Analyzing the War on Terror in the Context of Network Theory

In a post dating back to last July, there was a good discussion about how we need to think about various organizations such as al Qaeda in terms of a network structure. Attacking networks effectively will involve understanding the topological structure in order to develop strategies to dismantle the network. I want to expand on this with some new thoughts and after thinking about what and how we should learn from the mistakes that have been made during the war on terror.

In a post from John Robb at Global Guerillas, he refers to a paper that investigates the effect of noise on, ultimately, the decision making/consensus building process in small world networks. This is all related to how information spreads throughout a network, and how rule sets evolve in order for global consensus can be reached when individual agents within the network only have access to local information. Perhaps the best known rule set is the majority rule, which says that an agent will conform to the state of the majority of its nearest neighbors. What research has shown, though, is that in a perfect, noise-free environment, the majority rule will fail to reach global consensus, even if there is some amount of longer-range crosslinks within the network (meaning that some small number of individual agents not only see some number of nearest neighbors, but an occasional link to another agent outside the local boundary defined in the initial conditions). However, the boundaries between local pockets of differing viewpoints does breakdown when noise is introduced into the environment. This is, of course, a better simulation of what the real world is like anyhow. Noise, in the context of simulation work, means that there can be miscommunication between neighbors. This allows for incorrect information to be passed along and will influence agents to switch their state.

As always, theory is one thing and a real-world environments is quite another, particularly when dealing with social networks. If we think of human characteristics such as emotion, peer pressure, greed, deceit, psychological abnormalities, and so on, it becomes clear there is a great deal of 'noise' in actual environments that will need to be considered when an individual makes a decision. Here are some issues to consider for a network such as al Qaeda, as well as some lessons we should make sure to learn from from this time forward.


Lesson 1: Network formation takes time. Time can be an enemy or an ally, depending on circumstances.

I think just about anyone would agree, at least in an intuitive sense, that network growth is effective and efficient when environmental noise is low. It takes time to form real networks, especially social networks, and the world essentially allowed al Qaeda to grow unabated (i.e. the world made no noise) even though everyone new they posed a threat and had actually carried out terrorist attacks. Al Qaeda did not form overnight, but instead took years to form a global network structure. We need to learn from this, and as the current network is dismantled, we will, from now on, need to search for evidence of other networks forming or peripheral branches of al Qaeda trying to expand, and do something about it quickly. This will require police work, and not massive military action, if we want to control the spread.

Time is an enemy in noiseless environments that allow networks to grow. Time is an ally if you catch network formation early on, knowing that it takes time to form more extensive link topologies. Creating a 'noisy' environment that disrupts the initial network formation (such as through surveillance; apprehending leaders, who are hubs in the network, early on; disruption of communications between known agents; making financial and hardware accumulation difficult, etc.) will cause disruptions in new links being added to the network. This would also have the advantage of allowing us to work locally rather than globally, which is much more difficult, as we now know. Having said that, the reality is that we allowed this massive terror network to form. Then came 9/11/01.

One must remember that in large populations, typically the vast majority of people want to live their lives and are nonviolent. In the Mideast, there is a relatively small percentage of the population that would fall into the 'extremist' category, or who would actively assist extremist groups unless forced to do so. After 9/11, we had about as much world support as is possible in this day and age to go after al Qaeda and their main supporters, the Taliban. Fortunately, the bulk of those groups were in Afghanistan. This was all to our advantage, since they were also in the mountainous regions with low civilian populations. There was a low risk of any significant collateral damage or casualities. We had a great opportunity to strike at multiple hubs in the network (which would geatly weaken the network) and avoid making too noisy of an environment that would break down the boundaries between the two decisions that are possible in this scenario (tryng to connect to the simulation research mentioned earlier): either you decide to actively support al Qaeda in some way, or you don't support them in any way.

Our first mistake was to allow Afghan forces and, worse, warlords, take the lead when al Qaeda and Taliban members were on the run. It should have been large groups of special forces going in for the kill. I don't think anyone would have objected to this right after the attacks on the U.S. But then we took the pressure off to a large degree and put the focus on Iraq. What is especially disturbing is that we did this when we had weapons inspectors on the ground. Sites that were suspected of housing WMDs were given to the inspectors, including some from the CIA, and all were turning up clean. I personally refuse to believe the President and the war planners did not know our intelligence was faulty at best, because they had evidence on the ground (from the inspectors) that it was faulty, if not simply bad intelligence. Regardless, the war started.

This is where numerous mistakes were made that seem to fit into our understanding of network structure and theory. War is the ultimate source for 'environmental noise.' As studies suggest for common small world networks, noise is what is needed to break down boundaries between pockets of network agents and allow for widespread, if not global, consensus within the network. There were two main decisions individuals in Iraq could make: welcome the U.S. or resist the U.S. This is greatly simplified, of course, and one would hope that the majority rule would sway towards freedom and welcoming the U.S. This is certainly what the Vice President and Sec. of Defense tried to sell the American public on. However, what we must learn from Iraq is that the absolute necessity for a society to reach the peaceful decision and consensus is security.


Lesson 2: In social networks, law and order and security reduce environmental noise. If you do not maintain low noise levels, the local boundaries between those in the network who agree with you and those who disagree with you break down.

