Back in December, ‘09, the Nobel Foundations announced Elinor Ostrom as a recipient of the prestigious Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences. I remember hearing the announcement on the radio and fleetingly thinking to myself, “First woman to receive the Nobel Prize in Economics, that’s neat, good for her.” I did not note, I’ll admit, why Ostrom received the prize or what particular area her work is in – perhaps because I was tackling extremely rainy roads and night driving just outside of Seattle.

Just recently, Ostrom’s name came to my attention again, and this time, I did look up her area of work. As it turns out, her research falls right in line with my own curiosity about the role of community in our world.

To explicate, I’ll try to sum up Ostrom’s work:

Much of today’s economic thought is structured around Garrett Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons theory. The Tragedy of the Commons model basically states that people will inevitably pursue personal gain at the expense of a group where a common resource is concerned (see my previous blog entry for an explanation of the Tragedy of the Commons). The end result of self-interested individuals sharing a commons is eventual degradation of the commons. Garrett Hardin’s suggested solution to this tragedy is a) privatization of resources, or b) socialism where nobody owns the resource. In other words, he advocates against communally managed resources (“Revisiting the Commons”).

Ostrom’s work proves that privatization and socialism are not the only answers to the commons tragedy. Instead, her work has proved that individuals will act for the good of the group even with personal costs to themselves. In some cases, Ostrom has seen that communally managed commons have actually proved to be better managed than traditional models.

In Mongolia, for example, Ostrom found that nomadic herders managed commonly shared grasslands far better than their neighbors in China who had privatized agricultural lands. Degradation of the Mongolian ecosystem made up 1/10 of the used area whereas degradation of the Chinese lands was 1/3. Similarly, in Russia, where land was managed under a more socialist regime, degradation made up 3/4 of the area used (The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences).

Based on this example, it would appear that group cooperation can, in fact, serve as a functional institution to manage resources.

Check out this video for Ostrom’s own words on her work. The video starts to get pretty exciting at the end when Ostrom explains our reluctance to engage in mutually beneficial relationships base on trust is a result of our fear of being what she calls, “suckers.” It’s entertaining; I recommend you watch it!

Ostrom argues that we need a diversity of institutions. We can’t just operation in markets where privatization is the norm, and we can’t operate in markets where nobody owns the resources. We need a multiplicity of institutions, and a communal institutional most definitely has a place in that multiplicity. Our world is complex, why would we limit ourselves?

Even with that multiplicity of institutions, Ostrom holds that the distribution of “communication, information, and trust” is incredibly important to a properly functioning society and a well-maintained commons (“Revisiting the Commons”). Successful governance, in turn, is dictated by “active participation of users in creating and enforcing rules” (The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences). Participation, communication, and trust are not features of the top management down approach of the past. They are features of community.

What does all of this mean for those of us who interested in the role that community plays in our lives? It means that we could be seeing changes in the way businesses are run, in the way that conservation efforts are approached, in the way we look at global development, and even in the way we carry out the education of our youth. Group cooperation is possible, sometimes it’s better than the traditional alternatives, and it will, in the future, be incorporated into the institutional structure of our lives.

Like many organizations creating innovative solutions for the toughest challenges of our times, Re-Vision Labs looks to the connections between digital media and learning for some of its answers.

According to HASTAC and The MacArthur Foundation (sponsors of the Digital Media and Learning Competition), recent studies of young people’s participation with digital media – including games, mobile devices, social networks, and virtual worlds – suggest that young people are re-imagining learning on a daily basis. They are engaging in “participatory learning” – an intrinsically motivating, inherently interactive, and creatively experimental form of learning.

This is the kind of learning that has the potential to catalyze engagement and action around the big challenges of our times: climate change, pollution, wealth distribution, food and water security, access to information, and the list goes on. So why digital media?

Because in regard to participatory learning, digital media can “significantly lower the barriers to production and distribution, invite social engagement and interaction, promote the possibility of contribution, and challenge traditional notions of authority and expertise.” ¹ Arguably, social and interactive learning has immense value for learners of all ages – not just young learners.  Imagine being able to sign up for a quick online course on Cellular Physiology or Music Theory, offered by experts for just a few dollars. Or addressing racism in the work place through “serious online games.”

