Pages

Showing posts with label 2015. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2015. Show all posts

Wednesday, 30 December 2015

Completing a Degree

(Cappelli, 2012, p. 48)
I have written before about an interview with author, Peter Cappelli, and The Wharton School of Business at Penn U (15 June 2015).

What I have not mentioned was that Peter talked in the Wharton interview about US degree completion rates being one of the lowest in the world. In fact, Business Insider reports that "In 2012, 39 percent of young Americans were expected to graduate from college, compared with 60 percent in Iceland, 57 percent in New Zealand and 53 percent in Poland. The U.S. graduation rate was ahead of Canada (35 percent), Germany (31 percent), Switzerland (31 percent), Spain (29 percent), Turkey (27 percent), Italy (26 percent), Chile (23 percent), Hungary (23 percent) and Mexico (22 percent)" (9 September 2014).

In addition, 47.6% of young-ish Kiwis have a Diploma or a Degree (Capelli, 2012, p. 48). Not bad.

At 57% completion, it appears that successive New Zealand governments have worked in the right way: our students are more likely than not to complete their degrees.

Our majors are slowly being nationally standardised, with the Government only paying each institution in full - the 75% of domestic student fees paid through taxes - on degree completion. This has the advantage of forcing tertiary institutes to remove speciality and rarely offered papers from the mix* so that students complete within the allowable time. It also encourages institutions to staircase students through tiered qualifications so that (a) students leave with a qualification - ie, cert, dip, degree, and (b) as the institutional payment relies on completion, students are less likely to be pushed beyond their competence for another ring-up on the till.

However, this latter might mean a softening of standards, if the institute is not careful to uphold academic integrity. Somewhat less likely in New Zealand with our 'fair play' focus, but it is clear how the twin torsions of payment and standards may not necessarily play nicely together. Something for us to be vigilant about.

And to remember that there is still 43% of students who don't finish, for whatever reason that is. Something for us to work on too.


Sam

* Speciality papers have not been dropped, but have been moved to honours, grad-cert or -dip qualification offerings instead. That allows everyone's needs to be met.

References:
read more "Completing a Degree"
Posted by 8 comments :
Labels: , ,

Monday, 28 December 2015

What might 2016 hold? Think transport...

The Red Flag Act (Pazyaythu, August 2015)
In looking back at my blog posts over 2015, my themes have been: higher education; reflection; careers; MOOCs; leadership; writing; pointing out things that we may take for granted; and the usual tips and hints on making life in the 21st century a little easier. Unusually, prediction wasn't on my 2015 blog horizon.

So I have decided to end the year with some future exploration, focusing mainly on transport; as I think there is a lot happening in this area.
  • Elon Musk's SpaceX is really gaining traction. The first successful launch and landing of the Falcon 9 has already happened, and - while I am sure there will be bugs that need sorting out - this is one of the first key steps to cheaper high earth orbit and space work. It will allow the permanent establishment of laboratories and the construction of interplanetary and deep space vessels (Davenport, 21 December 2015).

  • Elon Musk again: Tesla will be releasing the Telsa Model X in mid-2016. This seven-seat electric SUV is based on the 4WD Model S electric sedan with 762bhp, with a range of 400km on a full charge (Moss, 30 September 2015). The specs for this vehicle put it in the 'normal' range per fill of petrol or diesel engines.

  • Elon Musk again, again: we will be a year closer to the full-scale commercial release of the Tesla electric Model 3 sedan, going 680km on a full charge: and aimed at the higher-end sedan market (NZD$60k), but matching or exceeding BMW in performance. The Model 3 is likely to be previewed at 2016 auto shows (Auto Express, 12 November 2015).

  • Elon Musk again, again, again: because of the progress of the Model 3, we are also likely to see the prototypes for the next revision - Tesla's small electric town-car, the 'Model Y' (Anthony, 8 October 2015). This is the one I am waiting for, because I will probably want to buy one as my next car (and it may well be the last car I ever own). What would be really great is if Tesla teamed with Tata Motors to build, supported by a deal with Google. Then we would see the cheapest, smallest, cleanest and most reliable auto-drive car in the world.

  • Speaking of Google, the Google Self-Drive car project is about to gain some major traction, as a JV between Ford and Google is to be announced in January, "to build self-driving vehicles with Google’s technology, a huge step by both companies toward a new business of automated ride sharing" (Hyde & Carty, 22 December 2015). However, Tesla has released a USD$2500 downloadable self-drive OTA update for their already released models which is the FIRST public self-drive tech release (Forrest, 23 December 2015).

  • Never mind Uber nipping at the taxi market, self-drive is the start of a complete change in the private transportation model, as are electric cars. I can see a day when no one owns a car: we just order a pod using our smart phone. It turns up, we hop in, it delivers us to our destination as we work, chat or read, then goes to the next pick up. Taxi drivers should start thinking about investing in the tech sector if they want to stay in the transport business.

  • Speaking of the transport business, Warren Buffett is investing in US rail (MarketWatch, 17 September 2015). While this is pure speculation on my part, I think the near-maturing of automated vehicles (ie, self-drive technology) and access to long-life battery power might be driving his interest in this area. We could well see a resurgence in rail transport when freight can be delivered without paying staff, and the H&S risk that rail brings, supported by clean and long-life energy.

  • Which brings me to Elon Musk again, again, again, again: Elon Musk struck a JV deal with Panasonic in 2014 around the 'Tesla Gigafactory' where batteries are being made for the Tesla cars... and will shortly be produced as power sources for houses and businesses, apparently (Tesla Motors, 2014). I remember reading a SciFi novel by RA Heinlein where people had "shipstones" to power in their houses (Heinlein, 1982). This meant that there was no power company needed for mains supply, and, while I am not sure what the cost or the marketing will be, it is possible that Tesla will be creating long-term energy storage for essential services at first, but as the price comes down with the maturation of the industry, the use of battery over mains is likely to become more attractive, and safer. The deliver of battery power at a low cost for businesses and homes by Tesla would be a game changer, and makes me less hesitant about our NZ government's strategy to sell off portions of our power companies (Hidalgo, 2015; Tesla Motors, 2014).