Iraq is a large country in terms of area, and it obviously required many more forces than we had to maintain order and security over the entire country. We did not provide this security. Very quickly, tremendous amounts of 'noise' were introduced into the social network of Iraq. Little or no food, clean water, power, money, jobs, medical facilities, trash collection, and large amounts of lawlessness appeared and remained for great periods of time that weren't there earlier. What almost certainly started off as a majority of individual agents in the network that would welcome the U.S. was now put into an environment where the boundaries between the majority and minority views, which hold steady with no noise, suddenly are perturbed from noise. The boundaries break down, and suddenly more in the majority change their view. As the research suggests (see figure 2 in the paper), a near consensus has been reached that no longer welcomes the U.S. in Iraq. It has simply been too 'noisy' for too long. In terms of time, another factor that plays into all this is the widespread exposure and use of communications technology. Individuals in the network are more connected within the network with more crosslinks, as opposed to just knowing nearest neighbors in the network. A combination of noise and 'rewiring probabilities' (in network language) accelerate the decision making process both locally and globally. Again, this is something we must learn from.

In a paper by Calvert Jones at UC Berkeley (check http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~cjones/Full%20Text%20Papers/Calvert%20Jones_Al%20Qaeda's%20Innovative%20Improvisers.pdf#search='al%20qaeda%20and%20network%20theory'), which addresses al Qaeda's networks and the ability to learn, adapt and innovate, a similar idea is presented:

"Although its globally oriented ideology, spectacular successes, and US focus in a time of rising anti-Americanism have no doubt also encouraged worldwide collaboration, the loss of the state-based sanctuary is likely to have accelerated the process. According to Bruce Hoffman, the greatest change after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has been the breakdown in the rigid boundaries that used to separate militant Islamist groups.8 These groups are growing much more permeable, as individuals from varying backgrounds, of different nationalities, and with diverse skill sets are working together in temporary teams to pursue similar goals. Although some, primarily motivated by local grievances, may not share Al-Qaeda’s commitment to a globally oriented jihad, many have adopted a more pragmatic approach to terrorism, having recognized the advantages of increased cooperation and networking when domestic efforts fail. Al-Qaeda’s cooperation in varying degrees with Jemaah Islamiyah, the Abu Sayyaf Group, Hezbollah, and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad is well documented.9 The more decentralized, networked structure – as an adaptation to the loss of the Afghan sanctuary – is likely to encourage further interorganizational cooperation. "

The key is that the noise in the main network as well as the loose ties to other networks has broken down boundaries and allowed widespread consensus to be reached, leading to an insurgency that apparently has surprised most military personnel and war planners. It is time that traditional war games, planning and training need to move on and research into areas like network theory must become much more prominent. Perhaps the results coming out of network and organizational theory research would have changed some minds and resulted in a more prepared occupancy of Iraq.

I hope this spurs good discussion and debate, and I encourage comments from those who have a much better grasp on military planning than I have to see what you think about how what has happened on the ground in Iraq fits into some of the research that has been producing results and predictions from network theory.

Children More Sensitive to Negative Feedback

Just a quick post, which is in reference to the latest post on the Eide Neurolearning blog. Physical evidence in the form of brain scans show that, indeed, children are affected more by negative feedback than adults. This is one of those things that certainly seems like common sense, and those of you with children just know it is true, but it is always ideal to have the evidence. Have a good Sunday.

Interesting Finding in International Science Education Study - Middle Schools

Over 400 8th grade science lessons were videotaped and analyzed as part of a study looking at how science is taught. Random classes in the U.S. and four other nations that perform higher than the U.S. on the international TIMMS test were included. The other four nations were Australia, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, and Japan. Here is a clip from the NSTA Express email I received:

"A video study of eighth grade science classrooms in the United States and four other countries found that U.S. teachers focused on a variety of activities to engage students, but not in a consistent way that developed coherent and challenging science content. In comparison, classrooms in four other higher-achieving countries—Australia, the Czech Republic, Japan, and the Netherlands—exposed eighth graders to science lessons characterized by a core instructional approach that held students to high content standards and expectations for student learning.

The National Center for Education Statistics in the U.S. Education Department’s Institute of Education Sciences released these and other findings in a report titled Teaching Science in Five Countries: Results From the TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) 1999 Video Study that draws on analysis of 439 randomly selected videotaped classroom lessons in the participating countries. To view the reports and for more information, visit http://nces.ed.gov/timss.

A second report released by NCES compares science content in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2000 and TIMSS. To download, view, and print the publication as a PDF file, please visit:
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006026"

The most interesting part of the report, in my opinion, is that U.S. classes tended to do numerous activities for the sake of doing an activity. The percentage of those hands-on activities (i.e. 'labs') that were actually related to course content was much smaller than activities done in the other countries. I would have to agree that science classes in American schools (including high schools), at least based on my own observations, do include activities for the sake of activities a great deal. Unfortunately, many teachers do not make it a point to have a lab experience relevant to what is being studied, as difficult as that is to believe.

Most science teachers in the U.S. do not have actual science research experience. In university education programs, education majors take a battery of courses including methods courses, but they rarely spend time in the lab for extended periods of time to do actual science research of any kind. Rather, in methods courses and then in student teaching, they are exposed to numerous examples of 'cookbook' labs that are recycled and passed on from generation to generation of teachers. Often these activities give students step by step instructions and even have fill in the blanks which guide students to answers. While these can be useful if students are learning a new procedure, it gives a very poor example of what science is and how it works. And if the activity is not even related to the content being studied, I know from talking with them specifically about this, students feel as if it is all just 'busy-work.' It is a turn-off for students to science in general, and in fact it seems as if a lack of interest in science among the masses begins around grades 5-7 or so, right in the middle school range.

We truly need to re-evaluate how we teach science, and begin acting like a scientist would by looking at actual data such as that presented in this and other studies. Real reform needs to begin in university teacher training programs for the next generation of teachers as well as in staff development programs for current teachers.