Interested in some of the intriguing digital media tools out there? They’re not all video games – take a look.  We’ve separated our suggestions for young and adult learners.

For Young Learners:

Sesame Street – The Sesame Workshop continues to use television media to create effective characters that appeal to children across large (physical and cultural) expanses and foster global citizenship at an early age.

Galli Galli Sim Sim’s Boombah (Property of CPB):  Meet Galli Galli Sim Sim’s Boombah, a gregarious, cuddly lion who loves eating vegetables and dancing to Bhangra music. Or watch Global Grover’s Russian dance. And The Workshop is digging even deeper, researching ways that handheld learning products can help revolutionize teaching and learning. Read the report.

Xeko – This online eco-adventure and endangered species card trading game sticks to its focus of “Gaming for Good;” Xeko partners with nonprofits to promote causes through games. Kids who meet their game goals can activate a donation to a nonprofit, thus connecting their gaming actions to a real world of good.

Little Big Planet – This video game’s tagline says it all:  Play. Create. Share. Users play a character, modify and contribute to the game levels, and participate in a vibrant online community. Plus, LBP is one of two games highlighted in the DML Game Changers Competition; a cash prize is at stake for the designer of the next best level.

For Adult Learners:

SpacedEd.org- This online learning platform allows lifelong learners to choose a from an online course list, answer a few questions per day, and gain knowledge that you want, when you want it. Find courses by Harvard Medical staff, or learn tips and tricks for using your iPhone. SpacedEd provides a space for both development and delivery of content.

Institute for Digital Learning- Find work-based & games-based e-training resources, often multilingual and using multiple formats. Examples include the Union Learning certificate program, an online higher ed course for Trade Union reps, and the Diversity & Inclusion e-training Toolkits.

City Rain – Yes, a video game for PC or Xbox. BUT, this isn’t just any video game. Eco-urban planning meets action-packed simulation game. Says the creator, “In City Rain, you play as a member of an elite environmental Swat Force in charge of restructuring cities, before they are penalized by the World Environment Protection agency.”  Maybe City Rain’s creators should get together with Seattle’s own sustainability reality television show Mission: Sustainable.

Apps – Instead of waxing poetic about the benefits of some great iPhone or smartphone app, why don’t you tell us which ones you like? What are you learning? Would you be learning the same using another format (e.g. reading a book or googling the topic)?

The world of digital media resources for learning is expansive, and growing. We look forward to hearing about the ways you’re noticing digital media changing the face of learning across the world. Post comments here.

1.  Reimagining Learning.  Digital Media and Learning Competition.  http://www.dmlcompetition.net/reimagining_learning.php.

Albert Einstein is attributed with a famous quote about insanity: “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

While Einstein wasn’t an educational philosopher, his notion is relevant when looking at how our current educational system does or does not prepare students to live in a collaborative, rapidly evolving world.  This quote reminds me of the challenge of the current educational system to both provide a quality education for all students, while simultaneously developing deeper, more nuanced interdisciplinary understanding within our students so that we have individuals ready to face the interdisciplinary problems (such as poverty, climate change, etc.) of our time.

To achieve this outcome, learning systems will need to develop the capability of applying insights from cognitive science about how brains actually work, while simultaneously informing teachers, parents, principals, and policy makers about the necessity of appropriately incorporating insights from cognition, neuroscience and biology research into their classes, homes, and communities.

With an eye towards applying these findings in real life practice, I have been involved with a variety of projects that intentionally design learning environments to promote interdisciplinary understanding.  This is not an easy task, as truly interdisciplinary work requires an awareness of the mental models and epistemological foundations that pervade ones mind.  Given the complexity of these issues, how can we incorporate effective interdisciplinary learning into educational and organizational learning so that we can create the yet unseen tools to enable current and future generations to address the dilemmas of their time?

Some fascinating work is providing a hint of how and where such opportunities may arise.  I am a big fan of the Interdisciplinary Studies Project, as this research group is focusing upon demystifying the components of quality interdisciplinary education.  Their research looks at the MIT Media Lab, which may be the pre-eminent interdisciplinary work group in the world.  While not a comprehensive answer, their work is identifying trends for in successful and expert interdisciplinary work:  purposefully integrating disciplines while maintaining rigorous standards for conducting expert work while applying disciplinary tools.

