Nudging toward knowledge production and personal leadership behavoir

Published
by
ann.smith
on May 7, 2008
in Uncategorized
. 0 Comments

If you think about it, our days are filled with choice making. We go from one decision to another, making hundreds of choices a day -from when we are going to decide to get out of bed, what to wear, what to eat, what to pack in a backpack/computer bag, when to have lunch, who to talk to, what kind of coffee to order, how much to spend on that coffee, etc. Of course, the list can go on and on. These are some of the smaller decisions, but not unimportant. Bigger decisions, and related to the above surround savings plans, insurance, education, career, and relationships. We are free thinkers- capable of making our own educated decisions, and I would bet that most of us believe that is exactly what we do. So, the idea that we are “nudged” toward one decision/behavior or another all the time might come as a surprise to many. While this does not mean we are necessarily swayed to make the choice toward which we were nudged (we are generally free to choose whatever we want), there is no doubt we were influenced by choice architecture. Take for example this common scenario in a grocery store, a beautifully arranged display of an assortment of nuts (or whatever), temporarily located at the front of the store near the entrance. If you have ever been sucked in to buying something from one of these displays, Thaler and Sunstein would say that you have been nudged. Employers often nudge employees to save for retirement by implementing a matching funds policy, insurance companies nudge customers toward one policy or another, depending on which one is best for the customer given age, health, risks, etc; or perhaps depending on which one generates the highest commission for the sales agent (motivation counts). Choice architects are those responsible for organizing contexts in which people make decisions (Thaler and Sunstein, 2008), and these authors remind us that they are everywhere. If you are surprised at how often our decisions are influenced by choice architecture, you might be equally surprised at how often you take on the role of choice architect. For instance, as a mother I constantly create the context in which my children make decisions. For instance, by placing the apples and bananas in plain reachable view, and the highly coveted “whatever has the most sugar in it” snack in the darker recesses on the top shelf of the pantry, I am being a choice architect, self-consciously nudging them to choose the fruit. While I knew I was influencing their decisions, I had no idea there was such a cool name for it. (Though I should have known better, since there is a name for everything these days). Perhaps one for the resume!! I think this idea that we influence others or are influenced by others with subtle arrangements, order of options, use of social influence, way in which we ask a question, etc. is not totally new or terribly surprising. However, this idea of Thaler and Sunsteins that there is “no neutral design” emphasizes the pervasiveness of persuasion. I think the more interesting questions to reflect on are, how often am I influenced by others? Are they intentionally/unintentionally influencing my decisions? Who are “they”? What is the motivation? How often do I influence decisions of others, intentionally/unintentionally? Anyway, because there is no neutral design and because there is evidence that “people make pretty bad decisions- decisions they would not have made if they had paid full attention and possessed complete information, unlimited cognitive abilities, and complete self-control” (p. 5), Thaler and Sunstein are calling for leaders to join in a new movement they call Liberation Paternalism. Libertarian paternalism is a liberty-preserving movement (people should be free to choose as they please), that encourages “self conscious efforts, by institutions in private and by government, to steer people’s choices in directions that will improve their lives” (p.6). They define this movement as a “weak, soft, non intrusive type of paternalism because choices are not blocked, fenced off or significantly burdened”. Perhaps the definition of leadership offered by Rosalyn Carter is one to which Thaler and Sunstein would subscribe, “A manager takes people where they want to go. A great leader takes people where they don’t necessarily want to go but ought to.” (http://www.legacee.com/Info/Leadership/Definitions.html).
To conclude with some final thoughts, the idea that cafeteria workers can improve the nutritional intake of more students simply by arranging the offerings in a certain way is a powerful testament to these ideas. An equally powerful, but more chilling consideration are the ways in which those in choice architecture positions can influence people to make decisions (again intentionally/unintentionally) that can make their lives worse. If in choice architecture there is no neutral design, at the very least leaders should be aware of how/when they influence others. As I think about knowledge leadership models for social inclusion, it seems that attention given to principles of choice architecture and this concept of liberation paternalism may be a fruitful direction. For instance, governments can influence private policy via well designed nudges to establish both inclusion and innovation practices. With respect to the knowledge society, liberation paternalism may have a role in terms of how knowledge leaders can encourage/improve personal leadership decisions related to acquisition of personal capital via knowledge production and healthful living. I imagine this can go both directions, knowledge production will enhance choice production and vice versa. Moreover, in today’s society leaders should think about ways in which technology will inevitably be used as a nudge.

