Monday, October 26, 2015

Making booklets

Our newspaper kids wanted to make a mini-booklet-style 5.5x4.25" newspaper made of simple 8.5x11" sheets of paper folded.

To do the layout properly with nice 2-page spreads etc., we set the papersize in our software to 5.5"x4.25", but that then raises the problem of how to properly print it out on copy paper so it folds neatly.

After much searching, I found a useful post which has just the instructions I needed -- here is a shellscript to implement the solution with my own variants:

echo Converting to postscript
pdf2ps $1 working_file.ps
echo Rotating pages
pstops -w 4.25in -h 5.5in 8:7\(0.0in,0.01in\),0\(0.0in,0.01in\),4U\(4.25in,5.50in\),3U\(4.25in,5.50in\),1\(0.0in,0.01in\),6\(0.0in,0.01in\),2U\(4.25in,5.50in\),5U\(4.25in,5.50in\) working_file.ps working_ordered.ps
echo Putting 4 to a page
psnup -4 -s1 working_ordered.ps output.ps
echo Outputting to PDF
filename=$1
filename="${filename%.*}"
ps2pdf output.ps $filename.bookematized.pdf
echo "Done. Output in: $filename.bookematized.pdf"

The magic is in that pstops line with the page order and the flipping of the appropriate pages. The psnup line just slaps four pages onto a page, which is simple enough.

Since my pages were appropriately formatted, I used the -s1 command to prevent psnup from scaling. If you wanted to take e.g. 4 8.5x11 pages and shrink them to fit on 4.25x5.5, you could do it by adjusting the paper sizes in the pstops line and then removing the -s1 line (that's what the original code I copied does, more or less -- so just start there).




Monday, December 8, 2014

Google Classroom: Top 5 Fixes I'd like to see before I sign up for a second semester

This semester, I took on a new role as director of instructional technology just as google released a new tool: google classroom. Given how thoroughly google-dependent our school already is, I thought it was a natural fit and signed myself and my students up for a semester of piloting google classroom. Here's what I've found.

Google Classroom is close to being great. When I compare the user interface of google classroom to the user interface of our school's online gradebook, it's an object lesson in UI design. Where our gradebook is byzantine, slow, and opaque, Google classroom is simple, smooth, and clear.

That said, google classroom gets details wrong, and it gets them wrong in ways that matter. More importantly, for reasons I can't quite comprehend, google seemed to stop short of making classroom a full-blown powertool on the level of its other google apps.

As it is, I'm unlikely to use classroom for another semester; I do better with my own cobbled together system using a range of scripts + docs +mail + calendar to get things done.

Here's the top 5 fixes I'd like to see before I commit to classroom for another semester:

#5. Allow collaboration everywhere. The killer feature of google docs is collaboration. Remember the days of editing a shared word doc on a server and being locked out while a colleague edits? Yeah, that was awful; google's real-time collaboration + revision history is awesome. How ironic then that google classroom makes no convenient way to assign small group projects or work with coteachers.

#4. Allow multi-step assignments. Good teachers use google classroom to help students draft, revise, collaborate, re-draft, copy-edit and, finally, publish work. When I was in grad school, I couldn't have dreamed of tools as good as google docs for teaching the writing process.

Alas, google classroom makes it easy to create an assignment with a single due date, but leaves me hanging if I want to have a multi-step assignment (brainstorm due to share with a team on one day, a draft due for feedback a week later, and a final draft due a week after that). Classroom only allows associating a single due date with an assignment and has no way to carry docs from one assignment automatically over into a new one.

It is possible to have an assignment go back and forth between teacher and student multiple times using "resubmit" and "hand back," which is what I've done, but my students complain that it's hard to keep track of due dates for revision this way, and they're right.

#3 Fix the assignment view in google drive for teachers: When you're grading a virtual stack of papers, little details matter, and google gets most of them wrong.

First, there's no easy way to sort documents by student first or last name, which is usually how they're listed in a gradebook. Second, if students attach files of their own, they don't get renamed with their name in the title. Third, if students hand in multiple files, they don't get grouped together in any way.

In my pre-google-classroom life, I had a folder for each class and each student had a single folder named last-name, first-name. This made it trivial to go down a class list and check work. Google classroom gives me nothing as easy.

If you have multi-document projects, like the one I'm grading right now, it can be a nightmare simply sorting out which document came from who (this is made worse by the ownership problem -- I can't sort the files by owner because the owner is me in all cases once the student's have handed the work in).
  
#2. Fix the broken ownership model. Google classroom has students own documents until they get turned in; then teachers own them until they hand them back. And so on. Teachers should be co-owners of the documents from the beginning.

Lacking ownership means no ability to access revision history until an assignment is turned in, which robs me of one of google docs greatest powers in the classroom.  (Think of this simple scenario: I'm about to conference with a student who has been "writing" in my class for the last 40 minutes. Before I move over to their desk to talk, I'd like to take a look at what they've produced -- under a traditional doctopus or shared-folder model with shared ownership, I can peek at revision history and see exactly what they've done with their 40 minutes of classroom; with the google classroom ownership model, I've got nothing).  

#1. Create a scripting API: the beauty of classroom is its simplicity, so I don't really expect google to get everything right. There's no way they can handle all the different ways teachers assess (rubrics, standards-based, point-based, etc. etc.), or the different features we might want to implement (group work, multi-stage work, models, and on). It's easy to see that if they do implement all these features, they'll quickly lose the elegance that is one of the main features of classroom to begin with.

The solution? Add-ons. Writing custom scripts for docs and sheets is a breeze and a boon for schools. Releasing classroom without an API for scripting stands in the way of educators who want to really get a hold of it and make it work for real schools. Google can't hope to get this right for all of us, but they can give us the power to do it ourselves. Once they do so, an ecosystem of hacker educators will spring up to make creative uses of classroom google never imagined. Until they do so, we're all left sitting on our hands, meekly hoping that google will deign to implement our next feature request.