A program that I’ve been fortunate to have some contact with is the Three Degrees Project, housed at the University of Washington Law School.  I am keen on this project because they are undertaking truly interdisciplinary studies–simultaneously developing real solutions to help impacted communities adapt to the impacts of climate change while managing a group process to ensure all participants productively collaborate.  Given the trend of collaboration emerging in our world, and especially amongst younger generations, I wonder if achieving quality interdisciplinary work will be easier for a generation who is steeped in working across boundaries?

While there is no silver bullet for creating interdisciplinary insights, there do appear to be some traits that appear time and time again in effective interdisciplinary work—the ability to learn about a topic while simultaneously learning how to manage a complex, tension filled group process (more on interdisciplinary learning and work later), as well as a shift in perspective about knowledge being absolute to knowledge

Given that the 21^st century is loaded with opportunities to demonstrate expertise with interdisciplinary work (a.k.a. make headway with massive 21^st century dilemmas like poverty, climate change, educational access, etc.), how have you taken steps to improve your capacity for being involved in this tough work?

Are our Universities Mass Producing?
I might be overlapping a bit with RVL’s other blogs on Education, but I work at a University and thought it would be appropriate to write about my thoughts on the role of community in post-secondary education.

I work as an Admission Counsellor at Quest University Canada in Squamish, British Columbia. Quest was founded 2002 (its inaugural year was in 2007) by a man named Doctor David Strangway, formerly the President of the University of British Columbia. Strangway established Quest because he thought there was more to education than cramming hundreds of students into one room, throwing facts at them, asking them to regurgitate those facts onto an end-of-term exam, and then booting them out into the real world where, to be honest, fact-cramming and regurgitation don’t play an integral role.

I would agree. Our universities should not be factories for the mass production of educated people. If you look at the mass production of any commodity, what you get is hundreds of thousands of low quality products which are completely indistinguishable from one another. To illustrate,  picture a tin soldier factory, complete with whirring and humming machinery, a conveyer belt, large robotic arms swooping in and out, and a gigantic ‘stamping’ contraption that slams down onto the conveyor belt with a certain, crushing finality. The usual procedure is to take something raw, organic, and unique, send it through that factory, and ‘stamp’ it into some preconceived mold, the tin soldier mold in this case.

- The film Baraka does a good job comparing human society to a chicken factory; I think similar parallels can be drawn with the mass production of students at universities.
Is this really what we want our post-secondary educational system to look like? It’s a bit scary if you ask me. The world doesn’t need tin soldiers. It needs unique, independently-thinking citizens who can do a lot more than just spit out memorized facts.

Humans, it seems, have a tendency to move towards expansion. We see it nearly everywhere, especially in North American society. Expand, expand, expand. Go bigger, get more, be faster. When we focus so obsessively on this kind of expansion, we lose quality. In the case of education, we lose creative, confident, and well educated individuals.

I’m not saying that expansion is necessarily a bad thing. What I am arguing for is mindful expansion, and if we are going to have large universities, then we need to ensure that the quality of the education is not compromised by the very hugeness of the institution.

This is where community comes in. Community plays a necessary role in education and should be cultivated by all post-secondary institutions whether on a university-wide scale or on a smaller, program or residence specific scale. Community, in my opinion, has the ability to keep that giant, mold-stamping, tin-soldier-producing machine at bay.

Community at Quest University Canada

Quest University Canada, Squamsh, BC

At Quest University Canada,  community is deliberately cultivated, and the results are tangible. Like many other liberal arts institutions in North America, Quest is a residential campus, has small, seminar style classes, and an emphasis on student/faculty interaction. These features, in addition to Quest’s smallness (as a brand new university, Quest only has 220 students) are all contributors towards the cultivation of community.

However, Quest is unique in the sense that students have a real say in how the University is run. This is affected through what we call ‘Community Days.’ Community Days are held biannually at Quest and consist of the entire campus -students, faculty, and staff – gathering together to reflect on the Quest experience and offer suggestions for improvement. Community Days are complemented by monthly Community Updates where again the entire campus gathers to receive updates on the latest events at Quest.

As some one who attended a large university – indeed, an absolute behemoth of 40,000 students as compared to Quest’s 220 – I’ve found the level of student consultation at Quest to be remarkable. Students actually feel like they have a say at Quest, that they matter, and that the university truly is theirs to use in pursuance of their own goals and education. Giving students a voice is probably one of the biggest factors in forging a tight knit community at Quest.

