"Made to Stick''

Some of the language in these documents is sexually explicit warns the Washington Post’s introduction to an excerpt of “The Starr Report: The Findings of Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr on President Clinton and the Lewinsky Affair.’’

I was reminded of this report when I read the introduction of the book “Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die’’ by brothers Chip and Dan Heath. The brothers, one an educator and the other a researcher argue that any idea can be made to stick or can at least be made sticker.

So why did the Starr Report come to mind? Like the popcorn example in “Made to Stick’’, Ken Starr had to grab and hold the attention of readers. He knew he had the law on his side. He also knew that the popular president had strong public support on his side. The prosecutor countered the president’s popularity by incorporating the classic principles of “Made to Stick’’ several years before the Heath brothers published their book in 2007.

The report(http://tinyurl.com/The-Starr-Report), which was excerpted in daily newspapers around the country, became an instant best-selling book. It provided an unexpected level of detail about the relationship between the president and Monica Lewinsky, a White House inter. The evidence was concrete including evidence of semen on the blue dress Lewinsky wore during a sexual encounter with the president. The report was credible because witnesses had testified under oath. Emotions ranged from pity, sorry and anger at the president to disgust that the president would actually be having sex in the Oval Office. Finally, the prosecutor told a good story. Unlike standard government reports, the Starr Report was a well-crafted narrative with that was so well crafted that it skyrocketed to the top of best-seller lists.

Applying the principles of “Made to Stick’’ to an incident that happened nearly 10 years before the book was published tells me that the book makes sense. There is some validity to it. The book has also reinforced some lessons I am learning in this course and in classes I’m taking to become a volunteer literacy tutor.

I will apply some of the lessons from “Made to Stick’’ to see if I can make them work. However, I am concerned that complex ideas and issues must be continually boiled down to very simple sound bites. What role does this approach play in contributing to a society that already resists exploring issues beyond the surface?

Draft of Michigan's 2010 Educational Plan

I am a product of the public school system. I am a supporter of public schools. It is very rare that I will vote against a tax increase that’s aimed at improving our public school system.

So I felt a little twinge of pride when I recently read through the draft of the 2010
State of Michigan Educational Technology Plan. The plan is designed to improve the use of technology in the state’s classrooms while at the same time improving the skills of teachers and students. If this is the kind of work that my tax dollars are going to support, then I’ll probably vote for that next tax increase too.

The plan outlines a five-goal approach to achieving its overall goal. Those five goals are focused on:

• Teaching for learning
• Leadership
• Professional learning
• School and community relations
• Data and information management

The architects of the plan, the state’s Educational Technology Advisory Group, has found way or is seeking ways to get a wide range of people involved with the program and ultimately responsible for the success of the plan. Such involvement which will include students, teachers, administrators, state educational leaders, community leaders and the private sector is necessary if we are to begin significantly increase the number of high school and college graduates who can compete on the global stage for jobs in science, engineering, math and technology.

This is a plan that if adopted and successfully implemented can be a foundation for innovation and for helping to stimulate diversity of thought about the Michigan economy.

This is a plan that can help build the confidence of teachers and students and the pride of a community. And it’s one that can make a taxpayer feel good about how her tax dollars are being spent.

Debating the use of Wikipedia

A former co-worker said on his Facebook page this week that he was surprised at how quickly the Teddy Pendergrass page on Wikipedia had been updated following the R&B singer’s death on Wednesday night.

I paused to think about that comment knowing that an internal tug-of-war about Wikipedia had been bouncing around in my head for a few days.

I come at the whole Wikipedia debate from a different perspective than most in this group. I’m a veteran journalist who plays by the journalism rules. One of those rules in most newsrooms is that Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. I know the dangers that using a source like Wikipedia can cause. Some might be considered small – getting someone’s age wrong or misspelling a name. But others can be more serious like reporting that someone is dead who isn’t or that someone has been arrested for committing a crime when the person hasn’t.

We also know that racially insensitive and irrelevant information has been found on some Wikipedia pages. This also raises questions in my mind about site’s credibility.

I don’t think Wikipedia should be used by journalists to report stories and I certainly don’t think that students in grades K-12 should use the online encyclopedia to source their work.

As Stephen Colbert shows in “The Word-Wikiality”, his comedic take on Wikipedia, there are so many dangers in relying on it as an authoritative source.
Colbert pokes fun at something we all know – just how easy it is to change something in Wikipedia. He laughs at how easy it is for users to create their own reality. “Any user can change any entry and if enough other users agree with them, it becomes true,’’ he says.

When it comes to shaping the minds of young people, this is not a laughing matter. The technology that is available to us today has changed our lives and will continue to in many ways. But it’s important that those of us who are charged with preparing students for the task of running our society don’t shortchange them. Students should know that research assignments are meant to be rigorous for a reason. The assignments are meant to challenge them in many ways, including developing and verifying several sources for the materials that they use in their work. If we allow assignments that are pulled together with a minimum amount of work and with the only source being a run through Wikipedia, we’re not doing our jobs.

But beyond Colbert reminding us of the ease with which Wikipedia can be changed, he also reminds us how easily people can be intimidated into not challenging others even if they know the others are wrong.

“If you go against what the majority of people perceive to be reality, you’re the one who’s crazy,’’ jokes Colbert.

So I advocate that we don’t allow students to use Wikipedia to source their research papers. And with our ever improving technology that allows us to carry hundreds of books on a Kindle, Sony Reader or similar device, we should encourage students to seek more sources, to do more research and to challenge more of their own thinking and that of their fellow students.