Monday, October 6, 2014

Four Freedoms

Updating our wordpress based newspaper site, I saw that wordpress prominently includes the 4 key freedoms in their "about" page. They are:
  1. You have the freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
  2. You have access to the source code, the freedom to study how the program works, and the freedom to change it to make it do what you wish.
  3. You have the freedom to redistribute copies of the original program so you can help your neighbor.
  4. You have the freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes.
This strikes me as a reasonable starting point for any public institution, including ours, which seeks to inculcate students with feelings of curiosity, ownership, and empowerment around computers.

It's a useful reminder that free as in freedom is different and more important than free as in free of cost. How ironic that the principle reason we don't use free software at our school is that google has made is so extraordinarily convenient to use their own free-as-in-beer closed-source solutions in schools. While key tools like chrome are open source and while Google does make API's available for many aspects of their apps suite that make tinkering with docs/sites/etc. not just do-able but often fun, I find the exercise of just re-reading the basic software freedoms to be a sobering one.

I wonder, in the face of good free-as-in-beer enterprise software from google, are there any schools out there working to give students their software freedoms? Making the switch from a Microsoft infrastructure to a Google one seems like a no-brainer (lower cost, greater functionality), but it strikes me that the ease of that switch may have made a switch to a truly open infrastructure a non-starter.

Creating digital portfolios with google sites

Our school has used google sites for some time for students to use portfolios. We have a template portfolio that we use, and then we have traditionally had students create their own portfolios based on that template. The problem is that the "creating the site" step can take a while, and, in spite of clear directions, students get mixed up and don't follow our naming system, and then for years down the road whenever a teacher wants to see a portfolio, it's hard to find.

So, this year, I automated the process of creating student portfolios. This blog post serves as notes for me and anyone else who wants to automate the process of:

(A) Creating new google sites based on a template
(B) Re-assigning ownership to someone else
(C) Setting the permissions so everyone in the domain can view the site.

Though google documents this stuff, it's not as simple or transparent as it should be, and it's a bit error prone. There's also precious little help to be googled -- hopefully this post will help improve that situation.

Google, if you're listening, I would love to see an updated google sites API soon. Among other things, you really need to start supporting your page templates better through your API -- right now there's no working way to programmatically touch content on pages that use page templates (which, in the case of our school, is *all* pages)

Let me walk you through the different scripting steps...
  1. Log into google...

    import atom.data
    import gdata.sites.client
    import gdata.sites.data
    import urlparse
    
    client = gdata.sites.client.SitesClient(source='yourCo-yourAppName-v1', domain='domain.org')
    pw = 'SECRET'
    master_user = 'USERNAME@DOMAIN.org'
    client.ClientLogin(master_user,pw,client.source)

    This gets you the client object, which is what you'll use to do nearly everything.
  2. Create a new site based on a template.

    client.CreateSite is the command to create a site. The tricky part here is finding a template to use. Google's tutorial tells you to use the parameter source_site, but only template source_sites are usable. To find the right value, it's simplest to (1) create a site using the template you want (2) find the site object for that site (3) grab the source_site attribute off of that one. In my case, the basic code to create a site looks like this:
    entry = client.CreateSite(name+' '+str(yog), source_site='https://sites.google.com/feeds/site/innovationcharter.org/sampleportfolio')
  3. Fix permissions: My last step is changing the permissions so the site is owned by the student and not me. This code has to run after the site has successfully been created; when running code creating hundreds of sites, there can be an issue with this not working properly. I ended up writing the code so that first I created all the sites, then I fixed all the permissions, which worked more reliably than creating a site then fixing permissions. I believe there may be a switch I could hand to CreateSite to fix the issue I was having with editing permissions immediately after creating the site, but I've lost track of that documentation at this point.

    At any rate, here's the way to fix the permissions up.
    First, add the user to the entry:

    def add_user_to_entry (user, entry):
       print 'Adding user to entry...',user,entry
       role = gdata.acl.data.AclRole(value='owner')
       scope = gdata.acl.data.AclScope(value=user,type='user')
       user_acl = gdata.sites.data.AclEntry(scope=scope,role=role)
       client.Post(user_acl,entry.FindAclLink())


    Second, delete ourselves from the entry (this assumes our master user is stored in the variable master_user, as above)

    def delete_master_entry (entry):
        acl = client.GetAclFeed(entry.FindAclLink())
        for e in acl.entry:
            if master_user in e.to_string():
                client.Delete(e)

    Finally, in our school, we have portfolios readable by anyone within our domain. To enforce this, we run this code:

    def make_domain_readable (entry):
        print 'Make domain-readable'
        role = gdata.acl.data.AclRole(value='reader')
        scope = gdata.acl.data.AclScope(value='innovationcharter.org',type='domain')
        domain_acl = gdata.sites.data.AclEntry(scope=scope,role=role)
        client.Post(domain_acl,entry.FindAclLink())
    
To put it all together, here is the complete script I used to read in a list of usernames from a file and create digital portfolios accordingly. The file format is simply a CSV file with Email addresses on it. I inferred the first/last name based on the address -- it would be trivial to alter the code to put whatever data you wanted in a spreadsheet in.