The Results

According to Dean of Student Affairs, Melanie Koenderman, Quest’s efforts towards community building have resulted in:

• lower attrition rates
• fewer disciplinarian problems
• a devoted group of alumni who are more likely to give back to the university
• improved academics
• happier students…

…And most importantly, individuals who are truly unique and who are confident in their own genius and creativity. There are definitely no tin soldiers at Quest.

One of Quest’s main challenge, as Melanie told me, is making ‘Small seem Big’. As a start-up University, retention of students is vital. Community cultivation has become integral for the University in this sense. Larger universities have the opposite challenge; they need to make ‘Big’ seem ‘Small.’ I would argue that challenge can also be achieved and should be achieved through strategic cultivation of community on campus.

Let’s take a step back, World, stop mass producing tin soldiers, and start supporting the unique individuals that we all are and want to be.

Similarly, who is “poor?”  A person living in a remote Ethiopian village where everyone makes $2 a day (using purchasing power parity exchange rates), or someone living in a Chicago housing development with an annual income of $5,000?

“Well…” says Mr. A, the inexperienced economics student, “both their incomes are above their respective poverty thresholds, so they should have enough for life-sustaining goods. But the person making $2 a day is closer to that threshold, so he must be poorer.”

Dr. Goldberg, the economist counters, “Actually, the Ethiopian is surrounded by people making the same income and the person living in Chicago has an income far below the average national per capita income, so the latter, from a relative perspective, is poorer.”

The capriciousness of absolute and relative poverty in the developing world has captured much attention within the last century.  Through empirical work and countless trial and error, economists have developed strong summary measurements of poverty, such as those below:

Poverty gap index: Economists use this model to measure how much income is needed to bring the population under the poverty line above it.

Gini coefficient: A widely used ratio statistic that measures the relative degree of income equality between countries or areas.

Foster-Greer-Thorbecke index: A popular model used to measure the degree of income inequality among the poor. It was considered such a strong measurement of poverty that it is included in the Mexican constitution.

In contrast to these dry quantitative theories put forward by economists, Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen has developed a far more qualitative, human-based approach to measuring poverty.  In his book “Development as Freedom,” Sen outlines his idea of how economics could be broadened to better measure people’s well-being.  As Sen explains, “focusing on human freedoms contrasts with narrower views of development, such as identifying development with the growth of gross national product.”  In particular, Sen examines the ways in which expanding people’s freedoms can be both a viable means to economic growth and a desirable end.  His unique approach suggests that poverty is far more complicated than a simple lack of income and should in fact be measured by the “capabilities” people have to live the type of life they desire.  This broadens the term “poverty” to take into account the education, political freedoms, and health services available to people.

Sen’s principles were a major influence in the formulation of the Human Development Index, a powerful method of comparing social well-being across countries. The Index takes into account life expectancy at birth, level of education and standard of living to give an overall measure of a country’s well-being.

So, if asked which person was poorer (the Ethiopian or the person living in a housing development in Chicago), Sen would consider any answer incomplete that doesn’t account for social, political, and institutional circumstances.

The mutatis mutandis assumption strikes back!

Is there hope for federal K-12 education reform?

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA, currently authorized as No Child Left Behind Act of 2001) is coming up for reauthorization.  Both President Obama and Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan are presenting the reauthorization of ESEA as an opportunity to help provide greater transparency in the accountability system, harness the power of incentives and rewards within the education system, and focus upon turning around under-performing schools.

Given the polarizing debate that has ensued since the authorization of No Child Left Behind, I wonder how the current administration is poised to address a real divide between parties that, until recently, focused upon arguing about the existence of the Department of Education.

As recently as George W. Bush’s tenure as president, Republicans assumed a position that the Department of Education, and thus federal involvement in education reform, should be abolished, as outlined by this Cato Institute piece. Interestingly, the Cato Institute piece demonstrates that Republican perspectives about abolishing the Department may be shifting.

Conversely, Democrats are most commonly aligned with increasing the funding of the Department of Education, assuming that its presence and status are given, as exemplified by perspectives put forth by the Center for American Progress.

