Educational Engineering

Spent the evening galley proofing this invited chapter.

It will be chapter 14 in a "monograph" to be published recognizing the 25th anniversary of the English Teachers’ Association in the Republic of China (ETA-ROC).

Here is the full abstract:

Innovation abounds in the fields of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) and Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL), but recent evidence reveals that innovative instructional designs are often not repeated in subsequent semesters, much less integrated into the permanent curriculum. This “how to” article presents the perspective that educational curriculum and technology design should be treated as an engineering process, i.e. using evidence-based principles to create instructional and technology designs that meet the long-term needs of students and allow them to achieve required outcomes. Factors influencing CALL/MALL teaching are discussed, followed by presentation of educational engineering as a seven-step process – identifying  marketplace requirement goals, determining measurable outcome objectives, choosing theory-based instructional methods, selecting CALL/MALL technology by affordances, developing integrated lesson plans, teaching the class, and evaluating success. Six figures give concrete examples of how the process should work.

Is Kneeling for the national anthem the right time and place?

Around the world of athletics, we are seeing people kneel and presumably pray, rather than standing at attention, hands over their hearts, during the national anthem. They are protesting racial injustice.

At best, the national anthem is a celebration of the brave spirit of those who defended Fort McHenry, and thus the American government, from British attack.  At worst, the national anthem is an automated ritual that most people don't think about, and that is often intertwined with specific political agendas.

So, I have been thinking recently about the folks who believe that American has racial injustice and police brutality, and are making the point by kneeling during the national anthem.

The people who believe this already believe it. Therefore, the message of the athletes is presumably aimed at people who do NOT believe that there is racial injustice, or at least haven't thought about it much.

In marketing communications, we teach that a persuasive message should be crafted such that it receives the most positive response from its audience.  Part of this means understanding the audience well, so you KNOW what will cause them to respond positively.  Part of it means deliberately keeping elements out of the message which might cause people to react negatively.

In addition, while I completely support the right of the athletes to their free speech, I think that it is a valid expectation that we exercise our free speech on our own time, not on-the-clock with our employer or volunteer organization we represent, etc.  When we are being paid by an employer or in a volunteer capacity for a non-profit organization, ethics requires us to represent the best interests of that employer or organization.

When we are off-the-clock, we can fully exercise our right to free speech, making clear that we are speaking for ourselves.  This is particularly important for professional athletes and other celebrities who are closely associated in the minds of the public with a team, business, or organization.

So what about the fundamental message of the athletes?

I agree that there are big problems of racial injustice and inequality in the United States.  A lot of the rhetoric about these issues is based on logical fallacies.  We need to address the problems, but the way democracies make ground-breaking changes in social policy is political and messy and usually takes a lot longer than advocates wish.

It is important that advocates for social change avoid negative perceptions related to their causes that distract from the real message.

Therefore, my advice to the athletes is that the beginning of a football game, in the uniform of their employer or school, is not the right venue for their personal messages about the need for change in social policy, regardless of how valid the fundamental message is.

Why Climate Deniers Deny

The study linked below used scientific analysis to examine the fallacies in arguments denying human-caused climate change.

         http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-016-1198-6

It found that the arguments climate change are often self-contradictory and that dissent is used by stakeholders to undermine the authority of science in order to postpone inconvenient political action: 

"Climate science denial is therefore perhaps best understood as a rational activity that replaces a coherent body of science with an incoherent and conspiracist body of pseudo-science for political reasons and with considerable political coherence and effectiveness."

In other words, whereas the deniers complain loudly about a conspiracy against them, the evidence points to a dcoordinated conspiracy to ward off political action addressing global warning because they think it will be to expensive and hurt their short-term profits.

Fears and Threats in Politics

This presidential campaign is based deeply in what research shows about using fears and threats for persuasion.  I have taught Persuasion.  Here are some notes from my class:


Gain-framed and Loss-framed Arguments

Persuasion research shows that to achieve a choice which AVOIDS risk, an offer or argument should be made in terms of what people will GAIN if they do NOT take the risk. This is called a "gain-framed" argument.