import re
import csv
import atom.data
import gdata.sites.client
import gdata.sites.data
import urlparse
import traceback
import csv
import time

client = gdata.sites.client.SitesClient(source='yourCo-yourAppName-v1', domain='mydomain.org')
pw = 'topsecretpassword'
master_user = 'admin@mydomain.org'
client.ClientLogin(master_user,pw,client.source)
# Convenience Functions

def delete_master_entry (entry):
    '''Remove master user from site - get rid of our ownership'''
    acl = client.GetAclFeed(entry.FindAclLink())
    for e in acl.entry:
        if master_user in e.to_string():
            client.Delete(e)
    
def add_user_to_entry (user, entry):
    '''Add user as owner of site entry'''
    role = gdata.acl.data.AclRole(value='owner')
    scope = gdata.acl.data.AclScope(value=user,type='user')
    user_acl = gdata.sites.data.AclEntry(scope=scope,role=role)
    client.Post(user_acl,entry.FindAclLink())

def make_domain_readable (entry):
    '''Make site readable by everyone in domain'''
    role = gdata.acl.data.AclRole(value='reader')
    scope = gdata.acl.data.AclScope(value='mydomain.org',type='domain')
    domain_acl = gdata.sites.data.AclEntry(scope=scope,role=role)
    client.Post(domain_acl,entry.FindAclLink())

def create_dp (email, name, yog):
    '''Create a digital portfolio based with a title based on name
     and year of graduation. 
    '''
    print 'Create DP',email,name,yog
    try:
        entry = client.CreateSite(name+' '+str(yog),
            source_site='https://sites.google.com/feeds/site/mydomain.org/sampleportfolio')
    except:
        # Print exceptions but don't raise them - this allows us to run
        # the script through even if there's a few bad data entries that
        # need correcting later.
        traceback.print_exc()
        entry = None
    if entry:
        # We postpone fixing permissions since there seems to be a bug in the API
        # that means updating permissions right away will often silently fail.
        def pull_trigger_later ():
            print 'Fixing user info for ',email,name,yog
            add_user_to_entry(email,entry)
            delete_master_entry(entry)        
            make_domain_readable(entry)
    else:
        def pull_trigger_later():
            print 'No entry was created for ',email,name,yog,'so no further action'
    # We return a function to fix permissions and the entry -- that way whoever
    # calls us can decide when to fix the permissions.
    return entry,pull_trigger_later

def print_permissions (entry):
    afeed = client.GetAclFeed(entry.FindAclLink())
    for e in afeed.entry:
        print e.to_string()
# LOOP TO READ IN DATA FROM CSV FILE, CREATE SITES, AND THEN, LATER, 
# FIX PERMISSIONS.

entries = [] # To store sites we've created
triggers = [] # Functions to fix permissions (we'll do this later)

reader = csv.reader(file('digital_portfolio_data.csv','r'))
reader.next() # Remove first line - header
for line in reader:
    # You'd update this for whatever data source you can conveniently create
    # for your own domain. This is based on our own usernames which are
    # first.last@innovationcharter.org, and it's based on the fact that I'm
    # creating a group of sites for the class of 2018 only (if I weren't, I'd
    # have added a field to the csv with the YOG).
    email = line[0]
    first = email.split('.')[0].capitalize()
    last = email.split('.')[1].split('@')[0].capitalize()
    name = ' '.join([first,last])
    e,f = create_dp(email,name,'2018')
    entries.append(e)
    triggers.append(f) # Save the permissions-fixing for later

# We're done creating sites, now let's fix permissions...
print len(triggers),'triggers to run.'
print 'Sleeping while google finishes its business' 
time.sleep(30) # Ugly ugly ugly
print "I'm alive again!"
for n,t in enumerate(triggers):
    try:
        print 'Running trigger #',n
        t()
    except:
        # Again, report errors but don't stop loop for them.
        traceback.print_exc()

Saturday, March 22, 2014

Two views of addition, two weeks apart

Now that I'm watching my kids learn skills like addition and reading which go above and beyond the obvious natural language acquisition, it's still amazing to watch the process of acquisition, and to see how suddenly things click so that what seemed impossible becomes totally natural in a matter of just weeks.

Since a colleague of mine who used to be an elementary school teacher mentioned to me that "counting on" was something that took kids a while to get, I've been paying attention. Sure enough, though Grace can happily count numbers and add them, she's spent quite a long time doing addition by putting two groups together and then counting all the items, rather than simply starting counting from one set and then up to the other. It's kind of fascinating how stubborn she is in this, and how much math she can seem to know when she still can't get the basic idea that if you have five things and you add four you only have to count up four from five.

Anyway, here's two facebook posts (the new journal? ack?) of mine documenting the shift -- because they have dates, I can actually see how little time it took to make the transition from absolutely not counting on to doing it like it's nothing.

From March 7th:

Watched Grace add 8 and 5 today to get 13. I noticed she did it all on the fingers of one hand and seemed to be counting up to thirteen. I asked her how she did it, and she explained she did 4 + 4 +5, because she somehow already knew 8 was 4 + 4.

Doesn’t it seem kind of weird that she can break that problem down that way in her head all to avoid using two hands to count (I think maybe she was holding something with the other hand?), but still can’t simply count on (i.e. start at 8 and then count 5 more up to 13)?

From March 22nd:

Grace magically started counting on today!

(in the context of a card game where this matters...) Me: Grace, what's 4 + 7
Grace: Do you mean 7 + 4?
Me: Sure -- that's the same thing.
Grace: Okay... [counting to four on one hand], 8,9,10,11... 11!
Me: Grace, who taught you to do that?
Grace: No one, I just do it.
Me: Huh.


So I can tell you with reasonable certainty that 2 weeks ago Grace couldn't count on when I tried to coach her to do it and looked at me in total confusion when I suggested it as an approach to handling numbers that didn't fit on her fingers. Now she's doing it like it's the most obvious thing in the world, with no awareness of having learned it.

The question, as ever: did she "learn" this from the inadvertent teaching I've been doing as I've been trying to understand how she does math in her head, or did something in her development just click today so she was ready to do it now?

