Visualizing data is an ancient human activity that dates back to stone age drawings and, later on, cartography. This informative PBS video discusses the history and range of the art of knowledge visualization. The video features Edward Tufte, Julie Steele, Josh Smith, and Jer Thorp.
Monday, May 13, 2013
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Inspirational future of learning video
What will the future of learning look like? GOOD magazine created a video that discusses technology-oriented visions from Whole-in-the-Wall and Khan academy to serious gaming. The video features education innovators like Dr. Sugata Mitra, visiting professor at MIT; Sal Khan, founder of Khan Academy; and Dr. Catherine Lucey, Vice Dean of Education at UCSF.
The video suggests that the current school system is still based on Victorian-age ideals (such as submission) and industrial age skills (such as arithmetic . People featured in the video suggest that education needs to prepare students for the post-industrial world. Basic arithmetic skills are now less relevant than reading comprehension, information search and retrieval skills, and critical evaluation skills.
The video suggests that the current school system is still based on Victorian-age ideals (such as submission) and industrial age skills (such as arithmetic . People featured in the video suggest that education needs to prepare students for the post-industrial world. Basic arithmetic skills are now less relevant than reading comprehension, information search and retrieval skills, and critical evaluation skills.
Order of academic authorship (and how to avoid conflicts)
 |
| Photo by Shironosov/ iStock |
Academic papers are often co-authored by several authors, from two to several hundred (for example in CERN physics studies).
Rules for the order of multiple authors vary by discipline, but generally there are three possibilities:
- By degree of contribution: Authors are listed in descending order of contribution. The principal investigator is often placed last in the author list. However, some universities want to change this practice by only having the principal investigator listed if he/she actively contributed to that particular paper.
- Alphabetically: Authors are listed in alphabetical order (by family name).
- Random: Authors are listed in randomized order (rarely used).
In theory, deciding on an order of authors should be a straightforward process. However, disputes over the order of authors can ensue. Ilakovac (2007) in the Canadian Medical Association Journal reported that over two-thirds of 919 surveyed authors disagreed with their coauthors regarding contributions of each author.
There are several suggestions how to avoid authorship conflicts (compiled from source #1 and source #2):
a. Scholarship: Contribute significantly to the conception, design, execution, and/or analysis and interpretation of data.
b. Authorship: Participate in drafting, reviewing, and/or revising the manuscript for intellectual content.
c. Approval: Approve the manuscript to be published.
People who provided technical services, administration, acquisition of funding, collection of data, editorial writing, or general supervision should not be listed as co-authors but mentioned in the acknowledgement section (see argument here).
2) Responsibilities of lead author: As a practical matter in the case of publications with multiple authors, one author should be designated as the lead author. The lead author assumes overall responsibility for the manuscript, and also often serves as the managerial and corresponding author, as well as providing a significant contribution to the research effort. A lead author is not necessarily the principal investigator or project leader. The lead author is responsible for:
a. Authorship: Including as co-authors all and only those individuals who meet the authorship criteria set forth in this policy.
b. Approval: Providing the draft of the manuscript to each individual contributing author for review and consent for authorship. The lead author should obtain from all coauthors their agreement to be designated as such and their approval of the manuscript. A journal may have specific requirements governing author review and consent, which must be followed.
c. Integrity: The lead author is responsible for the integrity of the work as a whole, and ensuring that reasonable care and effort has been taken to determine that all the data are complete, accurate, and reasonably interpreted.
a. Authorship: Including as co-authors all and only those individuals who meet the authorship criteria set forth in this policy.
b. Approval: Providing the draft of the manuscript to each individual contributing author for review and consent for authorship. The lead author should obtain from all coauthors their agreement to be designated as such and their approval of the manuscript. A journal may have specific requirements governing author review and consent, which must be followed.
c. Integrity: The lead author is responsible for the integrity of the work as a whole, and ensuring that reasonable care and effort has been taken to determine that all the data are complete, accurate, and reasonably interpreted.
3) Responsibilities for co-authors: All co-authors of a publication are responsible for:
a. Authorship: By providing consent to authorship to the lead author, co-authors acknowledge that they meet the authorship criteria set forth in section 1 of this policy. A coauthor should have participated sufficiently in the work to take responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.
b. Approval: By providing consent to authorship to the lead author, co-authors are acknowledging that they have reviewed and approved the manuscript.
c. Integrity: Each co-author is responsible for the content of all appropriate portions of the manuscript, including the integrity of any applicable research.
a. Authorship: By providing consent to authorship to the lead author, co-authors acknowledge that they meet the authorship criteria set forth in section 1 of this policy. A coauthor should have participated sufficiently in the work to take responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.
b. Approval: By providing consent to authorship to the lead author, co-authors are acknowledging that they have reviewed and approved the manuscript.
c. Integrity: Each co-author is responsible for the content of all appropriate portions of the manuscript, including the integrity of any applicable research.
4) Talk about contributions early: Co-authors should talk early in the process about the order of authorship, degree/kind of contribution, and the decision-making process (how decisions are made and who has final say if a consensus is not reached). The order of authors is a collective decision of the authors (not just by the lead author).