Thaler, R. and Sunstein, C. (2008). Nudged: Improving Decisions about health, wealth and happiness. Yale University Press. New Haven and London.

Peer-to-Peer Considerations in Future Ed. Environments

Published
by
Kate McCleary
on April 30, 2008
in Uncategorized
. 0 Comments

The world is changing at exponential rates and in ways previously unthinkable to man.  The artificial is intermingling with the human through means only once thought possible in science fiction novels.  Artificial hearts now beat in the chests of humans and small straw-like sticks can be inserted in a glass of water and, with the help of the sun, create drinkable water.  The production of an artificial heart within the bio-medical engineering world or the straw-like stick created by environmental engineers are no more intriguing or world changing as implanting change within the educational sphere.  Take for example the introduction of innovation cells within a school environment.  Innovation cells (Harkins & Moravec) promote knowledge generation and knowledge production in order to challenge children and youth to become active members of the knowledge society.  Innovation cells are also pioneering in the way they promote education to “leapfrog” itself. 

            Enacting change through emergent technologies or ways of thinking has implications across the social science spectrum and throughout the field of education.  Moravec (2008) questions, “Does the future need schools?  Does the future need families?”  While said questions raise key ideas about the role of social institutions within a future existence, I would like to problematize them a little bit further.  It becomes more a question of how a “school” or a “family” may be embodied in the future (i.e. a “family” could be collective of knowledge workers where a child is placed at birth due to his/her projected functionality within the society).  If we go one step further, we may begin to question the relationships between individuals within those social spheres.  If more peer-to-peer interaction is used in the future, what are the inter-personal skills youth will need to interact amongst themselves?  As we see them now, what are current forms of oppression or power that may be mitigating factors in allowing for synergistic cooperation amongst youth to self-actualize/realize their future? 

As Harkins and Fiala (2002) write, “Preparation of personal capital to perform knowledge work is indispensable to the development and continued growth of an innovation economy…  The development of personal capital is the means by which non-additive (synergistic) growth of social capital takes place.  Any society wishing to expand or develop an innovation economy must challenge centuries or millennia of group oriented tradition, indoctrination and education (or the lack thereof)” (p. 23).  Thus, it becomes a matter of looking at the individual, the self, and his/her capacity to be an active and equal participant within a knowledge economy in order to achieve a better society. 

Some links on the topic of Youth and Digital world

Published
by
jasmina
on April 27, 2008
in Uncategorized
. 1 Comment

You might have seen Frontline’s episode on Youth titled “Growing up online”…in case you didn’t I’d suggest checking the link - watch few chapters or all - though, the “Resource section” also has very yseful links to some research studies…

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/kidsonline/

That is where I found another link for this Blog from a research project on “Digital Natives”. Note - it’s not only about kids, it’s also abotu students (undergrad and grad, too…):

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/digitalnatives/

This is not an endorsement of the pages - just wanted to share the links, as I found them useful and interesting.

What is considered “innovative”?

Published
by
tara.harvey
on April 23, 2008
in Uncategorized
. 1 Comment

Okay, Ann wrote about a personal wall she keeps coming up against in this course, and I think I’m going to briefly do the same.  I’ve mentioned several times that I’m interested in how study abroad can be innovated to increase student learning.  However, the ways I’m most interested in innovating study abroad don’t involved technology.  Instead, they have to do with adding elements of guided reflection and dialogue to the study abroad program.  While this could be done through technology, that’s not so much where my interest lies.  I’m interested in getting students talking—with themselves, with each other and with program staff—in an effort to make some of their intangible learning more tangible.  We’ve discussed in class the fact that storytelling provides an opportunity for communal learning.  And I think the following quotes, all from Allee (2003) support my thinking and show its relevance to the course material:

·           Deutero learning is “the capacity to reflect on and inquire into previous contexts for learning… the foundation for true systems thinking” (p. 136).

·           “True reflection opens the possibility for generative learning…learning that enhances our capacity to create… It heeds the call for renewal and expresses a willingness to see radical possibilities beyond the boundaries of current thinking” (p. 141).

·           “As we learn to engage in more conscious conversations, we are developing the capacity for self-reflection, self-knowledge, and collective wisdom” (p. 149).