I realize the answer is almost certainly a little of both, but I certainly lean toward the development side of this question. It amazes me how many skills seem absolutely unlearnable until some magical threshold is passed and they're learned seemingly effortlessly...

Sunday, December 8, 2013

"Us-guys:" how Lila recreated the birth of "nosotros," only in 2-year-old English

Yesterday at whole foods, all three girls were on the verge of melting down and we had a long drive ahead of us. I grabbed a box of truffles for the road. As I did so, I noticed that Katharine had already gotten one, leading to this exchange:
Me: Oh, you already grabbed chocolates?
K: Yeah, I got some for work.
Lila (excitedly): Some chocolates for work and some for us-guys!  [əm wawI fə wək æn əm wawI fə əsgaiz]
Grace (archly): Lila, it's "us," not "us-guys." Dad, she said Us-guys.
This led, of course, to me giving an impromptu lecture on the evolution of "nosotros" in Spanish, which, though unappreciated by Grace, I will nonetheless repeat here.

 At about the time Spain was busy conquering the world, it was in more or less the same place we are now with its evolution of second person pronouns. Spanish, like English, started out with singular and plural second-person pronouns:


EnglishSpanish
Sing.PluralSing.Plural
1st person:IWeYoNos
2nd person:ThouYouVos

In both languages, the plural form was used as a term of respect for people of rank, both in the second person and the first (the royal "we"), etc. In what seems like an odd move, both languages at one point or another generalized the plural/respectful form to a universal "you" form:


EnglishSpanish
Sing.PluralSing.Plural
1st person:IWeYoNos
2nd person:YouYouVosVos
Obviously, that leads to confusion in the 2nd person, and a great deal of innovation has occurred in both languages to fill in the gap.

Various innovative forms
EnglishSpanish
Sing.PluralSing.Plural
2nd person:You, ThouhYou, Y'all, You guys, Yous, Yous guysVos, Tú, Vuestra merced, UstedVos, Vos-todos, vosotros, vuestras mercedes, ustedes

Eventually, Spain evolved four different 2nd person forms to address formal and informal, singular and plural, and "vosotros" became the standard 2nd person informal plural form. It was only after the evolution of "vosotros" that "nosotros" came into being instead of "nos" as the full (non-clitic) form of the first-person-plural pronoun, presumably as an attempt to regularize the forms by rhyming them (of course "nos" and "vos" had originally rhymed, but by this time "vos" was no longer a plural pronoun).

So, what does all of this have to do with "us-guys"? Of course, "us-guys" was formed by precisely the same pattern that formed "nosotros" in Spanish. Just as "otros" was taken to be a plural marker, "guys" is understood by Lila as the plural-marker in my Northeastern dialect. It strikes me that it is quite possible that Lila learned the grammatical meaning of "guys" (turn a pronoun plural) before she learned its literal meaning.

To understand what happened in the Spanish in terms of modern-day English, you would have to imagine the following events taking place in order for English to arrive where Spanish presently is:

1. All speakers adopt Lila's habit of adding "-guys" to "us" and "we" in addition to adding it to "you" (you-guys, us-guys, we-guys). This new us-guys form becomes so common it is used universally by speakers everywhere, no matter what their feeling are on 2nd person pronouns.
2. "Thou" becomes trendy again and becomes the normal informal 2nd person pronoun, leaving "you" on its own to sound old-fashioned and oddly formal, except in a few countries colonized by England, where "you" continues to be the normal pronoun or where it exists in alternation with "thou."
3. "Your honor" and "your honors" becomes a standard form of formal address in all kinds of situations, except in particularly left-leaning English-speaking enclaves, and becomes contracted first to "yonor" and then finally to "onna" The abbreviation is written either "On./Ons." or "Yn./Yns." depending on where you see it.
4. Many people stop saying "you-guys" all the time, so that "you-guys" sounds like a particularly New-England thing. Most of the world uses "onnas" for the 2nd person plural, regardless of formality.

Saturday, November 23, 2013

Texting Speak + Cross-Language Pollination + Morphology = New Words

So the other day in a dopey article I grabbed from a Spanish teen magazine for students to look at, I discovered the Spanish word "BeFa" (also spelled "befa"). From context, I had a gut feeling it meant "best friend," which a Puertorican student confirmed for me.

This word is awesome: it derives from "BF" (English internet/texting speak for best friend). I assume (dangerous, I know) that this happened in the following way:

BF - borrowed form from English
be efe
- borrowing as pronounced in Spanish
befe - new word form from fusing the two letters. Spanish phonetic rules don't distinguish between double vowels between words and single ones (this is how "ten te en pie" becomes tentempié, for example)
befes - new plural word form based on Spanish morphological rules for creating a plural
befa - new playful Spanish feminine form, based on Spanish morphological rules for creating a feminine form. This is highly unusual, however, because usually words ending in "e" do not change form for gender.
befas - new plural feminine form.

Quick google searches seem to confirm that ="befe" (m), "befes" (m), "befa" (f) and "befas" (f) all exist as forms in Spanish. Google also confirms that my proposed intermediate forms "BF"and "be efe" also exist, as well as "mi be efe efe" and "mi be efe efe efe" which suggests that some speakers think the extra "f" in "bff" serves as an intensifier rather than standing for "forever." Some other hybrids that exist but are rarer are "BFa" and "BFas." I was able to find only a handful of hits for "mis be efes" and none for "mis bes efes," suggesting that the whole "BF" is taken as a word and not as two words.

Google ngrams, alas, has yet to capture the phenomenon in print -- I'd love to have an up-to-date Google ngrams like tool for internet text as well as print.
Question: what other texting words are likely to have crossed over into Spanish?