On the other hand, to achieve a RISK-SEEKING choice, the offer or argument should be rooted in what people will LOSE if they do not take the risk. This is called a "loss-framed" argument.

Persuasion also teaches us to appeal to PERSONALLY RELEVANT threats that are neither too big or too small. Too small and it is not enough of a threat to motivate people.  Too big, and they don't think they can do anything about it.

We can boost the perception of the audience that they CAN make a difference by convincingly presenting our offer as easy and effective.

When we use fears and threats, we need to provide a clear and strong call-to-action directly after or next to the description of the threat. When the desired response is received, we need to provide reassurance that it was the right thing to do.


Applying it to Politics

I would suggest that if you are in, or leaning toward, a party, voting for that party can be seen as the choice that avoids risk. We know from the party's track record how they will behave in office. On the other hand, the risk-seeking behavior is voting for the other guys, in hopes that they will be better.

There two strategies are at the core of what we hear every day in the campaign rhetoric.  If you DON'T vote for me, you will LOSE this and this and this, whereas if you DO vote for me, you will gain this and this and this.

Convincing people how to vote is ALL about fears and threats.  Both sides do it.

• Fear of terrorist attack vs. gain from better defense and enforcement
• Fear of loss of abortion rights vs. fear of threats to your religious beliefs
• Fear about loss of guns vs. fear of murder 
• Fears about retirement income vs. fears about limitations on the stock market
• Fears about being low-income vs. fear of limitations on big business 
• And many other pairings of fears

Next time you listen to someone making a political point, see if it isn't a fear/threat appeal, right out of a Persuasion textbook.

Happy Autumnal Equinox.

And as we experience the equinox, harvest is beginning in my part of the world.

Reporters and Fairness

From https://www.flickr.com/photos/marcn/24550116329/

The professional media has had a tough time trying to figure out how to cover the current US presidential campaign.  Many of the things they learned as student journalists are leading them astray this year. But the general public is also being led astray by the greater cloud of amateurs and promoters using fake journalism for advocacy.


Advocacy Masquerading as News

A large percentage of what appear to be news stories coming down your social media news feed is actually advocacy.  When the headline, the lead, or the body of a story contains value judgments that are not attributed to a news maker, then it is advocacy, not journalism.  But the public generally doe snot differentiate.

I teach media and journalism, including an introductory news writing class this semester. Because their social media feeds contain such poor role models, I have to hammer away at NO including their own opinions in their story assignments.

A good journalist will attribute everything, except for straight-forward information that is "widely known or easily available."  For example, a local news story can simply state that it rained last night, without citing a source of the information.

Now, when public relations folks write news releases, they write as if they were writing a news story, but they only tell the positive thins about their cause.  In particular, they state things as fact that are really promotional talking points without attribution, in effect claiming that they are "widely known or easily available."

Again, the general public does not differentiate between professional news sources and quasi-journalistic advocacy.  It is all "the media" to them, not journalists and advocates.  Therefore, it's all opinion to them.


Fair to Both sides?

The other journalistic tradition that is leading professionals astray is that we teach them that they must fairly report both/all sides of a controversial issue.

Generally I believe in this way of telling a story, but when one side has all the preponderance of evidence and the other is strictly opinion, based on logical fallacies, or is a nut-case, giving equal attention to their position legitimizes unsupported positions.

It is a no-win situation for the professional journalists.  Either they get criticized for excluding some positions, or they legitimize illegitimate positions, and they do it in a way that appears to contain bias.


Where do we go from here?

Professional journalists have been making the attempt recently to do more fact checking and pointing out inaccuracies of statements from the candidates.

But the high "noise" of fake news in the media environment makes people mistrust "the media."  That means that they see fact checking as opinion, and thus also untrustworthy.

When empirical evidence is seen as opinion, promoters and advocates love it.  They can reinforce the people who already see it their way, and sow the seeds of doubt in those who don't.

the professional journalistic media is going to need to future this out.  Unfortunately, I don't have a good solution.

Where I start from, however, is that facts and evidence can be "widely known or easily available" whereas opinions are not.  Journalists should not be shy to differentiate widely-known facts from beliefs and opinions that may be widely, somewhat-widely, or narrowly believed.