But I guess I feel I’m not quite clear on what’s considered “innovative.”  Is doing something differently that you think will more effectively prepare people for the knowledge economy considered “innovative” even if it doesn’t involve technology in any way?

more grappling on an old topic

Published
by
ann.smith
on April 22, 2008
in Uncategorized
. 1 Comment

I know we have discussed this question a number of times in class, but I am not sure I am getting it, at least I am still grappling with this topic.  So, I hope you all will hang in there with me as I make my way through this one last attempt at making a case for my current thinking and subsequent leadership model.   Overall, I agree that over the past several decades technology has addressed many problems and has most certainly changed the way we live our lives.  The ways in which ICT alone has changed the way we interact, communicate, work, play, travel, etc.  are mind boggling.  It is impossible to cognitively grasp its full impact, especially given the rate of change in technology innovations- as technology changes, so too does the way we interact with the world.  I was enthralled by an article in last week’s Economist (April12 -18) entitled  Nomads at Last  that listed several ways technology is affecting change.  For instance, given that work can be done from city parks, mountain vacation homes, the beach, anywhere, the need for office space as we currently understand it is becoming irrelevant.  Thus, ICT is impacting current architectural design. The article also discusses how information and ICT is impacting traffic patterns and even relationships.  Sociologists cited in the article are learning that ICT tends to bring friends and family closer together, but is a barrier to interactions between strangers.  A case in point, I was at a coffee shop a few weeks before Christmas feverishly typing on my computer (I believe I was taking a stats exam), when an older gentleman sat down next to me.  He was quiet for a few minutes (which I was grateful for), but then he turned to me and said something to the effect of, “it is a shame. A person can’t come to his neighborhood coffee shop for a friendly chat with a stranger anymore.”  He encouraged me to look around so I could see how nearly everyone there was staring at their computers and completely oblivious to the person next to them.  We had a brief conversation about this, until I had to excuse myself, and turn back to my computer.  This conversation and scene must have really gotten to him, and when he could no longer stand it, he stood up, walked to the middle of the room, took a deep breath and then belted out a beautiful rendition of Deck the Halls.  Success!  He succeeded in drawing us all from our computer trances to take a look around at our fellow coffee drinkers, eye contact was most certainly made between strangers as we collectively wondered what in the world was up with this guy!  Okay, I digress.  My point is that it is impossible not to see how technology is changing the world.   Fifty years from now will likely be unrecognizable, and hopefully for the better. However, even given a number of discussions on this topic, I am not entirely convinced that technology is going to address all the world’s problems, especially those of the underrepresented and the poor.  Historically, market economies have increased inequalities between the rich and the poor, not decreased them.  Moreover, technology already exists to solve many problems today (malnutrition, diseases, the climate crisis), but it doesn’t - due largely to sociological, political, and market mechanisms. So my question is, “what is going to fundamentally change these dynamics?”   I get it, that technology of today is likely to be no match for the technology of tomorrow, but will that technology be any more available/accessible tomorrow than it is today?  If so, when?  And what do we do in the meantime?

Again, I understand the cell phone argument, that cell phone technology has penetrated developing countries.  But the truth is, there is a distinction made between adoption and diffusion of technology. The argument that technology diffusion will happen on its own may be unrealistic. For instance, in class the example that cell phones are now in the hands of the poor is, I believe, a bit overemphasized.    The percentage of poor and extreme poor who have access to cell phones, and who can afford cells phones (I would argue, even at optimal price performance) is quite small.  For instance, 6% of India’s rural population has access to cell phones.  Yet another Economist article, of Internet Cafes and Power Cuts, suggests there is evidence that if technology is not diffused rapidly, at best it will be diffused slowly and incompletely throughout a country (Economist, April 21-25, 2008). The author cites the World Bank’s index that shows this may be what is happening in some regions, like Latin America.  Lag-time is one explanation; however, there are other explanations as well.  While Leapfrog technologies (cell phone, which seems to be the exception) may make it possible for some developing countries to overcome lack of infrastructure, and is certainly reason for some optimism, there are some technologies that are much more difficult to be leapfrogged.   Moreover, prices, of even the most commoditized of products can only approach their marginal costs of production – for tractors, modern medicines, corn, wheat, and yes, cell phones and packets of data, these prices often remain outside of the reach of billions of people.