Some Interesting Tidbits

The always interesting and informative Eide Neurolearning Blog has some recent nuggets relevant to teachers.

First is the finding that different types of memory differ significantly with age. For instance, 7-10 year olds typically excel in memory base on color, and are not as strong with memory based on position. They use as an example color strategies for spelling, which work well (when used in a well thought-out manner, and not just for visual effect), versus activities that use location of letters that are not as effective. Location works better for adolescents and young adults.

A second interesting post suggests that sensory classrooms are effective for different types of students, and that allowing kids to fidget in class can be used to one's advantage in learning. This makes me think of some schools which are getting rid of recess time, in order to have kids in class even more to work on material relevant to testing. Recess time is invaluable because students, especially in primary grades, naturally want to expend energy. Some amount of classroom time can be and should be tied into that energy, and can lead to effective learning experiences for many students. As with anything, these types of strategies have lmits as well. Not all kids learn best when physically active, and it is easy to overuse any one method/strategy as well. I am a fan of variety, where numerous learning techniques and strategies are used to keep students engaged and address all learning styles of individuals. It is good to see the research, though, that hopefully will be used constructively by teachers and staff developers, as well as teacher-training colleges.

Brits Revamping Their Pre-High School Education System

Yesterday in Great Britain, teachers decided that the present high stakes testing model of their education curricula for students under 16 years of age needs to be scrapped in favor of a more well-rounded curriculum. Rather than just a knowledge-based, fact-filled memorization system to prepare for test after test, teachers will be able to teach the way they want to begin the addition of skills-based learning. This has largely been the American model over the years, as I have written about in the past (for instance, last year's post). Here in the U.S., the education system has begun to look more like the European and Asian systems where testing is the one and only criteria for assessing how students are performing.

It appears as if the Brits are taking an approach that follows the lead of Harvard's Howard Gardner. As stated in the Guardian article,

"We need to give teachers the freedom to inspire youngsters so they want to learn, not just pass tests. We also need pupils to have the space to develop as rounded people, and that includes physically, emotionally, creatively, socially and ethically."

There needs to be a balance between skills and knowledge objectives. In order to be be prepared for life, students need both. As is often the case in any field, fads develop and the system leans almost exclusively towards one side or the other. In physics-speak, we need to find a point of stable equilibrium between skill and knowledge based curricula, where if we begin moving one way or the other we will be forced back to the middle and include both. I am a firm believer that the best life skill we can give a student is for him or her to want to learn and then have the ability to go about actually learning and finding information. It's nice if a person simply knows the answer off the top of their head (knowledge), but in life those who are successful in just about any field have the intellectual training and abilities to take on new problems and devise ways of figuring them out (skills). Again, one needs both to be successful. This is why I argue against the U.S. leaning too much towards an exam meritocracy, as (especially) many Asian nations have done. We should avoid falling into the testing trap at the expense of losing all opportunities for creative thinking, problem solving skills, and higher order critical thinking skills. Many areas of study in the real world are moving into the era of big-picture problems, where complexity and overlapping disciplines become vital for new progress. Students, who are the next generation of workers, must be prepared to think in new ways and not rely on old facts. They also need to be able to recognize and define new knowledge as it is discovered and applied. This requires some amount of skill and experience with how to learn, and, at least for the higher level American student coming out of our education system, is why we have been able to remain the sole superpower. Much of the world, it appears, is beginning to catch on to this and are making changes to their test-dominated systems.

Kudos to Eideneurolearning blog for finding the Guardian article.

What to do About Iran

Iran has been in the news daily because of its nuclear ambitions and the reality that it has now enriched uranium. Enrichment is the first step in the process needed for both nuclear power on a large scale as well as for nuclear weapons production. A lively debate has spread across the blogosphere, and check out my longtime friend, historian and all-around scholar Zenpundit, for some good discussions.

From Zen's post, here are four options that can be considered from the U.S. point of view:

"Unilaterally demonstrate that Iraq was no anomaly and militarily devastate unfriendly states that try to acquire nukes - i.e. impose high potential costs on regimes having clandestine programs.

Build a Core-wide consensus to rewrite the NPT as a treaty with teeth backed by a stringent, updated, version of COCOM.

Bilaterally and multilaterally negotiate with rogue states piecemeal to buy them off for disarming completely( Libya Model).

Revise military nuclear warfighting doctrine and embark upon a weapons-building program that renders nuclear missiles too dangerous to use against the United States, perhaps with an entirely new class of nuclear or high energy weapons."

It seems that options I and IV are the type we would want to avoid at all costs. The world knows that, militarily, we have limited options. Public opinion has decidedly turned against the present war in Iraq, and I cannot imagine that this administration would be able to convince the public or Congress that we should continue to unilaterally try to nation-build, which is what it would turn out to be in Iran (replace the more radical factions that have gained power recently). We also do not have the financial resources at this point, with new record deficits projected into the foreseeable future. And, in addition to domestic realities that would prevent unilateral action, think about the reactions and possible consequences in the Middle East. Another attack on a Muslim state may very well unleash widespread jihad, making the insurgency in Iraq seem minor. I think, at least hope, we have learned a lesson in Iraq, and actually plan for the worst case scenario instead of looking at everything through rose-colored glasses, as we seem to have done on a massive scale in our supposed planning for Iraq.

Option IV not only will place Iran on the defensive and justify their need for weapons (as well as reinvigorate al Qaeda's quest for nuclear weapons), but will likely reduce what little international credibility we have left. We would have to look at the bigger picture, thinking in terms of what Russia may do, or China, or internal pressure that would be felt in Pakistan, as reactions to increased U.S. nuclear proliferation and hypocrisy about telling the rest of the world to not think of developing nuclear weapons, while we go ahead and do our own thing.