Sunday, October 20, 2013

A regional accent emerging: friends trump family

Overheard from my eldest daughter at the end of a skype with cousins...
Grace: /Wəts 'ðæt pɪkʃʌɹ/ (What's that picture. )
Katharine: /ðæts ə pɪkʃʌɹ əv ænt 'ɛli/ (That's a picture of aunt Ellie. )
Grace: (annoyed) /'ɒnt ɛli/ (*Aunt* Ellie. ) 
 So Grace is beginning to assert accent independence from her loving parents. I'm pretty sure neither Katharine nor I routinely say ɒnt, so this must be coming from school (it is, I believe, the standard pronunciation here in New England).

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Even in an article about ngrams, NYT fails to care enough about language to factcheck

Anyone who knows me knows how much I love google ngrams. So I was interested to see David Brooks wrote a column based on it.

The beauty of google ngrams is that it makes it easy even for journalists to check facts about language. But that doesn't mean they bother to do the work. Alas, the column, which promised to string a series of ngrams observations together, in fact had its facts wrong.

For example, Brooks claims that:
That is to say, over those 48 years [between 1960 and 2008], words and phrases like “personalized,” “self,” “standout,” “unique,” “I come first” and “I can do it myself” were used more frequently. Communal words and phrases like “community,” “collective,” “tribe,” “share,” “united,” “band together” and “common good” receded.
For the time being, let's ignore the likelihood that the use of the word "tribe" in published books represents communal feeling and check some facts. I began with, "common good" and "band together," and saw that they do not both "recede" as he says. "common good" did drop over the middle of the 20th century, but has been rising over the last twenty years; "band together" has risen steadily over the last two centuries.

Next I tried the phrase, "I come first." It seemed only fair to put it in context by searching a family of such phrases, so I included phrases such as "family comes first", "faith comes first," and so on.

It turns out that "I come first" and "God comes first" track each other nearly perfectly, both rising and falling over the last one hundred years without any clear overall trend as he describes. The only clear trend that emerges from the set is a steady rise in the phrase "family comes first."

I decided to test his general theory that we've seen a rise in individualism and a decline in collective thinking with the most basic words and searched "myself" and "together." Alas, the chart holds nothing to confirm Mr. Brooks' argument.

To be clear, even if the trends he describes were true, they wouldn't necessarily tell us much. Rare in these word lists are phrases that seem equivalent -- comparing trends around "economic justice" and "prudence" (two words that do actually move in the ways he describes) doesn't tell you much since a speaker would virtually never be in a context in which they would be likely to use either word.

But even if his analysis was valid, his data are not.

It's hard to believe the NYT would be this lazy fact-checking anything else. Can you imagine they'd allow a column on sports in which the win-loss records were all made up on the spot? Or a column on politics that got the number of republicans in the senate wrong? With language, you might argue, it is harder to check facts, but in this case the article actually describes the tool needed to do the fact checking, a tool free to the public and a mouse click away.

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Three Word Sentences

Lila's language has been exploding for a month or two now, which means she is now in one of my favorite phases linguistically. I have to try to pay attention this time: somehow with both Grace and Clara, I went from counting words to expecting them to use basically the full grammar system of English without really noticing what happened in the interim. And I mean that pretty completely. Clara, at 3, already commands the English equivalent of what my Spanish students still struggle with as Seniors. The other day a friend commented after hearing her use the pluperfect progressive and I realized I wasn't even noticing new structures any more, and hadn't been for ages -- I expect the grammatical structure to be pretty much complete already, with only the predictable lapses in irregular forms left for cuteness.

Anyway, Lila is very much in the early sentence phase, and what's fun is that a huge number of her utterances fall into 3 word sentences that basically look like the top of the tree diagrams my middle school English teacher had me learning. Do you remember those diagrams? If you never did them, here's a guide.

SUBJECT | VERB | OBJECT
This was the basic structure of all sentences. Understanding that diagram meant you could write complete sentences, meant you would always be able to identify a fragment or a run-on, meant you could pretty much parse anything you wanted to. Here's what's kind of neat about Lila's speech right now: she has near total respect for the basic SVO word order in English, but complete flexibility about what kinds of words can fill the verb slot. So her diagrams look more like this:
SUBJECT | WHATEVER-I-FEEL-LIKE | OBJECT
Here's a list of some typical sentences:
SentenceStandard EnglishComments
Mamma hep meHelp me, mommy.The present tense can work as commands like this in Spanish, but not usually in English.
Dadda up me, no mamma up meDaddy should carry me, not mommyPrepositions can be verbs. Also, she can string these puppies together!
Dadda oh no bookDadda knocked over the bookExclamations can be verbs
Mama book meRead me a book, mommyNouns can be verbs
Dada mma* meDaddy kissed mePhysical actions can be verbs too!
Dada may-meh meDaddy carried me to the basement!Places can be verbs!
Baby doll oh no mihBaby doll spilled the milkThere can be subjects other than mom and dad
*actual kissing sound, not a word.

She of course also has some sentences without objects, like these ones:

SentenceStandard EnglishComments
Dadda book oh no!Daddy's book fell overNote a proto-genitive here
Mamma memehMommy basementNote a proto-locative here

Well, there's a list of sentences so far. I'll do my best to listen out for other emerging structures as she rounds the corner towards her 2nd birthday this summer. I believe she is sometimes varying the SVO structure I presented here -- I think I've heard her use VOS appropriately to put emphasis on the subject, suggesting she may already understand the underlying Theme/Rheme structure, but I'm not certain enough of any examples to write them down. I'll keep my ears out!