 I concede that my imagination for future possibilities may be too limited in scope, and I hope this is the case. But, leadership must bridge the gap between adoption and diffusion of technology, and policymakers must attempt to understand the present as they prepare for the future.  A new and clear definition for knowledge leaders in both the public and private sectors for the 21rst century is imperative.   Policymakers must understand their roles as visionaries, as facilitators of educational reform for innovative thinking, and as advocates for underprivileged and underrepresented. Visionary leadership must creatively encourage both innovation and WAT socially conscious thinking.  The real tragedy would be if we somehow missed the opportunity to bring voice to the marginalized, food to the hungry, medicine to the sick, education to the remote, and climate relief to the globe through technology because of short-sighted public policy.   This is the position from which I will explore the role of leadership in the knowledge economy. This approach is certainly not one that comes from out of the blue, it is being explored from the business management field addressing bottom of the pyramid (BOP) strategies for private enterprises and related ICT for development (ICT4D), the science and technology policy arena addressing  flexible and voluntary incentives and public/private partnerships, and technology infusion in educational reform. I envision each of these areas as important avenues in developing knowledge leadership frameworks for the future.  In the absence of a strategic and WAT socially conscious thinking model we may in fact find ourselves in the midst of the world scenario described by C.K. Prahalad and Allen Hammond (Harvard Business Review, 2002),

“CONSIDER THIS BLEAK VISION of the world 15 years from now: The global economy recovers from its current stagnation but growth remains anemic. Deflation continues to threaten, the gap between rich and poor keeps widening, and incidents of economic chaos, governmental collapse, and civil war plague developing regions.  Terrorism remains a constant threat, diverting significant public and private resources to security concerns. Opposition to the global market system intensifies. Multinational companies find it difficult to expand, and many become risk averse, slowing investment and pulling back from emerging markets.”

Do Kurzweil’s future niches apply to Morocco’s growth strategy?

Published
by
mohammed.elmeski
on April 20, 2008
in Uncategorized
. 1 Comment

Having completed the IMF Program of Structural Adjustment, the Moroccan government put together an emergence plan that designates the most promising areas of economic growth (Agoumi & Benmansour, 2006). However, it seems that the recommendations of the report were ahead of the infrastructural readiness of the country to support economic take-off. During a period of ten years, large investments were undertaken to improve physical infrastructure, upgrade telecommunication, and introduce institutional reforms that increase Morocco’s attractiveness to international investors.

The ten years lag between the late 90s governmental emergence plan recommendations, and the renewed 2005 commitment to this strategy based on the study conducted by McKinsey consultancy (Bergh, 2006) of Competitive Morocco (LaVie Economique, 2006) could be attributed to the need to lay adequate groundwork for the new vision of development to materialize. Morocco’s new emergence strategy centers around consolidating its know-how in classical industries such as food industry, fisheries, textile, chemical industry, pharmaceutical industry, and tourism while building a competitive advantage in high added-value niches such as off-shoring especially to French and Spanish speaking countries, automotive low-cost industry, aeronautics, and specialized electronics. (Agoumi & Benmansour, 2006).

The national leadership vision about the catalyzing role of knowledge intensive industries has crystallized around the concept of creative industrial clusters built to optimize regional human and physical advantage in an export driven economy (The Mitchell Group, 2003). In this regard, “Electronic City” and “Automotive City” in Tangier are the two most recent cluster concepts that build on the 14 kilometers proximity to Europe and the modern facilities of Tangier-Med port, one of the 15 largest ports in the world. The “Aeronautic City” in Casablanca is an export oriented hub that hosts national and international ventures intent on upgrading Morocco’s contribution from a parts’ outsourcer to a manufacturer of entire aeronautic systems (La Vie Eco, 2007). The expected revenue from aeronautic industry by 2012 is around 15 billion Dirhams (roughly more than two billion U.S dollars). In addition to these two cities, the Food Industry clusters in Meknes-Fez and Al-Gharb (respectively located on the North East and North West) were also set up to optimize natural assets of these fertile regions in organic, processed, and pre-cooked food. Finally, Agadir, on the southern part of the Atlantic Ocean has the natural, infrastructural, and human endowments to maximize the competitive advantage of Morocco in the fishing and sea-food processing industry.