The U.S. has been proceeding along with versions of options II and III. We should get directly involved in talks with Iran, which is something they have requested. If necessary, we can hurt them economically and convince the rest of the world that Iran and nukes is a bad combination that the world does not want to see (and the rest of the world is largely at this point already). One thing we should watch for is any hard-line rhetoric from Israel, which could disrupt any negotiations. This is one time I think we need negotiations to work. It is not at all clear how talks will go with the current leaders of Iran. Any pressure that may be placed on Iran from other Mid-East nations would be useful, as well as from Russia. It is a pressure cooker that has just been turned on, and now it is a matter of timing to ensure it does not explode. There are clearly no easy or clear-cut options, and the Iranian regime is one that is most difficult to predict how they will react to carrots and sticks we offer. Iran has had the past three to four years to expand and build their infrastructure since we have largely ignored them due to Iraq, and now we are realizing the consequences (of placing them in the 'axis of evil' and then putting an army right next door...why should we be surprised that radicals have been able to put down moderates and then feel the need for nuclear weapons since they perceive us as a true imminent threat?).

Pressure on White House for Explanation of Leaks

As congressional Republicans continue to fear that multiple White House scandals and continuing drops in the President's approval ratings, Sen. Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania and chair of the Judiciary Committee) has asked for detailed explanations of any role the President and Vice President have played in a series of leaks of classified intelligence over the past few years. We the people do deserve an explanation.

I would have to assume the White House will not give details. Watch for the phrases,"continuing investigation," "national security," and "the President has the power to declassify" as the spin continues to be flung without any substance to it. This has been the case for years from this White House. My last post is about how the administration wants to hold not only public primary and secondary education districts accountable, but also colleges by having a battery of testing. And yet the White House has taken the opinion, particularly since 9/11/01, that they are above and beyond any accountability as required by the Constitution. Those who take part in a true democracy and challenge them on anything are now talked about as near traitors. Those who question the "stay the course" mentality are showing a "lack of respect" for the troops on the ground during wartime, even when everyone involved has, mostly, the best interests of the troops in mind (obviously in an election year there is politics at work on both sides) . The President does not have to comment on anything related to scandals since "investigations are in progress." The White House dismisses any questions about intelligence failures because of classified material and the need to not live in the past.

I highly doubt Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to the Vice President, took it upon himself one day to leak the name of Valerie Plame and her role as a CIA operative. A chief of staff at times needs to be made the fall-guy when scandals hit...that is part of the job, as evidenced more recently when Andy Card (former chief of staff to the President) suddenly resigned as approval ratings plummet. But chiefs of staff do what they are told to do by their superiors. They make things run based on the wishes and commands of the Vice President and President. I find it hard to believe that Libby would do this on a whim, without some meeting concluding that this is the warning shot that needed to be fired to those who question decisions about Iraq. This is a serious matter, and for once the administration needs to be held accountable. If true, why would something like congressional censure not be an appropriate hand-slap on the President (I won't ever bring up impeachment since that won't happen with this Congress)? It will be interesting to see how the spin comes out of the White House and whether Congress has the capacity to do its constitutional duty by keeping the executive in line with the nation's interests, and provide some sort of oversight/check-and-balance.

Standardized Testing in Colleges

An idea being promoted by the Bush administration involves standardized testing in college, as a way of holding colleges accountable for the high costs being placed on students and their families. This follows in line with the battery of testing now taking place in elementary school through high school via No Child Left Behind; in their eyes, testing is the fix for all of education's ills.

Testing in college is, in my opinion, simply a bad idea. To get into middle and top tier institutions and programs requires, in part, testing. Obviously, the SAT I and ACT exams are important pieces of a portfolio one must send in during the application process. Some argue that we should end things like affirmative action and stick to a strict level of accountability by holding the line on test score levels, so if you do not meet the cutoff score which is part of the admissions criteria, then you need to look elsewhere...end of story. We can talk about that the day things like legacy admissions no longer exist (our president, by his own admission, was not qualified to go to a place like Yale based on entrance criteria, and yet he was accepted because of his family...why does he have a problem with affirmative action programs?). I don't see this happening any time soon.

As we skip ahead to those students who want to go to graduate school, law school, or medical school, another layer of testing already exists through the GRE, LSAT, and MCAT exams. This leaves those who are going to graduate with either an associates or bachelors degree, and then enter the job market. Why is there a need for testing? If a student has worked hard, learned, and built up the skills necessary to have the potential to make contributions to a particular field or job, he or she will be hired. If a person does not have the skills, abilities, or has put in the work to do well in college, it is likely that person will not find a job, at least not in that particular area/field. Doesn't 'the market' already determine what a successful student is upon graduation? It amuses me when those who feel free markets are the cure-all for the world's economic, political and social problems, believe college-level testing is necessary.

Rather than adding another layer of testing and bureaucracy, colleges should maintain high academic standards in their programs. We all know there are 'weed-out' courses in every major, which help students determine if a particular area of study is really where they should be. If professors maintain the rigor and high academic standards that are relevant for a field of study, and issue grades according to how well a student has mastered the material and has demonstrated the ability and talent necessary to stay within that major (this may be an area colleges should take a second look at), what will some new test accomplish?

It is also difficult for me, at least, to imagine what such a test will be like in the first place. There are many dozens of majors students move into in college, and after the freshman or sophomore year of common courses, the material and types of talents and abilities diverge rapidly from major to major, and specialization becomes most important. The ultimate test for competency and ability already exists: do you have what it takes to find a job and make a career built around that college experience? Let 'the market' determine the answer to the question.

