Brain Games

Computer games have something to teach us ... and maybe even improve our brains.  The work of Adam Gazzaley at UCSF has garnered evidence that computer games can be designed to improve brain function in such areas as "multi-tasking" or the ability to shift attention priorities rapidly with low loss of critical information.  I saw him speak at UCSF a few weeks ago and the NYTimes has a good article,  Disruptions: Using Addictive Games to Build Better Brains.

The motivation to exercise may be genetic -- at least in rats (Why We're Motivated ... NYT)

What a great example of how the right person at the right time asking the right question can have a major effect -- even a middle school student (Is Organic  Better?  Ask a Fruit Fly. NYT)

Fast Neutrinos or Technical Glitch?

The investigation into the possibility of faster than light neutrinos announced by CERN goes on and a recent announcement discusses possible technical problems with the equipment (NYT, Two Technical Problems ...). This is the way science works and it is so fun to watch in real time.

Faster than a Speeding Photon!

Big news! Physicists at CERN have clocked neutrinos going faster than the speed of light. This article in the NYTimes outlines their findings. This may lead to a radical updating of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, if this discovery can be replicated and verified by others.

This is a great textbook case of the process of science at work. A key tenet of a dominant theory is called into question by an observation. Is the theory wrong? As Richard Feynman eloquently stated,

It doesn't matter
   how beautiful your guess is or how smart you are or what your name is.
   If it disagrees with experience, it's wrong.  That's all there is to it.

On the other hand, what if the measurement is wrong?  This is why we have replication and confirmation built into the process.

New Science Standards Coming -- Inquiry Rediscovered!

The NYT yesterday reported on a New Approach Proposed for Science Curriculum, a new science framework advanced by the National Academy of Sciences. The essential features of the framework are that science curricula should focus on a small set of core principles and on problem-solving skills to apply this principles, rather than on learning about a welter of information about science. The framework is coming out now and a set of standards using this framework is due out in about a year. This publication, A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas, is available from the National Academy Press.

This is a welcome announcement, though it is hardly news. This same basic message has been sounded by scientists and science educators since forever, going back at least to the TIMMS work and before. This really is inquiry science, the same inquiry science called for in the "old" standards issues by NSTA, NAS, and AAAS.

Most schools and school districts are in the thrall of the textbook publishers and their massive tomes that cover science ideas a kilometer wide and a centimeter deep. A few schools, however, such as the Nueva school in the SF Bay Area, actually do practice true inquiry science. May their tribe increase.

The debate about grades goes on. Here is an interesting and one honest approach to grades covered in the NYT article A Quest to Explain What Grades Really Mean.


The key point is that UNC Chappel Hill has decided to publish the median grade for all students in a class along with the grade the individual student achieved for the course in the transcript. They are also considering publishing the standard deviations. This is certainly an honest approach to grades that boldly declares" It is not so important what you learn in this course so long as you test better than your peers!" And, of course, there are absolutely times in life in which you want to know, out of these 30 or 300 people, who can score the highest on a teacher-made curriculum test. Maybe there is a popular upper level course with only a few seats or maybe you want to award departmental honors for your best performers.

Clearly it says nothing about who really learned the material. With curving, it is possible that no one really knows what any intelligent person would consider a bare minimum for the course content. In the land of the ignorant, the neophyte may be king! Or if the teacher has done a good job teaching, the students have done a good job learning and the test is designed to test the full range of knowledge, the entire class may have achieved a great deal, though someone ends up with a D.

It is often said that no one wants a doctor who got a D in med school. Actually, if you normalized grades and forced a curve at a C average, then most everyone in med school would have less than an A average and most everyone's doctor would be a C student or lower. Many Harvard and Standford med school graduates would have a D average. Does this mean they are substandard doctors? Absolutely not, assuming that Stanford and Harvard have the discipline and will to flunk out those who really do not meet minimum requirements and that they have the integrity to graduate those students who do meet the requirements needed to become a doctor and truly help people. We continually confuse mastering a subject with identifying who is best in the subject.