-
GMO whistleblower: Canadian federal scientist speaks out
“Now immersed in our science lesson, we learned about the results of the Human Genome Project, completed in 2002. Its goal was to sequence the whole genome of a person. Before this research, the science of molecular biology was based on the theory that the human body functions with about 100,000 proteins. DNA codes for proteins, and it was believed that each protein is coded for by one gene. Thus, if there are 100,000 proteins in our body, then there should be 100,000 genes.
However, the Human Genome Project concluded we have only just over 20,000 genes in our body. Suddenly, the one gene, one protein hypothesis no longer applied. It was an old paradigm. Since science is based on observation, here was a perfect example of yesterday’s scientific “fact” being obsolete.
As for the engineering process itself, Dr. Vrain told us that the scientist has absolutely NO control over where the gene will show up in the genome. Since this inserted gene doesn’t really belong there, it is impossible to predict what the gene is going to express! The conclusion is starkly clear: genetic engineering is an imprecise technology.
More troubling information emerged in our conversation. Genetic scientists needed to test for the safety of the inserted protein, to make sure it produces no adverse effects. Dr. Vrain explained that scientists started with the pure protein, meaning they tested it in a laboratory. They did not look for the protein IN the plant to see its effects on the plant or its environment. Using the old one gene one protein paradigm, scientists simply “assumed” that if the desired protein was inserted, it would get the effect they wanted, spawning the principle of “substantial equivalence”. We may imagine scientific research to be all about facts and evidence, but hearing about such an assumption shatters that illusion. ”
Oh wow. Talk about taking the words right out of my mouth! Who knew you could get a book published that said this? I totally agree with Nathan Ensmenger’s take on software engineering.
What do you think?
Thanks! Mark Guzdial for reviewing the book!
This is encouraging!
The students who learned about scientists’ struggles developed less-stereotyped images of scientists, became more interested in science, remembered the material better, and did better at complex open-ended problem-solving tasks related to the lesson—while the students who read the achievement-based text actually developed more stereotypical images of scientists.
Don’t get me wrong, I think there is much potential in gamification, but I don’t think the reward structure is the most important part. It’s really not about points and badges.
There are some kinds of people who love these sorts of rewards, and others who don’t – points and badges are not going to motivate for long unless you are already predisposed to be externally rewarded – which, we already know does not promote deep learning.
Even without the new rewards system for helping, plenty of users on OpenStudy already offer each other help. Some of the most loyal users of the site happen to also be some of the most active with offering their assistance. The gamification elements will recognize these helpful users, and encourage the behavior to spread.
The new features include the following:
Medals: Students can give medals to helpful peers. Medals are tracked at the study group level, so users will be able to see how helpful they are across different subjects.
Achievements: These will reward students for asking questions, socializing, engaging in particularly elaborate dialogue, and more. These will be rewarded both within study groups (for interacting with a particular subject) and across the site as a whole.
Fans: This will be OpenStudy’s version of testimonials, so users can become “fans” of people who’ve helped them. As you amass fans, you can unlock new titles and move from being a “pupil” to a “hero.”
After just one day in action, the site already has users who are “Super Heroes” with over 300 fans. OpenStudy is already a fairly active community — but the badges and titles may help it become even more robust.
Educators, have you used gamification tactics in class? Do points and badges make learning more engaging for students?
via Can Gamification Boost Independent Learning? | MindShift.
From the article:
Videogames have got a bad rap over the years.
Linked with violence, isolation, sedentary and antisocial behavior – if you believe some of the more hysterical media sources, videogames are symbolic of everything that’s wrong with young people today.
However, a new Australian study turns this perception on its head and even suggests that videogames be used as a tool to enhance and promote young people’s wellbeing and mental health.
The comprehensive study, titled, Videogames and Wellbeing, reviewed over 200 research papers from around the world, Australia’s Young and Well Cooperative Research Centre, found that there are strong links between gaming and good mental health in young people.