Preparing for the Energy Crunch

Population projections can be downright scary at times when one thinks of the shear number of people that will inhabit the earth in the not-so-distant future. At current birth rates and death rates, in about twenty years there could be 8 billion people. By the end of this century that number rises to around 12 billion. In order to maintain anything close to our current standard of living, new energy sources are absolutely essential, as we will likely exhaust oil and gas supplies by that time. One of the energy sources that may theoretically be an ideal energy source is fusion power.

Fusion is the process that keeps stars burning and allows hydrogen bombs to make conventional fission bombs look like firecrackers. Deuterium and tritium, two isotopes of hydrogen, can actually fuse their nuclei together during a collision if temperatures are hot enough (but we are talking millions of degrees). During this process a small percentage of the mass converts diretly into energy according to Einstein's relationship E = mc^2. A goal of plasma physicists is to create sustainable fusion reactions in a reactor, and use the tremendous heat to run turbines for power production. Benefits include the lack of production of greenhouse gases and long-lived nuclear waste.

Research into this proces has been active for a number of years, but the large-scale funding for the basic research has never truly materialized. However, the largest international collaborative effort ever in fusion researc has materialized, and the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) is scheduled to be built and commissioned in France by 2016. Nations with over half the world's population (including China, India, numerous European nations, and the U.S.) are involved in the funding for this multi-billion dollar venture.

It is encouraging to finally see a serious research effort in this field. The engineering challenges are as great as anything ever undertaken, but the future quality of life on our planet will be determined by our energy production capabilities and environmental health. Just imagine a plant that can produce some some 7 billion kilowatt hours of energy in a year with only 100 kilograms of deuterium and 3 tonnes of lithium, compared to a conventional power plant that needs 3 million tonnes of coal or as to generate the same amount of energy, with large quantities of pollution on top of that. Now, we just have to figure out how to make it work. Click here for a good summary article of ITER and the fusion movement; kudos to physicsweb.org.

Suggestion for Getting Science to Wider Audience

As in past posts, one of my personal worries has always been the relatively weak exposure to science in early grades, say K-6, in many school districts. It is no secret that elementary teachers routinely feel least comfortable teaching science because of a lack of training and experience in their schooling, and that is understandable. Add to this the focus on only math and reading due to No Child Left Behind, and there is even more reason to spend less time on science.

One suggestion I'd like to throw out there is to arrange for science-related shows on local cable channels. For example, I've been involved in a local show (Science Power) that was designed by a friend of mine from Loyola University, and for the past five years has done monthly shows throughout the school year which are intended to reach elementary and middle school students. Each year there is a different theme, and each show emphasizes the scientific method to reach some conclusions about the topic for that particular show. This year we are focused on the senses, and, using sight as an example, we get into the physics of light, the specific sensory organs and mechanisms in the human body, and even adaptations of other animals. The show is done live, and students can call in to help us make the show. It is actually quite fun when a second grader calls in and we have a discussion about some phenomenon; it is a very different experience than when I have my normal discussions with the high school seniors in AP Physics who will be attending MIT or Stanford next year.

The point is, over the years we have reached on order of a couple thousand students and have exposed them to some ideas they otherwise would not have experienced, and perhaps some of them may be influenced and motivated to do some more in science some day. In a time of uncertainty about the U.S. future in science and technology, every little bit may help...at least that is the hope.

The Down-Side of Wikipedia and Other Online Sources

As I was typing my last post yesterday, I was looking for an accurate, relatively brief description of Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences. I first checked Wikipedia and searched for "multiple intelligence," and the entry that is online gives a very brief, sketchy rundown of the main ideas, but most of the post was spent blasting away at Gardner. More and more I and my students have found entries on this public-built encyclopedia that are perhaps questionable (most are fine, though). This is a problem when information, often of a technical nature that one would prefer to find written up by an expert in a formal, peer-reviewed medium, can be entered by just about anyone. I have to be careful to warn students to not blindly accept information found on Wikipedia and the Internet as a whole. If one wants to use a source that has not gone through peer review or is not supported by known experts in the field, or is written up in what is supposed to be a neutral forum of knowledge but clearly has a personal bias built into it (as is the case with the multiple intelligence example), then readers need to be able to make the distinction between what is valid information and what is questionable information. This is a difficult decision to make if you are a nonexpert, which of course is normally the case of the users of Wikipedia and similar online sources of information (it is unlikely experts would be looking up the information in the first place). This is a growing problem educators and researchers will need to address in this age of massive amounts of information: How legitimate is the information being used by today's students, since there is a rapidly increasing number of questionable and downright faulty sources that are being used?

I need to mention, to their credit, Wikipedia does allow online edits and rebuttals to entries, and this particular entry for multiple intelligences is tagged as one whose "neutrality" is "disputed."

Schools Cutting Back on Science Education

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law has, for the past three years, put the focus of public education squarely on reading and mathematics testing. Schools are under intense pressure to shoot for high test scores, or face being put on watch lists and lose funding over time. One of the consequences, which comes as no surprise at all to educators, has been the lost time all other subject areas have encountered, especially in the primary and middle school grades. For instance, here is an excerpt from a recent NSTA email bulletin:

"A March 26 New York Times article reports that a survey to be released later this week on narrowing the curriculum finds that since No Child Left Behind was passed in 2001, 71% of the nation’s 15,000 school districts have reduced the hours of instructional time in history, science, music, and other subjects to open up more time for reading and math. “The intense focus on the two basic skills is a sea change in American instructional practice, with many schools that once offered rich curriculums now systematically trimming courses like social studies, science and art,” writes reporter Sam Dillon.