  • All of which then brings me to safety. Google has had 53 cars trundling around California for the past couple of years, logging 2.1m kilometres thus far. Google publish all their self-drive car accident data, being very transparent about causes, circumstances and the results of their investigations. There have been 14 accidents so far involving the self-drive cars: almost all as a result of being rear-ended at lights by the non-self-drive car behind them in the traffic queue. No accidents have been caused by the self-drive car (though one was caused by the driver wrestling back control from the car, Wikipedia, n.d.). As a result, I think insurance companies will start to think quite seriously about risk and self-drive vehicles, and, as we start to reach commercialisation of these vehicles, we will see lower insurance premiums for self-drive cars over non-self-drive. This will lead, over time, to a significant premium differential. This will in turn drive - pardon the pun - a faster transition from non-self-drive.

  • And what about the commute? Other factors which I think will push the shift to self-drive will be productivity and health. The self-drive car will be a labour-saving device, allowing us to do some work during our journey to work or meetings. In addition, not having to feel the frustration of being at the wheel in traffic, not having to worry about finding the best route, a car park or worrying about accidents will mean we arrive at work without that ghastly daily dose of cortisol in our systems. The same is true for going home at night...

  • Legislation around the world almost universally requires a person to be at 'the wheel' in vehicles, and will generally need to be changed to permit self-drive cars. In the US, changed Nevada transport laws in 2012 allowed the first self-drive license (Wikipedia, n.d.). Already four years ago... and, although there still needs to be a person in the driver's seat, it already smacks a little of the 'groom with the flag walking ahead of the automobile' in 1900. The EU has a working party exploring harmonising of transport laws and allowing self-drive cars called "WP29" which is looking at intelligent transport systems and automated driving (Driverless Future, 30 December 2014). Legislation change is likely to be quick to help to combat inner city congestion, car parking shortages and an increased demand for public transport. And it really is likely to happen FAST. Five to ten years-type FAST (Roberts, 01 June 2015).

So when we think of the term 'automobiles', it appears that we might finally be going to get some. I am really looking forward to what comes in 2016.


Sam

References:
read more "What might 2016 hold? Think transport..."
Posted by 1 comment :
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, 23 December 2015

Delivering on the promise of Higher Education

(Cappelli, 2012, p. 44)
Following an online discussion on the cost of education, I went hunting to find out what the tuition cost is in the US. According to Laura Bridgestock, degree course costs are between USD$9k and USD$31k - NZD$14k to NZD$47k - per annum (30 January 2015).

NZ is similar to the US community/state college end of the spectrum, as average annual NZ course costs come in at around NZD$15k pa. What I found really interesting is that our living costs are apparently around quarter that of the US: Kiwi students get a grant of around NZD$5k per year, in the US, you need around USD$9k (NZD$16k).

Further, in the US, almost all students are able to apply and receive grants to cover some or all of their tuition costs (Bridgestock, 30 January 2015). This is not something that our Kiwi students have access to.

So while we pay at the low end, we are far, far less likely to get a fee-break. Education is costly in New Zealand.

What sparked this was a post about a new book, "Will College Pay Off" supported by an interview with the author, Peter Cappeli, and The Wharton School of Business at Penn U (15 June 2015). Peter said "What [employers] care about is the college experience. In the U.S., the more traditional college experience where you are working in a community, you’re getting along with other people, you’re learning from the context as well as just the academic material."

He continues later in the interview with "employers care a lot about internships more than they seem to care about the college curriculum that you’re taking, work experience on campus, and maybe some of these certificates that you can get online in fields where those count, like computer science" (Wharton & Cappelli, 15 June 2015).

I found Peter's comments about the - so called - 'soft skills' really interesting. It is something that I tell my students: it doesn't really matter what degree you have done. What matters is that you have a proven ability to stick through to completing a body of learning, on your own. Employers then know you have those interpersonal and character skills that will translate into the workplace. What those skills are were explored in a previous book by Peter, "Why Good People Can't Get Jobs" (2012).

The reasons are often perceptual. Tertiary institutes are not good at reporting to potential employers what skills graduates possess. Additionally, some tertiary institutes focus too heavily on theory, and not enough on application, some vice versa. Neither position is what an employer is seeking: they need both for problem-solving and future-proofing.

Like the US, NZ degrees are trending into internships (where I teach, we use them). These are useful because they bring together all the techical skills with the employability skills that the workforce demands: time-management, planning, communication, deadline-orientation, customer service, language skills and teamwork.

But we still don't report on them to future employers. I think that our tertiary institutes should be doing just that, and reporting on how many extensions students have applied for, the deadlines missed, and the other employability skills listed in the image that illustrates this post, because, although it may be informal now, it could easily be formalised and reported along with the student transcript at the end of a degree programme.

But it is critical that we ensure our graduates leave with the ability to learn, to communicate, to problem-solve, to be self-disciplined and to self-manage.


Sam

* Speciality papers have not been dropped, but have been moved to honours, grad-cert or -dip qualification offerings instead. That allows everyone's needs to be met.

References:
read more "Delivering on the promise of Higher Education"
Posted by No comments :
Labels: ,

Monday, 21 December 2015

Christmas Fix: Removing White Drink Rings from Wood

Who knew there were a couple of easy ways to remove white moisture marks from wood surfaces?

As Bonnie McCarthy of Houzz says, the coming celebratory time of year often results in unexpected stains appearing on precious wooden tables and benches, causing good people to last in our thoughts, at what should be a happy time of year, for the wrong reasons. However, Bonnie allows us to refocus on our celebrations, by consulting some experts and finding a couple of really simple solutions to get rid of the marks.

Bonnie consulted Bruce Johnson, a US fine woods expert, and Timothy Dahl, the editor of DIY site, Charles & Hudson.

Bruce said “What we’re looking at when we see a white mark — sometimes it’s a white ring, sometimes it’s a cloudiness — is moisture that’s trapped in the finish. That’s the sign of a weak finish". A white mark means you surface compound is wearing out and is no longer completely waterproof. However, because it is white, it also means the moisture has not yet got into the wood itself.

If the moisture had reached the wood, the stain would be dark (or black). That's game over: refinishing time.