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Grace, Clara and æ/eɪ/ɛ allophone v. phone distinctions

I noted some time ago that Grace complained about my pronunciation of "lego" (which I pronounce as if it were spelled leggo, I suppose). Clara's now about the age Grace was then, and predictably enough, we had the familiar exchange recently:

Me: Clara, do you want to play legos (lɛgos).
Clara: Not lɛgos, daddy! Leɪgos!!!


Obviously, Katharine says Leɪgos, and that sticks with them as the correct pronunciation, even though I'm the one that plays legos more often, I think...

Yesterday, Grace and I had the following exchange (forgive my crappy phonetic transcription):

Grace: Daddy, can I have some? ( dædi, kɛn ai hæv səm)
Me: Yes you can. (yɛs, yu kæn).
Grace: Daddy! You said can (kæn) like a soda can. You meant to say kɛn.


This one's kind of cool because Grace is taking what I see as a set of allophones (kɛn/kæn) and hearing a distinction. Of course, she's right that /ɛ/ and /æ/ are distinct in lots of English words -- witness minimal pairs like fen/fan, send/sand, etc.

I've now been spending a lot more time paying attention to the word "can" as I say it. Of course, the funny thing is that saying kɛn in a stressed position is incorrect. I'm pretty sure, though, that we never say kæn in an unstressed position, saying something like kɛn or perhaps even kən or kɪn instead.

I wonder how much of this, and in how much detail, they cover in teaching foreigners English.

Monday, January 2, 2012

Transitive copula

Holding a lego in her hand, Clara, 2, says:

"I want to be this a car."

I've heard lots of words transitivized before, but never this one.

Saturday, July 2, 2011

Prepositions: About, Por, and Gracese

After I read Grace (for what turned out to be the 3rd total time) the chapter about Malaria from Little House on the Prarie, she was all aflutter about the different theories presented in the chapter. Mrs. Scott thought the fever was about the watermelons she said, and Ma thought it was about the night air, she added, but they didn't know that it was because of the mosquitos.

The reason Grace found the chapter so interesting was that it ends with a little coda that says "they didn't know that..." and then explains how mosquito bites carry malaria. That simple phrase -- "they didn't know" -- was quite captivating and led to another homily from Grace about the limits of human knowledge (sometimes little boys and girls don't know... and sometimes mommies don't know... and sometimes daddies don't know... and sometimes teenagers don't know...).

What I found interesting was her use of about. Particularly, it struck me because in teaching Spanish to English speakers, the pronouns "because" and "about" (both of which often translate as the same word, "por") stick out.

Grace's use of "about" seems in line with Spanish "por" which can mean anything from "by way of" to "by cause of" to "by means of." What's odd, though, is that none of these uses of "por" translate to "about." In fact, the only clear case where "about" translates to "por" is the spatiotemporal sense ("it's about five" or the somewhat antequated "somewhere about").

The most common use of "about" I can think of is the meaning that "it has to do with" or "its topic is." I suppose this makes sense... "Mrs. Scott thought the fever had to do with watermelon but it was because of mosquitos."

Still, it all gets me thinking about our friends the prepositions, all of which have multiple meanings applying across multiple domains (causality, space, time). It seems totally natural even at a much younger age to expand meanings (Clara's language constantly demonstrates this). What is trickier is how the meanings get cut off, so that we learn to say "she thought the movie was about pandas" but "she thought the fever was from watermelons."

Saturday, May 14, 2011

Semantic Innovation Starts Early

Clara's language has been exploding since I last blogged, more in how much and how persistently she uses it than in how many words, but really in all ways.

This morning, Clara wanted me to read to her but needed a diaper change. I asked if I could read to her after she got a new diaper and she said "mo mo" and pointed at her book a couple of times, then happily went off to get a new diaper.

It's hard to convey in text why these things are so clear, but what was crystal clear from the way she uttered the word and the way she subsequently behaved was that Clara was using "more" to mean "in a little bit," and then emphatically repeating it to make sure I would do it.

The concepts aren't actually that different. You could use both "a little bit" and "more" to mean "I want more cereal", so why not use both to mean "in a little more time."

Of course, these kinds of innovation are incredibly common (and useful), especially when you're dealing with a tiny vocabulary like Clara's at present, but I still think they're neat. One of the most common questions I get from students as a language teacher is why words have multiple meanings. This usually comes up when some common word is revealed to have a new meaning they didn't know or when a word in Spanish has two meanings they need to learn (every new turn in a foreign language is perceived as a personal affront). Watching kids learn language I always think is the sort of linguistic version of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," the point being, if you want to know why words have multiple meanings, just watch kids talk. They're constantly mapping new meanings onto words, expanding the territory they cover. Of course, we only tend to notice the mappings that aren't (yet?) part of standard English, like Clara's use of "more" this morning -- the mappings that are in keeping with our language tend to go unnoticed entirely.

Friday, March 18, 2011

Thoughts on Ed Tech, Technology and Attention

I just came back from an interesting technology forum (a Massachusetts Superintendent's Forum on Transforming Teaching & Learning with Technology). There's a number of thoughts I have from the conference, but the first thing I wanted to blog from it was some thoughts on attention and technology that sprung both from the content and the form of the event.

Early in the conference, we went over some of the new National Education Technology Plan, in particular, the need to focus less on content (which changes too fast anyway, the reasoning goes), and more on creativity, collaboration, critical thinking and research, which will be the key to creating the highly adaptable citizens and employees we'll need in the future. All of this strikes me as true, although not in any fundamental way different from the what much older reformers (think Dewey) have had to say about skills vs. knowledge, which means valid and interesting objections to those theories that have been raised by some (think E.D. Hirsch) probably apply to this as well.