While the current administration in Washington D.C. is supportive of federal involvement in education reform, I wonder if there is enough political will and support for a significant overhaul of the NCLB.  Consider what Arne Duncan has identified as ways in which the federal government will create a common definition of success:

1. Raising standards for all students,
2. Rewarding success in schools,
3. Supporting and rewarding effective teachers and leaders,
4. Turning around low performing schools, and
5. Helping schools develop a well rounded education.

I would imagine that most people, regardless of political affiliation, could support these ideas.  However, the role of the federal government in bringing forth these ideas raises two fundamental questions: How involved should the federal government be in the US education system?  What is the end goal that the federal government is aligning the education system? Is it to

…produce economically successful individuals, as researcher Richard Murnane proposes?

…produce workers with the needed skills for the global economy?

…develop global consciousness in our students?

…ensure that each child simply has access to education?

While this question could serve as a basis for multiple Ph.D.’s, conferences, and summits, one take home point stands out: the educational system is moving forward at full speed without a consensus as to where it should be headed.  In the interim the heading is focused upon using education as tool for promoting economic growth.  Who is willing to argue with the proposition that better education will position individuals and the US for future economic growth?  If I had kids, I would definitely be considering the financial implications of my kids educational opportunities and growth.

However, without developing some agreement on why we educate, we may be reliving history.  Consider this quote from Patricia Graham:

“Public purposes for education change as the society perceives its needs and priorities differently.  Currently our old educational shiboleths have been rejected but new ones have not yet been accepted.  The critique of contemporary educational processes is intense, but there is little articulate reformulation of either educational goals or of means to achieve them.”¹

26 years ago these words were scribbed, and it seems that we may well be articulating means to achieve something, without first deciding upon what we are to achieve.

Is there hope for your school?

Can we afford not to have the federal government involved in this debate?  With state budgets crashing, federal stabilization funds from American Recovery and Reinvestment Act are playing an important role in maintaining adequate funding for schools.  Furthermore, the next budget put forth by the Obama administration proposes to raise the Department of Education’s discretionary spending budget by 7.5%, the largest increase ever proposed.

Without having fully analyzed the Obama administration’s budget and plan for education, I’m initially impressed with the focus upon utilizing data for making decisions.  Any attempt to increase the availability, rigor, and applicability within the education system seems very worthwhile, especially considering the historical lack of using data to drive decisions within the education sector.  It would be even better if the administration clarified the need to use data in a formative manner (to improve teaching), which is no small task given that data has been utilized mostly as an outcome metric over the last 10 years.

I’m hopeful that federal involvement will accomplish a couple things:

1. Provide a temporary bridge in funding for cash strapped states, and that states effectively deal with a precipitous drop in funding that is on the horizon once the ARRA funds are gone.
2. Elevate education reform within the public agenda
   1. I don’t care if takes federal intervention or complete state autonomy.  Our system has room for improvement and we need to apply all the currently available resources to improve it.
3. Engage communicates in education reform beyond local levies and limited campaigns to bridge federal education reform with local education reform
   1. To do so will require some sort of organizing body to align all of these efforts.  In Cincinnati an effort coordinate by Strive aligns over 300 organizations, in total over $7 billion dollars in resources, to move kids from birth to their career through an aligned system.

Here in Washington State, we have the opportunity to influence the future of this state’s education system—there happens to be a landmark bill (ESHB 2261) passed in by Washington’s Legislature in 2009 that will:

1. increase instructional hours,
2. enhance high school diploma requirements,
3. create a new transportation funding formula,
4. add all-day kindergarten to basic education, and
5. provide new finance structure for transparency.

Maybe Washington State has the opportunity to create a cohesive strategy for aligning federal, state, and local policies to bring about lasting education reform?

How might you want to contribute to this process locally–as a parent, teacher, administrator, or person on the street—what is your stake in education reform?

The big finale of the Mithun Olympics at Pier 56 includes the much anticipated Barbie Ski Jump.  Each nation must fashion a means by which Barbie can successfully slide down an 8′ ramp and launch into the air, preferably performing death-defying acrobatics.  Nations are judged based on length of jump, acrobatic performance, and style overall.  Sean Conner, our MA in mechanical engineering, creates a Barbie Ice Block and dons her in medical tape.  We think we’ve got a good shot for the Gold.