The study’s led researcher, Dr Daniel Johnson, from the Queensland University of Technology, says, “For years we’ve been told that videogames make us socially isolated, aggressive and lazy, but our research suggests the opposite is true. Playing videogames actually has a number of positive impacts on the player, with both social and psychological wellbeing benefits.”
So what are the benefits?
According to the review, and based on ‘moderate gameplay’, benefits include – positive emotions and emotional stability, relaxation and stress reduction – and most impressively, that depressed moods are significantly lower, and self-esteem higher, in those that play games.
This latest research was unveiled as part of the international gaming event, PAX (Penny Arcade Gaming) Australia, which was held in Melbourne over the weekend. Alongside the research, academics from the study led a panel and also unveiled a competition to design a game to promote young men’s wellbeing. Aimed at 12 – 25 year olds, the competition asks young people to come up with a game for PC, iPhone or Android that promotes positive action to enhance young men’s wellbeing.
You can find out more about the competition here.
Find a link to the Videogames and Wellbeing study here.
Has this study changed your views on gaming? Are you more inclined to encourage gaming in your kids after reading this?
Classes should do hands-on exercises before reading and video, Stanford researchers say.
Well, of course!
Does this mean we are now going to see a big wave of people jumping on the “new” flipped flipped classroom? (Doesn’t anyone see that this is why apprenticeships have bee successful, for OH, AS LONG AS WE’VE BEEN TEACHING?
-
Eliot, Charles W., ed. The Harvard Classics and Harvard Classics Shelf of Fiction. 1909–1917
”
The Harvard Classics
The Shelf of FictionSelected by Charles W. Eliot, LLD
The most comprehensive and well-researched anthology of all time comprises both the 50-volume “5-foot shelf of books” and the the 20-volume Shelf of Fiction. Together they cover every major literary figure, philosopher, religion, folklore and historical subject through the twentieth century.”
-
Gaming and Education | engagement in learning
““South Hills High School teacher Saleta Thomas bills her class as a digital game-design program for students. But once students opt to take the class, they start learning computer coding through basic programs like Alice, then move on to Flash, JavaScript, ActionScript, and other coding languages.
Since the students in the Fort Worth, Texas, school are focused on digital-game creation, often they don’t even realize they’re learning computer coding, Thomas says. The “marketing” ploy of labeling the course digital-game design has had an impact, she says. Computer science wasn’t a popular course at the low-income school, which has struggled over the past few years to bring test scores up, but the digital-gaming elective has gone from 22 students its first year to 45 this school year, and 81 are projected for the next school year.
“If we get the hook into them through gaming, then when they go to college they can see there’s a whole lot more offered in computer science,” Thomas says. “If you major in computer science, your world is really open.””
- I don’t like the “stealth” idea, but it seems to work. Not sure what that says. – post by Katrin Becker
Wholesale Adoption of iPads by Schools a Mistake | Educational Technology and Change Journal.
YES! YES! YES!
See my own reasons for why the iPad is not the answer here. Others are saying similar things.
The thing is, iPads a re fine if most of what you want to do is consume – watch, read, listen, maybe play a little (but just a little). If you want to make something then you need more. If you want to make something that is not going to live out its entire existence on an Apple device, then you for sure need something else.
Sadly, by the time people realize that it isn’t enough AND that it can’t actually “revolutionize learning” that way people are promising, it will be too late. SO much money will have been invested that they will be trapped.
Like this:
Why are cash-starved school districts sending public funds to Apple — while laying off teachers? Follow the money
No, iPads do not make teachers obsolete!
As the New York Times sums up that argument, these triumphalists believe iPads and attendant iBooks will “save money in the long run by reducing printing and textbook costs.” The enticing idea is that schools may have to invest huge money upfront, but they will supposedly see huge savings in out years.
The trouble is that there is little evidence to suggest that’s true, and plenty of evidence to suggest the opposite is the case.
….
“It will cost a school 552% more to implement iPad textbooks than it does to deploy books.”