A New York Times editorial by Thomas Friedman titled “Worried About India's and China's Booms? So Are They” finds that one of the most frequent debates in most countries focuses on education and the common premise that they are falling behind. From the U.S. and Great Britain to India and China, every country is struggling with its own set of challenges. Friedman points to a “global convergence in education” that will spur growth and innovation. The challenge, he states, is for countries to find the right balance between creativity and rigor."

It is this last sentence that has worried me over the years since NCLB became law. High standards and rigor are essentials in any class and every grade level. But as I have written about in the past, the power of the American education system has been the variety of courses schools commonly offer, which span over all disciplines. In many schools there is some level of opportunity for students to explore creative subjects in the arts, physical education of all types, physical lab opportunities in science classes (unlike in other countries that focus on fact-based curricula, which works well for testing), community service and leadership opportunities, and so on. Students have had some chance to figure out through experience what they enjoy and where their strengths are, and then from that moment on can pursue them; it is their choice. In my opinion this is a fundamentally important educational structure and system that needs to be maintained at all costs, and, even with all the problems and challenges that face public education, it has largely been a major part in the U.S. position in the world as the only superpower.

Friedman is correct that we must not tilt things too far away from enjoying some amount of creativity in our education system, for that is where we begin to encourage younger generations to develop new ideas and inspire them to have some dreams that can still be realized. Any chance at equilibrium between rigor and creativity has clearly been lost the past few years as nearly 3 out of 4 districts have cut back on the topics where creativity is important for progress in those fields. I am convinced this is not where we want to continue to go. Especially those who believe there is some relevance to Gardner's multiple intelligences, we are seeing further erosion of important sections of our public education system at a time of growing pressure from global competition.

Why Choose Math in High School?

Check out 12 reasons why high school students should want to study math. Kudos to Mike at Teach and Learn for finding this.

Difficulties Attracting Best and Brightest to Teaching

In an earlier post a couple days ago, the looming shortage of bright students going into the sciences, math and engineering and future implications was discussed. If the U.S. is to get serious about addressing the potential problems and issues associated with the current trends, it will almost necessarily begin with getting more and highly qualified teachers into the middle schools and high schools around the country. However, there are some problems with this.

Probably the most pressing issue has to do with the one entity that drives most things in life, money. There have been surveys done that show teaching is now, on average, the lowest paying job among all professions. Also, a NEA analysis shows how pay for college-educated teachers has differed over time from non-teacher college-educated professionals. The results are quite telling:

Male College-Educated Non-Teacher Pay Compared to Male Teacher Pay
Year % Non-Teachers Earn More (or Less) than Teachers
1940 -3.6%
1950 2.1%
1960 19.7%
1970 33.1%
1980 36.1%
1990 37.5%
2000 60.4%

Female College-Educated Non-Teacher Pay Compared to Female Teacher Pay
Year % Non-Teachers Earn More (or Less) than Teachers
1940 -15.8%
1950 -11.2%
1960 -12.7%
1970 -3.1%
1980 -3.7%
1990 4.5%
2000 16.4%

While teacher salaries have just been keeping up with inflation for the most part, more lucrative opportunities have presented themselves to highly educated men and women. Teacher pay has fallen behind dramatically over the past couple of decades, and one cannot blame today's students from thinking twice about going into teaching, which is consistently rated as one of the highest stressed jobs in addition to one of the professions with the least amount of financial reward in the near term. Historically, teaching has been dominated by women, but as the number of female professionals has increased tremendously since the 1950s, more lucrative business, legal, medical, and technological career opportunities have allowed highly educated women to have many more options for employment.

Teaching has certainly become an unattractive career in part because of salaries that cannot compete with other professions, and I've been told this by many friends and acquaintances over the years. This is also the likely driving force behind the phenomenon of about half of new teachers leaving the profession within their first 4 years or so. It is a demanding, time-consuming job where many feel the money is not adequate enough to stay in the field; so why not take on a less stressful job for more money? Makes sense.

Then there is the stigma attached to teaching. The old saying goes something like, "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach." I was reminded of this by an email I received from a former student who is studying physics at Stanford. She is leaning towards becoming a high school physics teacher. She is amazing at physics, as shown when she was selected as a member of the U.S. Physics Team while in high school and now sets the curve in one of the elite physics programs in the world. She is taking heat for her interest in teaching, because why would one who can do physics ever want to 'waste' it by teaching. There is a seemingly widespread lack of respect for teaching as a career as well as for teachers. Our best and brightest grow up hearing and seeing the lack of respect, and the low level of public regard for the profession, and there is some level of peer pressure to avoid making the move to teaching. My own experience reflects all this as well, both from friends and family members. Why would I, with a Ph.D. in physics from a top ten program and the premier particle accelerator lab in the world, and author or coauthor of one hundred published journal articles (certainly a benefit of working with a large experimental collaboration!), ever waste myself on high school students? Supposedly I've shown I can do physics, and I now choose to teach. I certainly felt pressure to pursue postdoctoral offers rather than a job in a Chicago public high school, but for me it was the right choice because I wanted to make a difference in kids' lives, and hopefully I've done that every now and then over the past 11 years. And I must say I've met countless teachers who 'can do' their areas of expertise (many with master's degrees and beyond in their field) and would be productive professionals in academia or the private sector if they chose that path, but they love working with kids who need the guidance and assistance to prepare for life.