Notwithstanding the promising potential of the Moroccan emergence plan, clear commitment to investment in Genetics, Nanotechnology, and robotics at least in the form of collaboration between the government, research institutes, and investors is at its embryonic stage. According to Le Matin (2006), officials aim to attract Moroccan expatriate engineers and multinational firms to launch nanotechnology, micro-technology, and biotechnology ventures in collaboration with existing universities and research institutes. In this respect, some government leaders are aware of the urgency of jumping on board of high technology before this historic window of opportunity closes as well. Therefore, they set a deadline of two years for establishing these centers in the technological cluster in Rabat-Sale. Hopefully, the increasing attractiveness of Morocco in areas as pharmaceuticals, high-tech electronic, and aeronautics could be the gateway to research and development in genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics as they apply to these respective industries.

While taking stock of the sense of urgency that some Moroccan officials have demonstrated at least in their public interviews (Le Matin, 2006) regarding high tech investment, I hope that the political and the business leadership has a strategic appreciation of the real national gain from true commitment to the diffusion of cutting-edge genetics, nanotechnology, nuclear technology, and robotics. I believe that if government policy relies exclusively on international investors to develop only aspects of these technologies that are relevant to the exports, the technological spillover might not be relevant to long-term national development goals. In this respect, as a developing country, Moroccan human development is contingent on facing the following challenges:

1. Energy storage, production, and conversion

2. Agricultural productivity enhancement

3. Water treatment and remediation

4. Disease diagnosis and screening

5. Drug delivery systems

6. Food processing and storage

7. Air pollution and remediation

8. Construction

9. Health monitoring

10. Vector and pest detection and control

(Singer, Buentello, and Daar, 2005, p. 58)

If in the short run the government focus is on providing incentives to high technologies to be established in Morocco, my contention is that without a clear national and hopefully regional strategic vision of the relevance of these technologies for national and regional development, the potential dividend of such adoption will only be restricted to a new small elite whose prosperity depends on replicating exogenously conceptualized specs instead of endogenously creating their own concepts and designs.

The most pressing lesson that Morocco, and for that matter, all developing countries must learn is that being an outsource destination is certainly a step towards growth, but if the country does not have the intellectual and human endowments to be an additive transformer instead of a low cost mass replicator, this advantage will soon erode. For this reason, a strategic vision that is committed to innovation is of utmost importance for Morocco’s future viability. In this respect, clear national commitment, and intelligent use of incentives to leverage investment in genetics, nanotechnology, nuclear technology, and robotics as they apply to the above fields will galvanize support for public and private research institutions which work on things that make money, but most importantly, on things that matter to local and regional human development.

Finally, in addition to the national public and private effort, the huge financial and human resources that need to be committed for these projects are probably far beyond what a country on the mid-low income bracket could afford. And given that FDI (foreign direct investment) might not always be motivated by local human development, South-South cooperation, is vital for pooling the funds and the brains for high technology for local human development. In the face of a powerful European Union that invests billions of Euros on nanotechnology centers, and an equally massive investment in huge blocs such as North America, China and India (El Naschie, 2006), minuscule players such as Morocco, Algeria, Mauritania, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt must consolidate their disparate initiatives in high technology investment especially given that their challenges are almost identical. Creating poles of specialization in each of these six countries with free circulation of funds, brains, equitable distribution of dividend is ideally the most cost effective way of indigenizing knowledge production in high technology and transforming from low cost information sweatshops into wealth generating sustainable knowledge powerhouses.

Knowledge production and the Moroccan education system

Contrasting the grand goals for bolstering knowledge economy with the general low performance of the Moroccan educational and training system (World Bank, 2006, 2008) begs fundamental questions on what could spur sustainable growth in Morocco: Is it more aggressive investment that results in professional development and training and therefore more skilled workers, or should higher education professional and academic institutes take the lead in preparing qualified resources for investment to expand? The examination of The World Bank (2006) Country Economic Memorandum and the findings of the 2007 World Economic Forum ranking of the most competitive countries emphasize that growth is premised on the development of at least average standards in three overarching categories: Basic requirements, efficiency enhancers, and innovation enhancers. These three categories include nine pillars: Institutions, infrastructure, macro-economy, health and primary education, higher education and training, market efficiency, technological readiness, business sophistication, and innovation. Having said this, The World Bank (2006) insists that one of the challenges of the growth puzzle lies in the dimensionality of growth dynamics as they vary from one country to another. In this regard, the World Bank (2006) refers to the Morocco case as a growth enigma as it has failed to achieve high growth even if its natural, financial, institutional, and macro-economic infrastructure predicts otherwise. The World Economic Forum (2007) Competitiveness Report shows the following factors as the top inhibitors of a competitive economy:

If this URL: http://www.weforum.org/pdf/gcr/africa/morocco.pdf does not work, please read the document attached in the Uploads section entitled Morocco competitiveness profile. (World Economic Forum, 2007, p. 160)

Both the World Bank (2006) and The World Economic Forum (2007) Competitiveness Report agree that the constraints to fast economic growth in Morocco are numerous. Given the scope of this paper on how innovative knowledge production could be leveraged to leap-frog Morocco to the exponential growth of knowledge economy, the goal of elaborating on the interrelated factors slowing national development is to recognize that sustainable change should be based on a diagnostic and integrated approach that seeks sector-specific solutions, but without losing sight of the national big picture of where Morocco needs to be in order to live up to the economic, environmental, health, and cultural challenges of the future.

The above chart illustrates how the lack of financing especially through foreign direct investment can be a direct consequence of tax policies, lack of infrastructure, corruption, and inadequately trained labor force. In this regard, World Bank (2006) ranks Morocco amongst the countries where business offers the least training, which therefore affects the country’s capacity to compete and innovate. As I had explained, Moroccan officials have put together an Emergence Plan that focuses on knowledge-intensive and export oriented high added value enterprises as the key to sustainable high growth, and job creation. In this regard, even if private investment and Foreign Direct Investment is increasingly more attracted to Morocco, ensuring the sustainability and the scale up of knowledge economy is predicated on an abundant and skilled workforce that is attractive at home and abroad.

Business firms’ investment can be a prime opportunity for the development of knowledge capital through knowledge spill-over and learning by doing (World Bank, 2006). In this respect, some companies do provide high tech training opportunities to entry level job seekers in Morocco (Conjoncture, 2005). However, I am not sure of the extent to which the Moroccan government provides for incentives to foreign and local firms to incorporate advanced and continuing training for job-seekers especially in knowledge intensive industries. As it is now, on a scale of one to seven, the Moroccan score according to the World Economic Forum Competitiveness Report (2007) is 6.1 in primary education and health, 3.5 in higher education and training, 3.3 in technological readiness, and 3.3 in innovation. At this level, Morocco’s competitive advantage will be limited to its low cost labor and it geographical proximity to Europe. None of these advantages is robust enough in view of the availability of much cheaper labor in Sub-Saharan Africa, and the immense advantage of countries such as China and India in the skilled workers who are able and eager to do the same work at a much lower wage. With these threats, it seems that the only option for Morocco is to consolidate its natural geographical, multi-linguistic, and cultural advantages, while investing aggressively in the massive training of knowledge economy workers. One way of preparing these workers is by aligning its highly inefficient and low quality educational system with the demands of the knowledge production age.

The World Bank (2008) Flagship Report on education in MENA classifies Morocco as a low performer in the integrated index of access, equity, efficiency, and quality. The characteristics of low performers, according to the report, are low levels of primary completion rate, low access to higher education and also high illiteracy rates. The effort to fill the existing gaps in access and equity has a times resulted in low efficiency and low quality. To address this educational lag, the World Bank recommends more effective results-driven engineering that upgrades physical resources, curriculum, teaching, finance and administration. It also calls for well targeted incentives that foster evaluation and monitoring of education performance and the alignment of this education with market needs. Finally, the report underscores political accountability to give voice to stake holders at the national and local levels.

Borrowing the World Bank (2006) Country Economic Memorandum observation that “Reforms are important, but rapid growth relies more fundamentally on properly identifying the binding constraints to growth” (World Bank, 2006, p. i), it is important to note that the successful reform that the 2008 report seems to promise is unlikely to materialize without a paradigm-shift that does not only see reform as a reaction to educational structural deficiencies, but also as a configuration of the system to be more responsive to future demands. In other words, given that technological innovation and educational reforms seem to move at discrepant speeds, it is important to diagnose the educational system constraints that do not only prevent access, equity, quality, and efficiency, but also identify the constraints for a continually innovative educational system that is fully capable of producing tomorrow’s future workers.