The first presenter, a superintendent of a school district that's done a lot of work to put technology front-and-center, talked about the importance of the shift from direct instruction to more collaborative models to support these goals. Much was said about the mountains of information created and consumed every minute on the internet and how obsolete modes of instruction couldn't cut it anymore. I was struck, as many participants at ed conferences before me surely have been, by the irony of the fact that I was sitting at a session that was, in fact, two hours of direct instruction hearing about how direct instruction was obsolete.

Looking around the room, I thought about us as a group of learners: the group consisted of superintendents, principals, technology coordinators, and teachers. I'd say about 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 people there had an iPad or a laptop out. A similar number had a smartphone on the desk in front of them, a number of which beeped and chirred during the event (though none actually rang). Of the screens in front of me, I saw only one that was engaged in notetaking the whole time, the rest all wandered to emails or other distractions at some point.

From what I could see, I was the only person actively taking notes with pen and paper. I'd actually run to CVS to buy a new pad of paper before the conference, knowing that I can't really focus in a big room without something to write on. With my pen and paper in hand, I was thoroughly engaged through and through, writing notes both on things I thought useful and things I found frustrating (I was frustrated by inane things, like the fact that a presenter bungled the definition of virtualization and also by substantive things, like a video we were shown of a group of students taking several minutes to do a task on linked iPads that could have been done in 30 seconds with poster and markers). At the front of my notepad I kept a list of useful references or concepts I wanted to look up later to learn about. When something a presenter said set off a spark of an idea for me about something I wanted to do at our school, I immediately sketched the idea on my paper. When it was time for Q&A, I had something to ask each presenter. After the presentation, I went up to talk further with the presenters, took down names and emails, and made plans to try to make further connections in the future. I came back to school energized and with a clear list of action items based on the connections I'd made at the conference. All of this is as it should be.

Which is to say is that I know how to sit at a lecture in a conference and get something useful out of it. On another day, I might be writing that we should have had a more collaborative structure at the forum -- that we should have had BOFs break off, or at least some small group work or paired conversations -- surely educators know how to do such things. There are lots of kinds of work for which this would probably be more useful and it may be this would have benefited some of the people at this forum as well. However, this conference was really about sharing best practices and showing what's possible, about disseminating information to people who are in a position to do something useful with it. Given that goal, direct instruction actually made a lot more sense than something more collaborative would have.

Given that direct instruction was the chosen format -- and I think direct instruction is actually a good format far more often than progressive educators tend to admit -- the skills I learned in school for learning from direct instruction -- how to take notes, how to keep my mind engaged even when I'm a little bored, how to maximize the usefulness of what I'm hearing for me -- those skills all played a key role in me having a useful 2 hours. I imagine those skills serve lots of people well in their professional life -- after all, lots of professions require learning at every level, and lots of learning happens through lectures and conferences.

That said, for the professionals around me, as for all of us, I think, the technology in their hands actually presented a real challenge to their learning. There was no one off-task the entire time -- these were generally people at the top of their field -- but lots of people were off task for good parts of the presentation, and there was far more rudeness (chatting, beeping technology, etc.) than I would have expected. It was hard not to think that technology was eroding our ability to learn from one another effectively.

I know that, for me, my decision not to break out my laptop was crucial to my engagement in the conference. Had I had a laptop, I would have immediately started writing the emails when I had an idea for a connection I wanted to make, I would have looked up links to new software the moment I heard about it, I might even have installed and tested that software out there on the spot, all of which sounds like "engagement" but in fact would have distracted me and ultimately disengaged me. What's more, I would have checked the New York Times to see if France had started bombing in Libya or if they'd made any headway on the reactors in Japan and, had it turned out that something had happened, I would have read the articles in the entirety, not wanting to miss out on the events of the world. And that's just the distractions I would have initiaited myself: I also would have been receiving emails and instant messages from people who needed help with tech at school, from friends and family updating me with photos of little ones or plans for dinner, and so on.

When I imagine our teenagers faced with these same challenges, it is, frankly, terrifying. When I think that average class times are somewhere around 45 minutes in many schools, I wonder where on earth they are going to learn focus. One solution would be to just eliminate the two hour lecture format from the world, but I'm not sure that's optimal for reasons I've already mentioned.

People talk about technology as if the key to mastering it is using it more, as if we need to make sure our kids have lots of experience in front of screen to be prepared for "21st century jobs," but I don't for a second think that's true. I would love a chance to survey top programmers (the people who actually do master technology) to learn more about their habits. I highly doubt that they spend more time on facebook, or playing video games, or balancing three chats and two emails while working, than the rest of us do. My guess is that they work hard to find ways to fight distraction. I'm also guessing that they have an ability to focus that they may well have learned somewhere other than just coding -- I wouldn't be surprised to find that good programmers include a higher-than-average number of musicians or painters or readers than the rest of the population.

When I think back to the educational plan's learning objectives: creativity, collaboration, critical thinking and research, only research involves computers in a fundamental way. There, it seems, learning to evaluate and understand digital resources has to play a key role in what we teach our kids. Knowing the difference between this and this is vitally important for every adult, and schools need to give kids experience with both the good and the bad and help them learn the difference. But for the other skills -- creativity, collaboration, and critical thinking -- technology can be as much a hindrance as a help if not more. That's not to say I want to purge all the computers from our classrooms, but to say I don't think tech itself is the key to success in an increasingly tech-laden world. We will need students who know how to use a computer, sure. But, more importantly, we will need students who have more self-discipline, more ability to focus, and more ability to tune out distractions than students of the past. The road to those abilities may have more to do with music and art classes than it does with iPads and smartboards.

Monday, March 14, 2011

Clara's first protosentence

Clara has a favorite sentence, but alas it doesn't involve anything you would recognize as a word.