For those who may be considering teaching over some other profession, one way I look at it is it is possible to make a bigger impact on your field than some of those who are in the field. What I mean by this is the following: The odds of making a real difference in a field through a major discovery/contribution is small, especially now as collaborations continue to increase in the number of members. However, over the last 8 years or so, I have taught some 500 or so high-end students, with a majority of them going into some field of science (including two or three dozen who have gone into physics), engineering, or math. From their kind feedback, I played some role in keeping their interest high and motivating them to pursue these fields as majors in college. I like to think I am making another valuable contribution to the fields of physical science and engineering by doing this, because progress tends to happen when lots of good minds work together on tough problems, and the more minds the better. Pre-college teachers are the first step in making this happen.

While I can give all the pep talks in the world, in reality the problem will continue until there is a more attractive financial reward and more societal prestige associated with teaching high school science and math, as well as all other subject areas. If nothing happens and the trends continue, the U.S. will continue to see gradual erosion in its scientific and technological lead over the next couple of decades. Numerous countries are making rapid and significant progress in their attempts to become competitive with the U.S. in research and technology development, and we cannot afford to become complacent just because we have the lead at the moment.

Write Your Representative for Science and Math Funding

My last post deals with low numbers of students going into science, math and engineering research as well as education. If you share my concern over the long-range implications of the current situation, please write to your U.S. Representative. There are two 'Dear Colleague' letters being circulated in the House we can get our representatives to sign, and build momentum to funding science and math programs in the Department of Education as well as full funding of the National Science Foundation (which provides numerous grants that drive our research programs around the country). Here are some details, courtesy of the NSTA:

"The deadline has been extended for U.S. Representatives to sign on to the two Dear Colleague letters in the House urging appropriators to provide increased funding for science and math education programs at the U. S. Department of Education and the National Science Foundation.

73 Members of Congress have already signed the Dear Colleague letter (http://science.nsta.org/nstaexpress/nstaexpress_2006_03_20_ehlers.htm) sponsored by Representatives Ehlers, Holt, Udall, and Biggert seeking $562 million for math and science education programs at the U.S. Department of Education.

111 Representatives have signed Ehlers/Holt/Inglis/Lipinski letter (http://www.aip.org/fyi/2006/037.html) supporting $6.02 Billion for FY2007 programs at the National Science Foundation.

It is very important to get as many lawmakers as possible to sign these letters, as they are often barometers of support for a specific issue or funding request, so please take a minute to call or e-mail. Call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121, and ask to be connected to your Representative’s office. To send an e-mail, go to http://thomas.loc.gov, and link to House of Representatives (link is located on the left hand side).

In your e-mail message, you can send the Dear Colleague letters to your elected Representative and ask him/her to sign on to these letters. If you call, ask to speak to the education aide and request that your Representative sign on to the Ehlers Dear Colleague letters for increased funding, then forward him/her the letters.

To view the list of Representatives who have already signed on to each letter, visit http://science.nsta.org/nstaexpress/nstaexpress_2006_03_20_list.htm. "

Disturbingly Low Numbers of Students Going Into Science Education

There is a growing concern about the low numbers of American students who are going into science and engineering majors, yet alone science education. To demonstrate how bad it is, here are some data from Maryland (coming out of the latest NSTA Express updates)"

"In the March 15 edition of Education Week, Nancy Grasmick, the state superintendent of schools for Maryland, states "America has dropped the ball on science, mathematics, and technology education. Our nation has ignored science and math education for far too long, and a serious investment in technology training at all levels is overdue. We need more physicists, mathematicians, chemists, and other technically skilled people in the pipeline, and we need to recruit more prospective teachers in those disciplines. That process begins with a new emphasis on mathematics and science in elementary and secondary schools.”

Grasmick brings attention to the disturbing statistics in her own state where “only one student in physical-science education graduated from a higher education institution last year. Just 13 students in chemistry education graduated from a Maryland college or university, and 11 graduated in physics education.” At the same time, she notes that Maryland schools needed 12 physical-science teachers, 59 chemistry teachers, and 29 physics teachers. “We need to interest students in math, science, and technology at a younger age, spark their curiosity, and help them understand how they can become part of a future that desperately needs their skills.” Grasmick served on the committee to develop the recent National Academies’ report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm. "

It is hard to believe that only 25 students in the Maryland university system went into physical science education. How and when can we turn this around? What will the effects be for our next generation of scientists? Answers to these questions are critical to the American way of life, for literally our economy, place in the world, national security, and standard of living depend on science and technology.

We have to find a way on a large scale to get more students interested in math, science and engineering to remain competitive in the long run. We have some advantages over most of the world, including China and India, due to our university research system, our funding, and the technology infrastructure that has been built up since WW II. This will continue for possibly the next twenty years, but if we do not have the talent available to take over for our current research base (who will be retiring in large numbers over that time period), what is next? It starts with teachers in middle school and high school, to get students engaged and interested and enthusiastic for science and research so they may go on in college.

Some say it will take another Sputnik moment to energize the country on a large scale, when the masses in the 1950s saw a need to keep up and surpass the Soviet Union when they beat us into space. And yet, in 2004 we graduated less than half the number of physicists from college than the year before Sputnik (and in the 1950s we had a significantly smaller population). This is a complicated issue, and it will take some dramatic event or some new incentives to draw our brightest students back to the sciences (such as salaries and recognition in society that can compete with those of lawyers, doctors, investment bankers, and so on)...we clearly are not near that point at this time.

Babies and the Words They Learn First

I Just heard about this new study. Babies begin learning words fairly fast, by about 10 months of age. It turns out that the words are of objects that are of the most interest to the baby, and not necesarily words that parents are trying to get them to say. Below is a part of a summary article from Yahoo news.