For more perspective on how journalists are trying to work their way out of this quandry, see this story.

How We Solve the Problem

Wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal energies are among the solutions to global warming.

Last time I talked about what we know about climate change and global warning. Change IS HAPPENING and we need to reverse it before it reaches a tipping point that we CANNOT reverse.

The number one way to reverse global warming is to stop, or at least greatly reduce, the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) humans pump into the atmosphere. We do this by developing and operationalizing alternative energy sources, including wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and other energy sources.

As you see from the chart, power generation, transportation, and fossil fuel production make up nearly two-thirds of human greenhouse gas emissions, mostly CO2.  Solving the problem in those sectors would help scale back greenhouse gas production in other sectors, as well.

So, we need a policy climate in which we discourage further fossil fuel development, and promote alternative energy production.  We will likely never completely stop using fossil fuels, but we need to receive then for the most critical uses, not as the primary national energy source.

The corollary to this policy is that we need to stop building new refineries and pipelines.  You don't build expensive new infrastructure for something you need to phase out.

What else?

There are several other things we need in order to have a functional energy system for the decades ahead that is based on alternative energy and does NOT contribute to global warming:

• Rebuild the electrical grid.  The current system (in the United States, at least) is antiquated and fragile.  It is failure-prone, and time-consuming to repair.
• Storage capability.  The current energy system is use-it-or-lose-it.  With a few minor exceptions, there is no practical way to store energy when demand is low and retrieve it when demand is high.  California is trying, but we need a major state-of-the-art expansion so that we can even out high and low energy use times, which is more of an issue with wind and solar energy than it is with a fossil fuel economy.

We can do all of these things.  What is holding us back is rich people who think that solving this pocket will cost too much, reducing profits.  The problem with this way of thinking is that of we do NOT solve these problems, it will be even worse for business.

Climate Change Deniers

Increased flooding is one of the most common extreme weather consequences of global warming. 

I came across the tired old arguments of climate change deniers recently, in a Facebook group as it happens.  As usual, a few folks were parroting back the usual logical fallacies like "when it's -15 degrees, nobody talks about global warming."

Actually, scientists do. Science is about explanations that are consistent with observed facts, updated as observed facts become more and more accurate.

We know that the Earth is warming. We know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We know that about twice as much carbon dioxide is appearing in the atmosphere as what the Earth can take back out via natural processes. We know that industry in general, and fossils fuel industry in particular, emits huge quantities of carbon dioxide. We know that the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere has been going up since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

We know that water vapor has significantly more effect as a greenhouse gas than CO2, but stays in the air for only a few days whereas CO2 stays for decades. We know that warmer air has more carrying capacity for water vapor and that the water vapor mostly resides in the upper atmosphere (meaning that what happens on the ground, like drought, it not particularly relevant because it is a local/regional thing). We know that water vapor concentrations at high altitude have been climbing at a statistically significant rate. So, the warming caused by the elevated CO2 is amplified, reinforcing itself because the warmer air holds more water vapor, causing even warmer air.

We also know that in the past, when the temperature was higher, the CO2 in the atmosphere was also higher. We know that there are natural sources that can cause increases in CO2, notably volcanoes, but the number of volcanic eruptions and other natural sources in the last century is not sufficient to explain the observed increase in CO2 and other less significant greenhouse gases.  Similarly, the deforestation of the Amazon has reduced the ability of the planet to turn CO2 back into oxygen, but not enough to fully explain the CO2 increase.

So the question is "what is the source of the excess CO2?"

The hypothesis that man-made CO2 is NOT the cause of global warming is NOT consistent with the facts. Human industry is CLEARLY producing large amounts of CO2. If man-made CO2 is somehow not the determining factor, then where is the excess CO2 coming from?

Those who would try to shrug global warming off as a "natural cycle" are not explaining anything.  A "natural cycle" still has causes and effects that can be studied and understood, particularly when they are happening NOW and not in the ancient past.

The natural-plus-man-made CO2 is causing the planet to warm. This is disrupting long-term weather patterns.  One result is more extreme weather events.

And, yes, some places DO get colder or more snow in the winter, because shifting currents and winds take arctic air to places it has not been before.