So, if you find a white mark, DON'T put polish or wax on it, as that will seal the surface and stop the moisture drying off. The moisture may then migrate down into the wood. Bruce suggests leaving the piece to dry out in a dry place, maybe fan-or blow dryer-aided. Which brings us to his fix.

Bruce's spotted-soon-after fix: use a blow dryer on warm/low and wave it back and forth over the patch until the white evaporates. Don't hold it in one place for too long, so you don't overheat your wood surface (and crack, soften or discolour it). If your surface does looks different after the patch has gone, try buffing it up with with a soft, lint-free cloth.

But, even if you find a mark that has been there for a while, all is not YET lost. While Timothy says “There is a point of no return [that] depends on how long the moisture has been locked in there and how long it has dried”, he has removed white water marks that are several months old, using the following method.

 Timothy's oh-no-I-didn't-realise-'til-later fix: paste mayonnaise exactly over the mark and leave it for around three hours (though if that doesn't work completely, try reapplying and leaving it overnight). After the waiting period, simply wipe it up.

Lastly, what you need to do in either case is to reapply your surface coating system, as the white marks are a sign that your surface is failing.


 Sam
read more "Christmas Fix: Removing White Drink Rings from Wood"
Posted by No comments :
Labels: , , ,

Friday, 18 December 2015

LinkedIn and Hubris

(Friedman, 2015)
I was reading a piece by a colleague of mine from the Collaborative Career Conversations group - Kelly Mitchell - a few days ago.

Kelly was saying how he felt that the folk at LinkedIn were putting the cart before the horse: that LinkedIn was making changes to the online platform that customers were not taking to.

And, that instead of listening to the growing gripes from customers, they were ploughing on regardless with more changes, with no communication about what the cumulative changes were going to lead to.

Kelly makes a very good point. When we shout out, and hear nothing back, we fill in that silence with our own impressions. And in today's market of almost instantaneous response, maintaining radio silence is very nearly the kiss of death for a brand.

I hope, as Kelly also does, that this is not a case of arrogance: "we hear about situations where unwanted change occurs [made by] folks in their ivory towers who think they know what’s best for the masses but are out of the loop."

At the same time I was reading Kelly's article, another post by Phil Friedman crossed my path.

Phil reported that LinkedIn has decided to limit the number of posts that we see. "To ensure members only receive high quality and relevant publishing notifications, we do two things. First, all posts must pass our spam and low quality filter before having a notification published for them. Second, only connections whom we deem are strong connections will receive these notifications. We determine this by leveraging the connection strength score from the LinkedIn cloud service. Cloud service maintains connection relationships between members" (Byron Ma, LinkedIn’s Engineering Blog, August 2014, as cited by Johnson, 2015, as cited by Friedman, 2015).

LinkedIn is apparently being our benevolent parent, and deciding who should see what, on our behalf. As Phil says, "LinkedIn has taken upon itself to unilaterally and without notice begin overriding the express requests of those who have connected with, and elected to follow an author. And moreover, LI has chosen to misrepresent the situation by continuing to send out notices such as this one received when I last week posted my most recent article on the long-form platform". The LI message that Phil refers to read "Nice Work! We've let your 2759 LinkedIn followers know that you've published. Keep up the momentum by sharing with your other networks!"

Phil's reaction was "The rationale given for 'choking' or 'throttling down' notifications of an author's posts to his or her connections and followers, is unadulterated gobbledygook. It is an accepted fact that less than 20% of readers on social media actively engage consistently by posting comments. Most of the time, they are happy to just read. Consequently, the weakly-defined metric of 'strong connection' will, in very many cases, I submit, completely distort the true nature of the relationship between an author and a follower. In other words, a follower of a given author could be a devoted fan, yet because that follower doesn't actively 'engage' regularly, could be easily and incorrectly discounted as not-strong, un-strong, anti-strong, or any other bull-chip expression LI may choose to employ".

So. LinkedIn is reducing the links they send us, throttling back who our messages go to, and deciding arbitrarily who is 'active' in our network.

Killing [themselves] softly...?


Sam

 References:
read more "LinkedIn and Hubris"
Posted by No comments :
Labels: ,

Wednesday, 16 December 2015

Graceful Disagreement

I was reading a post on a recent conference by Debsnet - aka the édu flâneuse - when she said "scholars brought diverse perspectives to the same general topic of leadership in education. They agreed and disputed. They converged and diverged. It was a great example of respectful, well-considered and articulate debate. Graceful disagreement. Elegant contestation. Research as conversation".

Wow. What a lovely phrase. I loved the sense of respect, approachability, egalitarianism, openness and richness of the words.

For me, this evoked a sense of debate in its full majesty, where the true pursuit is not our own ego, but the real development of knowledge and mastery. A place where we can truly put aside our own agendas, shoulder-chips and weaknesses, and create something that is larger and more enduring than ourselves.

Debsnet's ideas link in well with an article written by Rebecca Gelding on kindess which I also read today. Rebecca cited Anne Galloway who tweeted in 2014 “We are all smart – distinguish yourself by being kind” (citing Professor Charles Gordon, Sociology & Anthropology HoD, Carleton University, 2012). We can make disagreement a learning opportunity when we shift focus from "win" to win:win.

Kindness can - and should - exist in academia, despite its reputation of being the last place on the planet that our ego is ripped off firmly stuck to the editing plaster.  We can present bad news in a way that is not dishonest, but focuses on what we can do to repair errors, not on the errors themselves. We can ask for more information, we can be the naive inquirer, without agenda and just ask questions, ask about alternatives, ask why they chose what they chose (Miller & Rollnick, 1991). We can also ask about "that", not about "their": a great distancing tool for taking the proximity heat out of ownership (Shetty, 2013). And kindness has an advantage: it spreads.

Another powerful punch for looking after the views of everyone, and keeping respect close to our hearts.

Nice.


Sam

References:
read more "Graceful Disagreement "
Posted by No comments :
Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, 14 December 2015

Authentic Leaders and Followers

There are many leadership styles, and, amongst modern leadership theory - or transformational leadership theory - in the relational leadership school of Level 5, shared, ethical and authentic leadership, authentic leadership is one of the most interesting.