Notwithstanding the fact that national education is a strategic sector, the government should probably frame-shift from blanket reform designs where it is the only architect into encouraging parallel alternatives of education provision that promote innovation since pre-school. In this regard, the focus should be on nurturing a culture of creativity, intellectual freedom, freedom of initiative and innovation in every formal, informal, and non-formal education context in the country. In this regard, one of the limitations of the World Bank (2008) report, and arguably other reports is the disproportionate emphasis on successful educational reform as it takes place within formal schooling contexts, and failure to explore how out-of-school factors can probably have more influence in nurturing learners/students/researchers with a disposition for life long learning. In this respect, I believe that one of the benefits of a research driven educational system is that it will democratize dialogue about education innovation by creating a critical mass of experts who could initiate endogenous change, and who have the disposition to be at the forefront of early but discerning adopters of relevant innovation. In a nutshell, without a culture that encourages people to think for themselves and take ownership of their victories and setbacks, it is hard to imagine Morocco transform to an innovative society that takes its progress in its own hands.

Looking ahead: A great history is great, how about a great future?

In my future posts, my focus will be on innovative education reform for a knowledge producing society. I will draw on the literature of the LeapFrog Institutes, Harkins and Kubik (2006), Verna Allee (2003), class discussions, and other articles and slides to suggest some guidelines for what a creative Moroccan knowledge producing society could look like.

From knowledge formats to knowledge production

Published
by
mohammed.elmeski
on April 16, 2008
in Uncategorized
. 2 Comments

I have found the following titles more in tune with the international visionary campuses which define current and future knowledge production as discussed in our class:  

  1. Critical issues in knowledge production and applications
  2. Futuristic knowledge formats and applications in global contexts.
  3. New horizons in knowledge production: the role of schools in leading change.
  4. The role of schools in knowledge production: from Taylorism to tailorism  

As I see it, the title “Knowledge formats and applications sounds prescriptive. It does not truly reflect the class experience where participants are expected to critically deconstruct existing and future knowledge formats and critically think about innovative and unorthodox ones. The first title, therefore, better reflects the critical dimension of the class.

The strength of the second titles lies in its emphasis on the future and global dimension of knowledge formats and applications. The third title focuses more on the role that schools could play in leading paradigm change in knowledge production by having the autonomy to nurture new forms of knowledge acquisition, development, and applications.

Finally, the last title highlights the non-alignment between existing knowledge formats and applications where most schools are units for mass production that focus more on conformity and standardized outputs. This title views schools as institutes for tailored design where classes, teachers, are curricula customized to nurture students’ strengths, to  help them discover their potential, and to promote empathy, humility, and life long learning dispositions by the very appreciation of the infinite territories of intelligence yet to explore.

If I had to choose one, my conservative choice would be number 1. My inspiring choice, however, would be number 4. Please let me know what you think. 

technology access gap

Published
by
ann.smith
on April 15, 2008
in Uncategorized
. 1 Comment

Hello all.  I apologize for my blog omissions over the past few weeks.  I am now in a better place  (personally) to work my way back into the discussions and take part in the class.  By means of getting started again, I wanted to reflect on new perspectives this course offers.  Having spent the semester in knowledge formats, I find that on a daily basis, often several times a day, I see a commercial, article or trailer for a television show that brings pause.  Before this semester, I had not thought much about the new innovations beyond their immediate benefits.  For instance, there is a commercial for a new medical device, if I remember right, it is an electrocardiogram.  While this technology is not new, the idea that it is portable, and can be packed into a shoulder bag and taken into rural areas (in this case- the Dr. took a bus to rural India), suggests new potential for addressing health needs of those living in areas where hospital and clinics are scarce.  The other day, I saw an advertisement for a segment Barbara Walters was doing on longevity and the possibilities of living to 150 years old.  These two examples are interesting in and of themselves, but Kurzweil places them into a new context for me by demonstrating how they fit into a bigger picture of a growing wave of technological innovation.  The implications of these are huge, and I find myself thinking forward and imagining future scenarios.