Some thoughts about solving the problem in my next post. 

Harvest Moon/Moon Festival

Harvest Moon September 16, 2016, Nikon D7100 and 70-300 mm lens.

In spite of the fact that most people know very little about astronomy, events in the sky fascinate people.  This is true today, just as it was in ancient times.

In the United States, there was a burst of talk this week about the Harvest Moon, which is the full moon closest to the Autumnal Equinox. Most people don't know what the Autumnal Equinox is, but I know many people who made it a point to take a look at the rising moon.  This full moon is remembered from non-mechanized times as illuminating the fields for farmers as they worked late into the night to complete their harvest before the snows came.

My friends in Asia, simultaneously, are celebrating the Moon Festival, also known as the Mid-Autumn Festival and by other names.  It honors the full moon as a symbol of peace, prosperity, and family reunion, and it is held in hopes for a bountiful harvest.

It is interesting to me that most people have never experienced the full impact of a full moon, because of the preponderance of artificial light in our world.  If you get away from artificial light and give your eyes time to become dark adapted, the full moon provides plenty of light to do what you want outside.

I find the similarities in Eastern and Western moon traditions to be very interesting.

To the ancients of the West, the Moon was a god/goddess. After the advent of Christianity, the Moon became a thing, but one that was very important to the cycles of life, and thus deserving of attention and study.

Eastern tradition is far different. All things possess a spirit (Chi), some weak but some very powerful. The Moon is a source of great spiritual power, as evidenced by the influence it has on many things, including the oceans and the crops.  It is not surprising, therefore, that the people would want to communicate with this spirit and seek its support in their lives.

Regardless of motivation, the full moons of Autumn always attract attention and interest.

9-11

9-11 was an act of hate.

Too many people responded to it with hate and a desire for revenge.

9-11 should be about love and remembrance, for the people who lost their lives, and for the amazing work of rescuers.

If you look at the anniversary as an opportunity to renew hate, I do not respect you.

As Martin Luther King said:

"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. You may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. You may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate, nor establish love. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."

Dakota Access Pipeline: Public Policy

© 2014 Michael Marek

In my part of the country, the efforts of the Standing Rock Tribe to oppose the Dakota Access Pipeline have been all over the news.  I know people who have been at the site on the upper reaches of the Missouri River and I support their actions.

There are serious legal questions about whether construction approvals to date has been handled properly and in ways that respect tribal sovereignty.

But there are also considerations here that many in the media, and even many who are supporting the activists, miss.


This is about the whole planet, not just Standing Rock 

Global warming is real.

About twice as much carbon dioxide goes into the atmosphere as can be processed back out by nature.

The above-ground Alaska Pipeline

People are producing that carbon dioxide, mostly from energy industry use of petroleum and coal.

Therefore, we need to stop, or radically scale back, our use of petroleum and coal.

We need to replace it with renewable energy, such as wind, solar, and geothermal power.

Ergo, we need to stop building new infrastructure that will tend to perpetuate the use of energy sources which produce waste carbon dioxide.


This is about the entire Missouri/Mississippi River watershed

The Sacred Stones Camp is on the upper Missouri River, but the combined Missouri and Mississippi River is the longest river in the world (the Missouri and Yellowstone rivers form the longest tributary of the lower Mississippi River).

Pollution of the river in North Dakota goes all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico.

The pipeline companies have been said to have "lousy leak-detection systems" and all pipelines WILL leak eventually, often with disastrous consequences.

          Freeman, SD

          Yellowstone River

True, there can be spills when oil is transported by train, but such spills are limited in geography and do not pollute thousands of miles of river used as the drinking water source for millions of people in cities along the river.


"Sacred" to a Native American is not the same as in European religions

Much has been made of claims of desecration of sacred sites of the Standing Rock tribe.  But "sacred" in Native American spirituality is different from religions that evolved in Europe.

In Christianity, generally, a place becomes sacred because of its use.  When a church, for example, is no longer used as a church, the place may no longer be considered to be sacred.

