0 comments }

Quote on Writing

by Dr Davis on September 18, 2011

“[W]ords … are the gems you use to decorate the jewelry of your prose.” — Mike Nappa, “Reason No. 29,” 77 Reasons Why Your Book Was Rejected.

{ 0 comments }

Conceptual Elements: Design, Play

by Dr Davis on September 18, 2011

I have been introducing students to the idea of design and play as part of what will prepare them for the jobs of the future.

Lines and Colors features amazingly gifted artists and Jason Scheier caught my attention.

While there are definitely artists throughout the world, art is something that is inherently difficult to outsource.

{ 1 comment }

Terror Changed Science

by Dr Davis on September 11, 2011

LiveScience has an interesting article called 9/11 Science: 10 Ways Terrorist Attacks Rocked America

Research that was energized or changed due to the 9/11 attacks:
Climate impact (of airplanes)
Memory
Dreaming
Impact on temperature of planes
Lowered drug and alcohol abuse
Blood pressure
Stoicism good
Closer involvement = raised alcohol abuse
Storage of memories for dementia patients
Collective trauma makes people sick

ScientificAmerican also has an article, called Science After 9/11: How Research Was Changed by the September 11 Terrorist Attacks.

research direction blossomed as a result of 9/11. Scientists and science policy experts say the federal government’s response to terrorist events in 2001, both the September attacks and the anthrax letters in October, have had a profound effect on U.S. research in areas as diverse as forensics, biodefense, infectious diseases, public health, cyber security, geology and infrastructure, energy, and nuclear weapons. Even the social sciences have been affected by the emergence of “terrorism studies” and the new emphasis on the threat in the field of risk analysis.

I don’t see how having planes out the sky for a few days can tell us the impact of planes. The temperatures in Texas have been the highest ever in the history of the state. Does that mean that ten years after 9/11 we are seeing the results of more flights? If so, then the average temperatures will continue to go up for the rest of time until flights drop down. It won’t though.

Others of the scientific breakthroughs or foci are interesting though.

{ 0 comments }