Avolio, Luthans, and Walumbwa defined authentic leadership as “those who are deeply aware of how they think and behave and are perceived by others as being aware of their own and others’ values/moral perspectives, knowledge, and strengths; aware of the context in which they operate; and who are confident, hopeful, optimistic, resilient, and of high moral character” (2004, p. 4, as cited in Avolio & Gardner, 2005, p. 321).

Authentic leadership values create openness, transparency and allows for doubt, which in turn allows us to develop open and honest reflection. It allows for the empowerment of others, and the creation of value: of human capital, intellectual capital and of other resources. It allows us to build a positive workplaces through a shared vision, values and goals (Jackson & Parry, 2011).

Authentic leadership does not allow cultural gaps to occur; that is, where there is a difference between the organisational behaviours that the are spoken about and those that actually happen (Daft & Pirola-Merlo, 2009).

Due to their nature, authentic leaders build adaptive organisational culture, where they have high concern for people, and create processes which aid positive change. This is the type of environment where - calculated - risks can be taken, where pilot studies are the norm, and where corporate entrepreneurship can flourish.

Authentic leaders encourage us to challenge, inspire, motivate or ground ourselves, by supplying an external perspective and helping us to internally adapt within organisations.

Authentic leadership allows us to focus on the development of followers. Wren (1995, p. x) defines leadership as “an interactive process in which leaders and followers engage in mutual interaction in a complex environment to achieve mutual goals”. Daft and Pirola-Merlo (2009, p. 4, after Rost, 1991, p. 102) defines leadership as “an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes and outcomes that reflect their shared purposes”. Burns (1978, p. 18): “people with certain motives and purposes mobilize in competition or conflict with others, institutional, political, psychological, and other resources so as to arouse, engage, and satisfy the motives of the followers”. Ivancevich and Matteson (2002, p. 425, as cited by Chelladurai, 2006, p. 192): "the process of influencing others to facilitate the attainment of organizationally relevant goals".

All those definitions mention followers (or 'others') as a key stakeholder in the process of leadership, and this is particularly true in authentic leadership. Shamir & Eilam (p. x, 2005, as cited in Avolio & Gardner, 2005, p. 322) define authentic followers as those “who follow leaders for authentic reasons and have an authentic relationship with the leader".This is one of the few leadership styles that details the characteristics of the follower.

It is egalitarian. Authentic leaders and followers are an inextricably linked pair.

And they support each other.


Sam

 References:
  • Avolio, Bruce J. & Gardner, William L. (June 2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, Volume 16, Issue 3, June 2005 (pp. 315-338)
  • Burns, James MacGregor (1978). Leadership. USA: Harper & Row
  • Chelladurai, Packianathan (2006). Human Resource Management in Sport and Recreation (2nd Edition). USA: Human Kinetics (pp. 189-210)
  • Daft, Richard L., & Pirola-Merlo, Andrew (2009). The Leadership Experience (Asia-Pacific Edition 1). Australia: Cengage
  • Jackson, B., & Parry K. (2011). A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about studying leadership (Second Edition). UK: Sage
  • Wren, Thomas J. (1995). The Leader’s Companion: Insights on Leadership through the Ages. USA: The FreePress
read more "Authentic Leaders and Followers"
Posted by No comments :
Labels: , ,

Friday, 11 December 2015

Fixed Mind vs Growth Mind

(Winkler, 2014)

Stanford University professor Carol Dweck has identified the growth mindset as being one where efforts are praised in place of intelligence (Dweck, 2006).

The concept of the growth mind-set as opposed to the fixed mind-set is a variation on the age-old question of nature vs. nurture. The idea behind this concept is sound; praising people's effort, rather than their cleverness, will result in greater motivation, and better results.

Those praised for success through effort are encouraged to continue this effort and improve. Tackling new challenges is not so intimidating when success is not linked to intelligence.

The opposing mind; that intelligence is the factor to be recognised in success, can have a demotivating effect. Often, those who recognised their achievement as a primary result of their intellect were apprehensive about facing obstacles where their failure could be attributed to less intelligence.

I find this theory particularly relevant to my own life. Too often, I find myself looking externally for reasons I have failed, rather than focussing my efforts on what steps I could have taken to improve outcomes. Personally, due to suffering from two chronic illnesses, I am often lacking in energy and feel unable to complete course-work to a standard I find acceptable. It is very easy for me to shift blame for any under-par work on my health, rather than owning the results. Exploring the growth mindset has interested me as I believe I would benefit from growing a growth mindset, and instead of looking for past reasons for times when I haven’t achieved as I would like, to looking for future solutions, actions I could take, and efforts I could improve.

A growth mindset places the locus of control internally, leading to solution-orientated thought, focusing on how obstacles can be overcome through effort, and believing that their success or failure will be attributed to how they deal with these obstacles. A fixed mindset places the locus of control externally, shifting ‘blame’ for failures on factors outside of their control such as other people, unfair practices, or even the weather. Such thought patterns lead fixed mindset individuals to lack motivation, as they view their results as something they have no ability to change.

Those with a growth mindset can be inspired by the successes of others, seeing their achievements as demonstrations of how great effort leads naturally to achievement. With a mindset that determination has gone into others success, it is simple to see how the same effort applied by themselves could achieve desired results. By contrast, those with fixed mindsets can feel threatened by the success of others. As they perceive the result of others as having to come from a deep-rooted intelligence or innate skill, other’s success undermines their own, the successful party must therefore be of superior intelligence. This mindset can lead to a defeatist attitude as it is believed that no amount of effort will ever change the ‘status quo’ of intelligence dealt (Dweck, 2006).

Research into the outcomes of growth vs fixed mindset has revealed fascinating result. Carol Dweck undertook an investigation of children’s study habits, asking groups of children a range of 10 questions:
  1. Group A was praised for their intelligence after the first round of questioning. The feedback for this group included words such as ‘smart, clever, and intelligent’. After the initial testing, the performance of this group fell. The group were reluctant to take on new challenges as they did not want appear less intelligent if they were to fail.
  2. Group B were praised for their effort. Words such as ‘hard-working, diligent, and tenacious were used in their feedback. Contrasted with Group A, Group B excelled in further testing. Their performance improved, and 90% of participants sought out new challenges.
Personally, I would find it helpful to follow the growth mindset both as a leader and when being led. I have learned that the fixed mindset has been pervasive in my thinking for much of my professional and academic life, and that this may have hindered my confidence to face new challenges at times. Using the growth mindset would allow me to enable myself, and those around me to meet greater potential than that which is capped with a fixed mindset. Using this theory of leadership, previous tasks which appear to be insurmountable or beyond the limitations of my intelligence are conquerable with an attitude that the effort put in is the determining factor on whether I achieve success, rather than an arbitrary genetic limitation beyond my control.