In Native American spirituality, however, a place is sacred because of its history, including its role in oral history and origin stories, and because of a people's emotional attachment.  These places do not become less sacred when the people move on. Therefore; land perceived by some to be empty or unused can still be highly sacred to a tribe

Here is a good, detailed analysis:

          American Indian Sacred Places


The oil is for other countries

Crude oil fracked out of the ground from the Bakken Fields is largely destined to be refined in the US and then shipped to other countries.  Like the Keystone XL Energy Pipeline, the oil is largely not intended for domestic American use.

So that means Americans get the earthquakes caused by fracking.

Americans get the contamination caused by crude oil spills (and fracked shale oil is the dirtiest kind of crude oil).

Americans get the pollution from the refineries.

And Americans get little or no contribution to energy independence.


Final thoughts

Everything considered, I think that supporting the Standing Rock tribe is worthy.

We SHOULD be supporting their tribal rights.

We should NOT be building new petroleum infrastructure.

We SHOULD be very concerned about toxic river pollution.

As long as we are still using petroleum as an energy source, we SHOULD conserve it and NOT ship it to other countries.

I drive past a large grain terminal on my rural county highway commute.  This train actually showed up for loading three days early, my spies tell me.

Mild HDR processing used.

I was in China in 2013, and this is one of my favorite places that I visited -- Fenghuang City, or Phoenix City. It is a UNESCO World Heritage site and is a remarkably well-preserved ancient city. I would love to be able to go back.

Macro Photography

I really like macro photography, but I don't have a macro lens.

In photography, "macro" means close-up.  You get in close, as close as your camera can focus.  Then you crop, and maybe a little sharpening in Photoshop, to produce a final shot that reveals detail we usually miss.

Depth of field often plays a big part in macro work.  Because you are focusing so close to the lens, only a narrow slice of distance is in good focus.

Carefully controlling your point of focus can bring even more attention to in-focus elements of your composition.

This can make the final photo even more dramatic.

To do this kind of photography right, you need a special macro lens, especially designed for close-up work. Because of it's design and construction, it can focus very close and portray very small things quite large.

There are a lot of lenses that have reasonable macro capability, but thre are also some designed for exclusive use in macro work.

As I said, I don't have such a lens.  My more versatile lenses, such as my 18-105 zoom, do pretty well close-up.

WilI I get a true macro lens some day? I would like to, but there are a lot of camera-related things I would like that I don't  have.  Only time and the budget will tell.

Musing about Politics and Social Media

Research generally shows that posts about issues on social media do not change minds.

So why are we bombarded by advocacy in social media?  Why do businesses, organizations, and politicians invest so much time and effort into social media marketing?

First and foremost, individuals like and share things they like, often not fact-checking and filtering them for accuracy.  

More specifically, people often like and share posts about issues that validate their pre-conceived opinions and biases.  They rationalize this by saying "my friends might be interested." We know from the research that nobody's mind gets changed, but by posting, people feel that they are doing something about the issue.

When it comes to businesses and organizations, it is different.  Largely they want to accomplish two things -- reinforce the perceptions of people who already like them and influence those people who have not made up their minds.  This is a lot different from trying to change the minds of people who dislike or are unhappy with the company.

In addition, the biggest successes in social media marketing come from inspiring happy customers to say positive things, i.e. give testimonials.  People see such comments as highly authentic and believable, more so than what the company says.

In politics, such as the upcoming presidential election, this is why negative campaigning works so well, and is particularly rife in social media:

Negative claims about the opponent 

validate those who already support you and 

influence those who have not made up their minds.

This is why Donald Trump, for example, uses the recurring pattern of 1) posting an incendiary statement on Twitter and 2) a day or so later walking it back.

The initial Tweet does its job of validation and influence, but the later walk-back changes the "record" of what he intended to say.

The news media has been VERY slow to pick up on this strategy, dutifully reporting the over-the-top post and the later modification or fact checking.  By then the post has accomplished its goal of validation and influence, and to those people, the walk-back gains little attention. 

The Avon River

This is one my my favorite recent photographs -- the Avon River at Stratford-Upon-Avon.  Shakespeare is buried in the church in the distance.

We were walking along the path bordering the river and found this view at a curve. The wake from the duck is the icing on the cake for linear perspective composition.  It is an HDR shot, adjusted for realism.