"Though they are learning words at 10 months old, infants tend to grasp the names of objects that interest them rather than whatever the speaker thinks is important, a new study finds.
And they do it quickly.

The infants were able to learn two new words in five minutes with just five presentations for each word and object, said study leader Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, a professor of psychology at Temple University. Importantly, the babies paired a new word to the object they liked best, regardless of what object the speaker referred to.

"The baby naturally assumes that the word you're speaking goes with the object that they think is interesting, not the object that you show an interest in," Hirsh-Pasek said.

The result is not too surprising, Hirsh-Pasek said in a telephone interview. She says interest drives learning for older children, too, and even adults.

She cites six-year-olds she's heard talking knowledgably about baseball players' batting averages. "How in the world do they get it? They're not going to do decimals until 7th or 8th grade."

"Ten-month-olds simply 'glue' a label onto the most interesting object they see," said Shannon Pruden, a Temple doctoral student in psychology and lead author of a report on the findings in the March/April issue of the journal Child Development."

Thinking of my own children, this does make a lot of sense. When they began saying "mommy" and "daddy" early, that is good know they were interested in us. Then came things like the dog and ball, and so on, which were the objects they wanted to interact with the most, even if we tried to get them interested in other toys. This does make great sense when you think of the types of information you can recall and remember easily, which is information about topics you are interested in; at least there is data that support what may seem to be a common sense type of result.

To-the-Point Tutorial about Chaos Theory

For a simple, purely conceptual online tutorial about chaos theory, which leads into complex systems and beyond, check out this U. of Texas site.

More on Warming Oceans and Hurricanes

As residents on the Gulf coast continue to struggle to clean up and rebuild after last year's devastating hurricane season, experts continue to find evidence that warmer ocean surface temperatures contribute to stronger hurricanes. The trend over the last forty to fifty years has been for stronger hurricanes, and not necessarily greater numbers of hurricanes, and many scientists have predicted this should be expected due to global warming. Prior to last year's storms, reports were out predicting record strength hurricanes because of continued global warming trends. Of course, there are critics and skeptics, as there should be and needs to be in science, who develop alternative explanations and theories, and there may very well be some legitimacy to natural global climate fluctuations. Certainly there have been numerous global climate shifts throughout earth's history, long before people inhabited the planet. However, a new statistical analysis of the data suggests that only ocean surface temperatures can reasonably explain the trend in increasingly strong hurricanes as global warming continues.

The new study was published this past week in the science journal Science, and is summarized on the Scientific American website. Information theory was used in the analysis, which looks at statistical links indicative of the amount of information various data share, and the only variable that can be linked to hurricane strength is ocean surface temperature. Obviously scientists will continue to test other variables through these statistical models as well as computer simulations, which increasingly are being fine-tuned as time goes on and more global climate data comes in, and all of this does not spell good news for regions susceptible to hurricanes...and hurricane season begins in only a few months.

Differing Perceptions of Student Preparedness for College

An interesting study just came out in The Chronicle of Higher Education. Two companion surveys were given to high school teachers and to college professors all across the nation, and the surveys asked about the level of preparedness for students leaving high school and entering college. There is a significant difference of opinion when the two surveys are compared.

For instance, 44% of college professors believe incoming students are not well prepared for college-level writing, as opposed to only 10% of high school teachers, while only 6% of college professors say students are well-prepared versus 36% of high school teachers who feel high school graduates going to college are writing at the college level. As for math preparedness, 32% of college professors believe students are not prepared for college matematics, compared to 9% of high school teachers. Only 4% believe the typical high school graduate is ready for college level math, while 37% of high school teachers are well prepared for college math. These are very different sets of opinions. A staggering 84% of the professors surveyed believe incoming students are not at all prepared or only somewhat prepared for college.

There are numerous questions and statistics for subject specific preparedness, and the summary article for the study shows taht teachers and profesors agree that students are, on average, becoming increasingly less motivated to study and learn and have poor study skills. There is a shared feeling overall that larger percentages of students are becoming satisfied with just doing minimal work while expecting high grades. This translates into high school teachers giving less homework because they don't expect to ever see it returned, as well as shorter writing assignments. Many more professors will give assignments for papers of 5 or more pages much more frequently than high school teachers, and this likely is a factor in the large discrepancy noted above between the two groups when it comes to writing skills; many students who go to college are not ready to handle longer papers because of a lack of experience. I suspect that many students are also unable to find larger amounts of relevant data or supporting evidence for the theses of longer papers simply because of a lack of experience while in high school. As one may have guessed, there are large differences between the groups when it comes to the preparedness and ability of students to do more advanced analyses of data and
the development of strong, logical arguments in their writing.

As I think about countless discussions with more senior colleagues, with 20-30 years of teaching experience, every teacher said that the level of rigor they have students work at is lower than what they taught 20 years ago; I honestly cannot recall a single teacher who said they are able to get students to work at a higher level than they traditionally taught in the past. This is especially true for teachers of honors classes, who complain that the level of study is noticeably lower than what they used to do 10 or more years ago. One potential reason for this is that significant numbers of counselors and parents push students who are not ready for or capable of doing true honors work into honors classes because they know this is what colleges want to see on a transcript. Many at my school, for instance, believe there is a negative stigma attached to 'regular' classes, and that one cannot make it to college if they take such a class. I suspect these are generally true on a relatively large scale in high school, and contribute to the professor's responses in the survey. In my opinion, there also seems to be the sense that expectations are being lowered for high school students, and academic excellence cannot be reached if teachers and students alike do not believe that the norm should be to constantly push yourself to higher and higher levels of critical thinking and problem solving and writing to communicate thoughts to others.

Check out the article and survey statistics if interested.