Encouraging others by the strength of their efforts, and acknowledging the effort that I have exerted, will allow me to see the fruits of my labours as precisely that; the end result of my effort rather than a set outcome of whether or not I am ‘smart enough’ for the challenges ahead. When praising the work of myself and others, using words such as ‘hard-working, full of effort, and tenacious', will encourage a growth mindset. Conversely when considering where things have gone less well, looking for solutions, identifying areas where more effort could have been expended, and searching for internal explanations which can be overcome, will be far more helpful than adopting a defeatist attitude where my results are out of my control.

The growth mindset theory is definitely one I would use in my future, both at work and in my private life. In my current role, the growth mindset could be beneficial in several areas. Dealing with complaints is a reality of my job, using the growth mindset, instead of thinking of the customer as being impatient or unreasonable, I would instead look at how I can make a difference to their experience, and how I can meet their needs more effectively in the future, such as offering alternatives, remaining patient, and remaining assertive without crossing into passive aggressiveness.

Cat

 This post was written by Cat James, used with permission.

References:
  • Dweck, Carol (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. USA: Baltimore Books. 
  • Winkler, Dan (2014). The Growth Mindset: The Important Concept NOT Taught Under the Common Core. Retrieved 25 November 2015 from http://blog.mimio.com/the-growth-mindset
read more "Fixed Mind vs Growth Mind"
Posted by No comments :
Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, 9 December 2015

Keep a blogroll post always at the top

My website is based on a Blogger Blog, and the tools I use to create and maintain my website is all based on shared code that the Google Blogger community creates. I am so grateful for all those bloggers out there who put their time and energy into building, testing and problem-solving coding issues.

They rock!

The wonderful thing is, that when you have a new need for your site, you can go out there, pop your search string into Google, and get an answer back. Just like magic.

Earlier this year, I created a summary page for my blog posts, and took my website's landing page (my home page) off my website index. I then created a page of blog summaries, because I wanted people to focus on the blog posts. What I did instead was to create a "welcome" post that sits at the top of my blogroll.

For some time I have been looking for an easy method to keep my "welcome" post at the top of the blogroll list. I assumed that I would need code to do that, so, as I have had time, and as the need drifted back to top of mind, I have been searching for "Code to keep a blogger blog post always at the top".

Today I finally found my answer. I learned how to set a Blogger blog post to be always on top. I hadn't realised that it was so easy.

Posted by Matt Koble way back in 2012, I don't know how many times in my search I had missed his "How to Set a Post Always on Top in Blogger" as a solution.

I probably hadn't read it as it didn't include anything about code. Unfortunate really, as Matt had come up with a simple and elegant method of keeping a post on top: changing the publication year. Wow: how simple is that?!

All you do is to in to edit the post's date. In the right-hand panel, a third of the way down the post's page, click the heading "Published On" to expand the options.

Tick the "Set date and time" option, then move the date ahead by a year. That buys you a year's worth of no-reset. You could go further into the future, but a year is probably enough time to then remind you to review the post's content.

Then "Save" the post, then "Publish".

If you go and check your post online now, you will see that the post's date has changed to the future date, but the post is still visible, and stays doggedly at the top of the page until the year passes.

Then review the content and repeat.

And there you have it: that has got to be the easiest fix that I have ever had to organise!

NB: DON'T click the "Revert to Draft" from the post option buttons at the top right of the page, otherwise the new date won't post UNTIL your one-year-in-the-future date arrives.


Sam
read more "Keep a blogroll post always at the top"
Posted by No comments :
Labels: , , , ,

Monday, 7 December 2015

The Family Francis: writers of racing mysteries

I have always loved a good mystery book, with the first adult novel that I recall being an Agatha Christie, at around age 10.

Dick Francis has filled my murder-mystery imagination since owning my first horse in 1982. The horse was an ex-racehorse, and I think that formed the bridge to my giving these racing mystery books a try.

I was not that keen at first to read racing mysteries, but I seem to recall that, as I was a member of the Doubleday Book Club, there was a double-offer with something else, so I gave one of Mr Francis's books a go.

And loved it.

Since that time, I have bought every book he wrote. Some were not so good - like his South African sojourn in "Smokescreen". Some were spectacular, like Tony Beach, Lee Morris, Sid Halley, or Kit Fielding. His characters travelled widely, explored new worlds, did a hard job of work, and thought. A lot.

Mr Francis's characters have believably been completely associated with racing, or on the very fringes of it. The racecourse and race horse breeding, training and racing have been the constant backdrop.

For those of you who don't know Dick Francis, he was a national hunt jockey. In 1953-54 he was the champion steeplechase jockey, and in 1956 ALMOST won the Grand National but his mount collapsed just short of the finish. He who rode for the Queen Mother from 1953 until 1957 (with the royal trainer, Peter Cazalet). After - or even perhaps during - a short Fleet Street stint, he wrote his autobiography, soon followed by his first racing mystery.

Then carried on to write another forty-odd.

There is an excellent lack of lust in the books: instead there is interest, regard and depth to relationships. All of Mr Francis's characters suffer from loss at some point, but all have a wonderful capacity for making connections, and for building new relationships (if tenatively). They remain true to themselves, and are generally believable characterisations.

Mr Francis wrote very few sequels in his career. There are only two: Kit Fielding in what seems to be two books, but is really a two part story over two books; and Sid Halley. There are currently four Sid Halley books.

The reason I say 'currently' is that Mr Francis died in 2010, but his son, Felix, had been researching and writing with him for some time. Since Mr Francis's senior's death, Mr Felix Francis has been writing on 'his own account', so to speak.