5) Deal with disagreements: If disagreement arises, make every effort to resolve the dispute locally among the authors. If necessary, get the principal investigator or the Ombuds office involved.
6) Revise degrees of contributions: If authorship seems straightforward, the order of authors can be arranged in advance but with the caveat that this could change if contributions change significantly. Create a culture of transparency and revisit the issue of order of authorship periodically in case contributions (or assumptions about contributions) have changed. Towards the end of the writing process, each co-author should describe his/her contributions and what he/she thinks every other author contributed (this can reveal misunderstandings and provides the opportunity for clarification).
7) Approve final document: Each co-author should review drafts and approve the final version before submission.
8) Describe contributions for reader: When submitting to the journal, include a short description of each co-author's contributions and how order was assigned to help readers interpret roles correctly.
Ilakovac V, Fister K, Marusic M, Marusic A (January 2007)."Reliability of disclosure forms of authors' contributions".Canadian Medical Association Journal 176 (1): 41–6.doi:10.1503/cmaj.060687
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Using video game design for education
 |
| Gamestar Mechanic Website |
In his Edutopia blog post, teacher Andrew Proto discussed the online tool Gamestar Mechanic to use video game design for education.
Gamestar Mechanic is a browser-based tutorial for video game design. After an interactive tutorial about game mechanics (such as setting goals for your players, having clearly defined rules, and different styles of games), students can use a simple drag-and-drop interface to create their games. Students can share their games with the Gamestar community to get feedback.
Gamestar mechanics has been named one of the American Association of School Librarians Best Educational Websites of 2012.
For teachers, Gamestar Mechanic offers instructional material at gamestarmechanic.com/teachers. Gamestar offers teachers a discount for classrooms, with student registration available at a fraction of the normal cost.
Andrew Proto suggests that video game design projects can be used in an variety of subjects. For example:
- After reading a book in class, have your students recreate major scenes in the form of a video game.
- Ask students to design a game that teaches other students a specific scientific concept you've been studying.
- After studying ratios, ask students to create a game that contains a certain ratio of coins (for the player to collect) to enemies.
- Recreate famous myths from different cultures that have been studied in history class.
- Have students create a game that consists of a level for each stage in a butterfly's life cycle.
Friday, March 22, 2013
Examples of directly observed evolutionary changes
 |
| Anolis Lizards |
The website phylointelligence.com has a great list (with scientific references) of examples of evolutionary changes that have been directly observed by scientists. A great resource for science teachers (and everyone interested in evolution).
See the list of observed evolutionary changes here. The examples also include the occurance of human lactase persistence which I used as a case study in my PhD (see PDF here).
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Great TV shows about Nerds and Geeks
Being proud of being a nerd or a geek is becoming more popular (Read more here: Evolution of Geek). Not surprisingly, TV producers picked up on the trend and are now producing shows featuring nerdy and/or geeky main characters. Whether you laugh with the nerdy characters or laugh at them (preferably the first), there are many great TV shows about nerds and geeks to choose from:
Read more here: The geek hierarchy chart.
(See an overview diagram here (spoiler alert!)
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Read more here: The geek hierarchy chart.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Living in front of a computer screen
 |
| Children in front of computer screens [Source: http://images.smh.com.au/2011/06/04/2408569/art-screens-420x0.jpg] |
Not surprisingly the survey data indicates that people spend a large amount of time in front of computer screens.
- 73% of the participants would struggle to go one day without technology devices such as smartphones, laptops and MP3 players. 23% would feel ''uneasy or worried'', while 19% would feel concern about ''missing out''.
- 74% check emails and social networks before starting work in the morning.
- 25% check technology devices from their beds, and 10% take theirs into the bathroom.
- Each owns an average £4,164 worth of technology devices.
- Almost one in 10 (9%) respondents use their phone during mealtimes - a figure that doubles for those aged 18-24.
- 53% of women use their laptop parallel to watching television, compared to 43% of men.
- 45% communicate via devices to speak with friends and family despite being in the same house.
This survey predicts that current children will spend an average of 25% of their non-working time in front of screens (not counting sleeping time). Dr Aric Sigman, psychologist, says: "As the amount of time spent looking at a screen or plugging in increases, the amount of time spent on direct eye-to-eye contact and developing real life relationships inevitably decreases. By the age of seven years, the average child born today will have spent one full year of 24 hour days watching screen technology; by the time they reach 80 they will have spent almost 18 years of 24 hour days watching non-work related screen technology. That's a quarter of their lives."
In a national study of over 2,000 young people, aged 8 to 18, researchers found that participants were able to squeeze the equivalent of 8.5 hours of electronic media into 6 chronological hours because of multitasking (or rather 'multi-device usage'). By the time Net Generation kids reach their twenties, the typical teenager has spent over 20,000 hours on the Internet and over 10,000 hours playing video games of some kind (Source: Digital game-based learning) [Read more here]. With devices like Google Glass and multi-device usage, time in front of computer screens might soon even exceed 100% of people's work and spare time).
Sources:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)