It goes like this:

1. She hides her hands in her shirt.
2. She makes the sound of a car moving (her version of this sound is identical to her dinosaur roar).
3. She moves her hands (hidden in her shirt) back and forth in the motion of a steering wheel.

The meaning of this sentence, which only makes sense in the context of our family, is: "Oh no! Clara left her hands in the car!"

I can confirm this is the intended meaning because Clara gets more and more frustrated and insistent until we say this sentence outloud in confirmation.

Other emerging words in Clara-ese include:

bəbəbə: basketball (Clara's favorite sport, which is particularly interesting since we never watch basketball on television -- she's picked up on this mostly through the big screens at beerworks).
hæt: "that"? A generic deictic word used frequently and enthusiastically while pointing at things.
əməm: yum (used for food and eating).

We are particularly interested to see that Clara has a word for basketball well before she reliably has words for "mom", "dad" and "Grace." Her most common word by far -- far more common than any of her family members -- is her word for car (really just a roar and steering wheel motion). Second most common is "up" (pəpəpə).

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

The joys of transivitizing (more notes from Gracese)

Just now, Grace and Katharine are looking at a map of the world.

Grace says:
"Let's wander our fingers."

This is the latest in the pattern of Grace over-transivitizing Every time she brings out a new one of these, it wonders me if these follow an underlying conceptual pattern I haven't spotted yet or if transitivization or no is just one more element that must get lodged in the mental dictionary.

It would be fun to try to design an experiment where I tried transivitizing lots of words and waited for Grace to correct me (I realize waiting for her to correct me seems like a bad experimental design, but given that Grace has started conversations about language on at least two other occasions, it might just work).

Sunday, February 27, 2011

Grace's e/ɛ distinction

From Grace, today:

Me: Do you want to play legos ('lɛ-goz)
Grace: No, I call them legos ('leɪ-goz). Why do you call them 'lɛ-goz but I call them 'leɪ-goz.
Me: I don't know. I call them 'lɛ-goz.
Grace: I call them 'leɪ-goz.
Me: Ok.
Grace. Logos, 'lɛ-goz, 'leɪ-goz (laughs)

And so Grace shows off the perfection of her e/ɛ distinction (my poor Spanish-speaking friends of course mostly can't do this). The question is how did she come to learn the word legos as leɪgos and not lɛgos... I'll have to follow up and ask Katharine how she pronounces the word. Do any of you pronounce this word like Grace?

Pronunciation note: lɛ is the vowel sound in "leg." leɪ is the vowel sound in "lay"

Monday, January 17, 2011

Early Claraese

At long last, Claraese is starting to emerge. I'm guessing that over the next two months so many words will emerge that I'll quickly forget this stage entirely, so before that happens I'd like to record what we have so far.

1st clear meaningful words: Three words all have been intermingled for some time -- "mom", "milk" and "more." Needless to say these are usually uttered at moments of desperation. Over time, these are starting to distinguish themselves, with "mom" often articulated as "mə mə" or "mə maaaa", milk articulated with a mid vowel ("mɪ" or "mɛ") or "more" articulated more like a single long "mə"

1st clear, common animal sound: "roar", first made in response to dinosaurs, then to other roaring animals as well. Hard to describe this sound, except to say it's kind of throaty and that there's nothing cuter than a tiny person trying to roar.

2nd clear animal sound: "moo." This one is more interesting because you can hear her articulating the "moo" as she goes -- she starts the sound at "ma" and then moves to "oo", resulting on something that sounds like "mao" or, occasionally, makes it all the way to "maouuu"

Several new words are emerging this week with more frequency, including:
- dad (də də)
- up (pəpəpə) - this sounds more like a play sound than a word, with the vowel almost unperceived and the main focus on repeating a "p" sound
- yes (ya ya) - this was produced after extensive coaching by big sister Grace.
- bye (bə bə) - this was learned as part of a fabulous game involving repeatedly hiding behind the shower curtain. She mostly still prefers to wave for this though.

Clara still prefers to communicate mostly with simple signs -- yes and no nods and pointing. It can take a fair amount of work to elicit a word from her, since asking her questions about me, say, will get her to point to me or to pictures of me or to the door (if I'm at work) but rarely to simply say my name.

As far as recognition, her vocabulary is big enough that it's impossible to enumerate what she knows and hard to estimate how many words. An example of words she certainly knows: names of all family members & friends, names of common foods, diapering and bathroom related words, guitar, music, book, radio, baby, doll, couch, table, and on...

I still find the notion of a "first word" baffling: I have no idea what her first word was.

Sunday, January 16, 2011

Hybrid Economics... family haulers

We're possibly in the market for a new more family-like vehicle. Like many, we're interested in sacrificing as little fuel economy as possible if we leave behind our civic.

One thing that occurs to me is that it might make sense to get a bigger hybrid vehicle, thus offsetting our decision to buy a larger car with a decision to buy a more efficient engine. Except the economics are rather astounding.

Looking at one such vehicle (the Toyota Highlander), the hybrid costs an astounding extra $10,000 and gets only ~6MPG better. Now these 6 MPG make a bigger difference in a SUV or minivan than they would in a sedan (the marginal benefit of each MPG is bigger the lower the MPG you start with), but still, this is pretty insane.

If I assume the price of gas rises to $6 a gallon (pretty hard to imagine), it would take a smidge over 14 years for this thing to pay for itself if we drive the same amount as we've driven over the past decade or so (that's 12,000 miles a year, or 171,000 miles total). It I assume a more reasonable price of $3.20/gallon, it will take almost 27 years or 320,000 miles. It's hard to imagine a battery lasting that long...

This problem is slightly exacerbated by my looking at a bigger-is-better car market -- the wise folks at Toyota figured that ecoconscious consumers wanting a hybrid would still rather have less efficient 4WD for example -- but only slightly.