While Mr Francis junior obviously does not have the depth of racing knowledge that his father had - by dint of his years of racing, and of riding for the Queen Mother - he does have the advantage of having grown up in that environment.

Second-hand smoke, if you will.

While Mr Francis junior does not have quite the flair that his father had, he does a fair job. Enough to keep me buying - and listening - for now.


Sam
read more "The Family Francis: writers of racing mysteries"
Posted by No comments :
Labels: , , , ,

Friday, 4 December 2015

Daniel Silva: creator of Gabriel Allon

I thought it was time to write about Daniel Silva and the pleasure that he has given me with his writing.

I seriously love Mr Silva's books about Gabrielle Allon. These are spy novels that I have read again, and again (and not in hard-copy; only as e-books or audible books).

What has kept me interested, I think, is how global the focus is: global enough for those who don't like American books to be readable; while remaining military and action-oriented for those who find British writers too repressed. And fast-paced enough to keep everyone engaged.

Mr Silva's journalism background is plain to see in how he develops narrative. I find also that his Middle East desk press history is also clear: he conveys a credible depth of knowledge to his writing that he economically shares with his reader. That's the journalistic flair again: telling it simply and quickly.

While I have read Mr Silva's Michael Osbourne books, it is Gabrielle Allon that is his masterwork. Who would think that an Israeli artist (turned assassin, turned art restorer, turned spy) would make such a fantastic character for a book?

Or fifteen? (at the current count)

Especially when Israel is considered to be a fairly toxic global citizen...? Actually, I am not sure whether Mr Silva actually thinks Israel has the right of it, or the wrong. Perhaps he just presents this as "it is", without judgement (hmm. I really need to go back and examine the books in more detail for that theme).

The books would make a great movie. What a character - actually, what a stable of characters: Ari Shamron (who I assume is based on Ariel Sharron?), Chiara, Michael, Eli, Uzi, Yossi, Dina, Jakov, Rimona, Leah, Julian Isherwood, Christopher Keller, Graeme Seymour, Adrian Carter... they all appear fully formed and stay consistently in character each time we meet them.

From how Mr Silva writes over the books in the series, he appears to have created Gabriel Allon fully formed, with his backstory complete. The layering of detail that he has added since fits in perfectly with what has gone before: there are no false notes.

The continued theme of 'putting things right' is probably one of the most redeeming features of Gabrielle Allon. His grief of actions-past, such as the death of his son, and grievous wounding of his former-wife, are a recurring under-current that give him depth as a character.

I like the fact that he talks about the wounding, doesn't get into recrimination, but does take action whenever he can. He is not the huge, up-tight and wordless bloke. He is small, thinking, feeling, PRIVATE and clever.

A wonderful piece of work for Mr Silva to have given us. Me. I wonder what Gabrielle Allon's longevity will be?

I for one will still keep getting my audible versions.


Sam
read more "Daniel Silva: creator of Gabriel Allon"
Posted by No comments :
Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, 2 December 2015

How I lost my heart to Albert

http://www.imagechef.com/ic/word_mosaic/
I have been taking Dr Inger Mewburn's MOOC on dealing with the emotions that arise when doing a PhD, called "How to Survive Your PhD" - or #survivephd15 - on the Harvard MOOC platform, edX.

There was an assignment to end the MOOC, a final activity, which asked us to be creative and come up with a way to reuse, recycle or upcycle some #survivephd15 materials.

@debsnet, or the édu flâneuse, came up with a three-blog-post challenge called #HDRblog15, whereby anyone of the 13,500 strong community who had undertaken the MOOC would sign up to her GoogleDocs list and write three blog posts in November reflecting on the learning, the materials or the emotions sparked by #survivephd15.

Thinking this was a GREAT idea, I signed up, along with maybe ten others, who were ahead of me. I read the posts of those who had already posted (only about three at that time).

As people have been posting their links to @debsnet GoogleDocs list, I have been cruising back in to read their posts and reflections. One of the posts contained a reader comment telling about www.750words.com, which is where I am currently writing this post (I can't do the whole mindless ramble thing - read more on that here).

Today I found that there had been a post on @debsnet list that I had missed.

Each week on the #survivephd15 MOOC there was a Periscope broadcast to wind up the topic (that's more or less a smart phone one-way-ish live video beam out to an audience, except the audience can tweet questions back and throw love-hearts at the presenter by tapping the screen). The last topic was love. It had been suggested that we write how thankful we were to things we loved. There was a mention in the last Periscope session about Hanne from Hobart's "Ode to Felt Tip Pens".

Hanne talked about how she loved the colour of her pens, how others laughed at her love of colour and creation, how she hated lending them and how much joy they had given her. I caught up with that post, and left a message for her:

Hi Hanne!
Thanks for your ode - I too will have to apply my gratitude to the thing that I love. I think a post (of my own) is in order for this very topic. I too completed the #survivephd15 MOOC, but I think I only answered posts in the last week, I don't recall creating any. And, although I saw the Periscope mention of your post, I hadn't dropped in to read it. Awesome - thanks for sharing!

 When I was doing my under-graduate degree I used four colours of pens - three in kinds of pastelly shades of lime green, pink and turquoise - to create my class notes as mind maps. I get the whole colour-junkie thing. I too was reluctant to lend my spares (yes, I had spares - it would be TERRIBLE to get halfway through a lecture and not be able to embellish in green!).

 But then, technology bit me in a big way, and I abandoned my pens for another love...

 Hi. My name is Sam, and I love my computer. I have never admitted this to anyone before. I would be TOTALLY lost without my PC (yes, not even a Mac. I know, how sad is that?).

 My husband suspects that I love my computer, but I have always distracted him when he has asked me, and not answered him directly.

:-D

Then, I thought, there is more. So what follows is the tell-all, low-down.

I have shamelessly anthropomorphised my computers. I have Albert (my main PC, and my true, true love), his slightly idiot cousin, Norbert (my laptop, who while speedy and cute, does not have the depth of character that Albert has) and Herbert (my smartphone, who is really just a bit too simple, but is adorbable, all the same).

Interestingly, over time, Albert has grown, shrunk, had new attachments, got new chips and accessories, but is still, unremittingly, Albert. Sometimes I call him Bert.