I read the Wired article on Kurzweil that Dr Harkins referred us to today.  Wow. The idea of a longevity doctor blows my mind. What I found to also be insightful were the 100 or so comments this article elicited by readers. One of the comments that echoed my own thoughts on the topic had to do with SES status of the majority of the world’s population. The reader questioned Kurzweil’s notion of future human (posthumans) resulting from the singularity, and wondered how those living on less than a dollar a day might benefit from robotic organs or consciousness transfers.  Taking this idea in a related direction, with concepts of social inclusion in mind, given that the wealthy are finding ways to live beyond the first bridge (125 year)- ones who can afford to pay $6000 a office visit to a longevity doctor and god only knows how much on daily vitamins, I wonder how much energy and resources are being put toward raising the life expectancy of those in less developed countries to levels enjoyed in the more developed countries.  The contrast between life expectancy rates between Zambia (at 37 years) and UK (at 78 years)is quite striking! Are technological advances going to increase the opportunity and power  differential s between rich and poor, or will we find ways to make sure this gap gets smaller rather than bigger? This is what I see as the goal for policy in knowledge leadership models.  While Kurzweil addresses these concerns by leaning on shortening product life cycles and the relationship between product performance and price (at least in the areas of pharmaceuticals and cell phones), to address an issue like life expectancy it seems we would need to see similar kinds of technology access in areas of food/nutrition, housing/shelter, energy/heat/transportation, etc.  I am not sure the price/performance evolutionary processes follow the same trajectories among these kinds of products (I would guess crop yields between Zambia and the western world closely resemble those of life expectancy).  His argument might work if anti-aging, death defying  technologies come in the form of a pill – but, if  tissue/organ replacement is required, it could similarly be argued that access to doctors, nurses, modern hospital facilities, ancillary equipment, etc. would most likely not be as great or rapidly available as a pill whose development costs have already been recovered from wealth early adopters.

NYT and Mode 3 Knowledge

Published
by
seth.werner
on April 13, 2008
in Uncategorized
. 1 Comment

I enjoy the intersection of new thought and freedom of ideas that our course has delivered this semester. This junction was made salient while reading the “Tech Innovation” section of the NYT last week (April 9, 2008, Sec H). The section highlights how firms are trying to integrate technology into their operations. So here is the rub: they are trying to engage new and innovative (dare I say mode 3) activities (some facilitated by technology, some because of technology), but alas their own institutions continue to stand in their way.  

The lead article is titled: “Betting to Improve the Odds” – it is about how companies are using a web tool called “prediction markets”. They are described as a place where “Employees, and potentially outsiders, make their wagers over the Internet using virtual currency, betting anonymously. They bet on what they think will actually happen, not what they hope will happen or what the boss wants” (NYT, 2008, p. H1).

The companies in the article have seen great success, often having more accurate predictions than their current best systems (one reports it to be 70% better). The mangers make comments about how this will allow big companies to act small, be responsive – you know all the normal rhetoric from mangers about how it will help them change.

Despite all of the good that these prediction markets are showing and the comments by management about what a great tool it is, what do they do? Use them “in limited ways, in one or two departments…” In fairness, they do talk about expanding access and engaging more users, but the glacial pace at which they are willing to move and the controls they engage are emblematic of the defiance management has to leapfrogging.

On the flip side is a great story teetering on the edge, highlighting the issues firms will face in the advent of AI. The article: “Closing the Doors That Virtual Sprawl Leaves Open”. This story is about firms that are using virtualization software which allows firms to “use virtual computers to run various critical tasks, wringing more work from their computers” (NYT, 2008, p. H5). Basically, they use computers they don’t own or maintain to do stuff that needs to get done. The article highlights some of the constraints even invoking Sarbanes-Oxley. If your computers run too far a field your amount of control of what they are doing and where they are doing it, may knock you out of compliance. The article goes on to quote a CEO of a tech firm that offers virtualization software saying: “Virtual machines can communicate with each other and with the outside world, which is great from a productivity perspective. The problem is, they lie outside the scope of all the security that exists in the physical world” (NYT, 2008, p. H5). This activity is called a “blind spot” – the humans ‘in charge’ of operating the machines simply can not see what the machines are doing…

The Future of this Course

Published
by
tara.harvey
on April 13, 2008
in Uncategorized
. 1 Comment

 

With regards to the future of this course, to me the current course name and description do not properly align with the content.  I would suggest changing the name and description to be more in alignment with the course content, rather than the opposite.  For the course name, I would suggest something along the lines of “The Future of Knowledge” or perhaps “Innovation and Education.”  The following is the course description listed on the EdPA website:  “Analyzes the interrelationships of ‘knowledge capital’ (noetic symbolic resources) and culture through intrinsic, cross-, and multicultural perspectives. Distinguishes knowledge from information and data, focusing on national and international development.”  To me, this seems to be true, but doesn’t really get at the essence of the course.  The important points to address, in my opinion, would be that the course covers the future of knowledge, and innovation and its implications for education.  That’s my two cents for the moment…

 

Oh, and is ‘noetic’ a real word or is that a spelling error?