He is a boy.

He lives under my desk. I love the sound of his start-up, and do worry if he is not feeling well (actually, I usually call my husband to check on Albert if things aren't right. I worry about his health. Albert's, that is).

Albert does things for me that no-one else can. He creates my posters. He holds in trust all my photos, my music, my letters, my assignments, my marking, my curated articles, books, links, pages and connections.

Albert is awesome, quick, reliable and WONDERFUL.

I would be only a tiny percentage as creative, productive or connected without him. I could not write my blog without him. I would not be writing my 750 words without him.

He is my profession. Thank you Albert.


Sam

 References:
read more "How I lost my heart to Albert"
Posted by No comments :
Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, 30 November 2015

Academic Dishonesty

I have a student whom I know has cheated on their final report. This student has obviously purchased their assignment - sub-contracted the writing up of their research.

The reason that I know this is that their submitted work is of a far higher quality than I know they are capable of. I have been talking to the student for the semester about their work, I have been marking their progress reports and their oral presentations, and I know that they do not have the deep level of understanding to be able to turn in the complexity of work that they have turned in.

The language is well above their level of spoken English. The spelling is not New Zealand English. There is no exploration of the local market, local conditions, the local industry or New Zealand in general. The student has missed threading through key information which is required by New Zealand legislation in the industry their report tackles. The assignment is somewhat off-track, overall.

I have marked the work, but it has taken three hours to forensically go through each section, each point and each connection. I have gone through the journals that the student has cited and found that some don't exist, the references are often incorrect, and the resulting articles are generally not well-related to the topic.

In addition, the participant information and consent paperwork created by the student has my name as the interviewer, instead of their own.

So. The student has supposedly conducted interviews with two local business owners. I decided to email them both to ask whether they did indeed participate in interviews with the student.

I will wait to see what happens: whether the interviewees reply. If I get a response back that the interviews did not happen, then the way forward is clear - I pass this to my head of school and it becomes an academic misconduct issue, and is out of my hands.

However, that does not deal with the dishonesty aspect of purchasing the assignment.

If the interviewees come back and said that, yes, they have talked to my student, it is hard to know what to do about this case, with the tools that I have available to me at present.

Why can't we be overt about it? I don't quite know why I can't just say "X, I know you bought that assignment. Why?" I don't want to have to do a "j'accuse!" thing. It is distasteful: but it is equally distasteful to me to ignore the dishonesty.

A way around it - hah! passive aggressive behaviour - is that we could change our research paper prescriptors to include an optional assessment, ie, if considered necessary by the organisation, to have students provide an oral defence of their research. Then that gives us a mechanism for dealing with the problem without having to be overt.

What infuriates me about this situation is that learning has not really taken place: that students will not walk out the door with the skills that they should have, because they have not met the learning outcomes. This student cannot do 'what it says on the tin' by having completed the course.

And someone will hire yet another dishonest business student in a world where business students are the most dishonest of all graduates (McCabe, Butterfield & Trevino, 2006).


Sam

  • Reference: McCabe, Donald L., Butterfield, Kenneth D. & Trevino, Linda Klebe (2006). Academic dishonesty in graduate business programs: Prevalence, causes, and proposed action. Academy of Management Learning & Education, September 2006, Volume 5, issue 3 (pp. 294-305).

NB: One of my colleagues made a valuable point about the cost of education to our students: that if they are not New Zealand taxpayers, they have paid and invested so much in each paper that they cannot afford to fail. They will then do anything to pass; and if we were in their situation - young, away from home, with the pressure of parental expectation, the hopes of their future career opportunity hanging on each positive outcome, and the lack of affordability to repeat - we would do that too. He makes a good point.

 While I would like to think that I would not be expeditous, I think if I were in that situation that my colleague is right: I would definitely be tempted to be dishonest too. And gee, that's a sad thing to think about yourself.
read more "Academic Dishonesty"
Posted by No comments :
Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, 27 November 2015

750 Words

Having completed Dr Inger Mewburn's MOOC, How to Survive Your PhD, recently, I am currently working through all the links and tips I have found through coming into contact with a 13,500 strong global academic community.

One of the tips I received was a link to a site called 750words.com (via the Debsnet challenge). The idea behind this site is that it encourages you to write.

You sign up, and then aim to free-write 750 words each day for three days. It's a brain dump of getting out the crap that may be preventing you from doing other things.

The idea is that you are not writing with purpose: you are just emptying your mental rubbish, organising the recycling, wiping your "to do list" whiteboard, pondering on the "why did I do that?" and the "I wonder if I should..."s, and washing out the compost container. Mental housework, if you will. Meditation for the writer.

Many people who have left comments on the site say that they treat this as their warm up for their real writing.

I have signed up for the free trial, which lasts for 30 days. Membership appears to be about USD$60 per year: the price of a US cup of coffee a month (update: though I bought a lifetime membership for USD$100 in December 2015).

After three days of writing your 750 words, you get some points on your board. If you keep writing for x number of days, you get badges.

If, after your 30 day free trial, you pay up and become a member, there are some acknowledgements for doing - say - 100 days straight. As a paid up member, you get your writing statistics, which will help you to decide how often you should write, what time during the day is best for you to do that (you can set up a reminder email to come to you to kick you in the pants), and to set other writing goals. It also gives you feedback on themes within your writing, which are very interesting.

I have only done three days thus far, but of course, I have subverted the site for my own purposes. Instead of free-writing, what I have done is write blog posts.  After three days of 750words, I am six blog posts ahead.

Not remotely what Buster & Kellianne intended.

But useful for me!


Sam

 References:
read more "750 Words"
Posted by No comments :
Labels: , , , , , ,

NZ's Institute of Director's LinkedIn Group

Felicity Caird, the Exec of New Zealand's Institute of Director's Governance Leadership Centre, posted an interesting article link on LinkedIn this week. Felicity linked to a Washington Post article by Jena McGregor on why, in Jena's opinion, diversity around the board table is progressing at a snail's pace (NB: except in Norway, where board diversity has been legislated to be 40% women, minimum).

The article provided some interesting reading. I felt that the article's author had some credible points. It was not the entire story, but it did make a fair point.

However, it was the response which this post sparked that was more interesting; in large part by male IOD members, who collectively started kicking up bobsey-die, as others posted with statements that undermined the article's veracity, about how 'proper' diversity should only be about talent and skills. Not inconvenient things that challenge the status quo, like gender and race.

From my reading, diversity research seems to often reflect that the majority can't see the problem, whereas the minority sees it clearly (check out Jane Elliot's work on discrimination, or the #covertheathlete campaign).

As I was reading Felicity's IOD thread, I was pondering why I hardly ever make a comment on the IOD posts any more.

I think it is because I have a road block.

Having just participated on an edX MOOC where 13,500 particpants posted weekly, there was a culture of opening up, of support, questioning, interest, and discussion. 

Instead, as posters on the IOD LinkedIn Group, it appears to me that we post our statements of position, and that we don't ask enough questions of each other to test whether a position is sound to us or not. I feel that as a community, the IOD LinkedIn Group is not creating open discussion. In doing that, we that we are short-changing ourselves. We are not conversing more, nor researching more widely, nor attempting greater understanding.

Instead, it feels to me like we shut others down. We 'prove' our point, and promote a fixed mindset: "I know the answer to this, so I will tell them" (Dweck, 2006). The culture on threads quickly becomes hostile: although it is hard to point to the exact words and language where that feeling is perpetrated and normalised.

I feel the IOD members adopt a pack mentality.

And this, for IOD, is a leadership issue. I think that the IOD LinkedIn Group needs a bit of cultural correction and modelling, else no progress is going to be made, and there will be no exploration of what the real issues are.

Leadership fosters culture.

Leaders must be managers of meaning (Jackson & Parry, 2011).

IOD's LinkedIn Groups are lacking leadership.


Sam

 References:
read more "NZ's Institute of Director's LinkedIn Group"
Posted by No comments :
Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, 25 November 2015

Want Growth? Only Praise for Hard Work

Professor Carol Dweck is interested in what influences us. As a teacher, she has got interested in what happens in the brains of children, when they are rewarded for work they have done. She set up an experiment where she divided a group of 10 year old maths students into three groups, and set them all the same maths test.

The interesting thing was that each group was given a positive response, regardless of how well they did on the test. Group A was told that "That's a really good score! You are really smart at this!". Group B was told that "That's a really good score! You must have worked really hard!". Group C, the control group, was told that "That's a really good score".

The students were then given some new problems to do straight after the test, in vary degrees of difficulty. They could chose whatever problems they would like to do.

There were some differences in the level of problems that the students chose to do next. Group B, the students who were told they had worked very hard, chose harder problems than those they had taken in the test. Group A, the students who were told they were smart, chose much easier problems than those they had done in the test.

So they took a look at what was going on by repeating the test with participants in an fMRI machine. Our brains at rest, regardless of whether we show Group A or Group B behaviours, look the same. But when we are told we worked hard, and chose harder problems to work on, we can see our frontal cortex firing hard and the heat from our brains working hard on the next problem.

If we are a Group A student, and are told we are smart, our brains do not fire: if we are praised for ability, we have something we want to protect: we have 'talent' that we want to protect, a position that we have to defend. We don't want to risk our cleverness, and have it eroded away by taking on something that is too hard for us. Dweck says this is a "fixed mindset brain, looking oh-so-cool, fleeing, running from errors as quickly as possible" (2013).

The brain image of someone who has worked hard is something they can continue to affect themselves: the comment has given them control. They know that trying harder will gain them mastery of things that are difficult, and will build their resilience. This has created a growth mindset. "Researchers monitored in the brain as students worked on the tests and made errors. See the red hot brains on the left? Those are growth mindset students, detecting the errors, processing them and correcting them" (Dweck, 2013).

How well people bounce back from mistakes depends on their beliefs about learning and intelligence. For individuals with a growth mind-set, who believe intelligence develops through effort, mistakes are seen as opportunities to learn and improve. For individuals with a fixed mind-set, who believe intelligence is a stable characteristic, mistakes indicate a lack of ability.

The brain is like a muscle. The harder we work it, the stronger it gets. "Every time you push out of your comfort zone to learn something new and hard, these neurons formed new connections and over time they would get smarter" (Dweck, 2013).

Neural pathways build and strengthen with repetition, and these in turn build behavioural traits.

We need to praise ability, not effort, and understand the power of yet. As in "You haven't mastered this YET".

What a great gift: we can improve with hard work. It means never telling someone that they can't do something: only that they have yet to find the key to unlock that particular skill set.

A fixed mindset leaves us stuck. We are unable to grow until we are able to honestly reflect and allow other possibilities in: until we have dismantled our encircling lager. The fixed mindset is a place of fear and avoidance.

A growth mindset lets us embrace challenges, helps us to keep our resilience when everything around us turns to custard, helps us see the incremental gains we are making towards mastery in our chosen profession, helps us learn from adversity, from criticism, from difficulty and from new situations; and helps us adopt other's learning and build it into our own practice. It helps us take on new ideas, and to think of new practices.

It is a virtuous cycle that builds.


Sam

 To test your own mindset, go to
http://mindsetonline.com/testyourmindset/step1.php  

References:
  • Dweck, Carol (2013). Professor Carol Dweck 'Teaching a growth mindset' at Young Minds 2013. Retrieved 14 February 2014 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXhbtCcmsyQ
  • Dweck, Carol (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. USA: Baltimore Books
  • Luft, Caroline Di Bernardi; Nolte, Guido & Bhattacharya, Joydeep (2013). High-Learners Present Larger Mid-Frontal Theta Power and Connectivity in Response to Incorrect Performance Feedback. The Journal of Neuroscience, Volume 33, issue 5 (pp. 2029-2038)
  • Moser, Jason S.; Schroder, Hans S.; Heeter, Carrie; Moran; Tim P. & Lee, Yu-Hao (2011). Mind Your Errors: Evidence for a Neural Mechanism Linking Growth Mind-Set to Adaptive Posterior Adjustments. Psychological Science, December 2011, Volume 22, issue 12 (pp. 1484-1489)
read more "Want Growth? Only Praise for Hard Work"
Posted by No comments :
Labels: , , , ,