Why thinking beyond money is vital for solving the poverty puzzle (2025-12-22T13:03:00+05:30)

L. Jamila Haider, Stockholm University and Steven J Lade, Stockholm University According to the OECD, development aid recently reached a new peak of $US142.6 billion a year. But international assistance that aims to alleviate poverty can have undesirable, and often unintended consequences on both nature and culture. And how to alleviate poverty without degrading the environment and cultural values remains a significant global challenge. Trapped in our thinking In a new review paper in the journal Science Advances, we call into question a cornerstone of development aid: the “poverty trap” and its “big push” solution. The poverty trap is a concept widely used to describe situations in which poverty persists under a certain asset threshold through self-maintaining mechanisms. In other words, it’s the vicious cycle of poverty, where the poor get poorer because they cannot accumulate savings or have enough energy to work. The term, which was used by both Jeffrey Sachs and Paul Collier in 2005 to describe households or countries stuck in low-levels of economic well-being, was central to the UN’s Millennium Development Goals. The “big push” – one of the earliest theories of development economics – is a still-popular one-size-fits-all approach to alleviating poverty at community and household levels, despite its known limitations. The basic idea of this theory is that it takes a big coordinated push of investment to allow economies to take off beyond a critical point (as defined by the poverty trap). The two concepts, as you can see, go hand in hand. But there’s an issue: though the poverty trap is a prominent way to conceptualise persistent poverty, its strictly economic view of poverty has thus far ignored the roles of nature and culture. With 78% of the world’s poorest people living in rural areas, development aid is often targeted at financial and technological farming solutions. Development agencies encourage farmers to grow single cash crops, or monocultures, such as genetically modified cotton in India, that they can sell to rise out of poverty. This strategy has had mixed results and, in some cases, serious ecological and social consequences that can reinforce poverty. Modelling alleviation strategies In our paper, we provide a way to extend poverty-trap thinking to more fully include the links between financial well-being, nature and culture. Our new approach identifies three types of solutions to alleviate poverty. The first is the so-called standard “big push”, to tip countries “over the barrier” so they have better-functioning economies. The second is to lower the barrier. And this could include everything from training farmers to changing behaviour and practices. These two classifications form the backbone of current aid strategies. But we introduce a third classification, which we call transforming the system, with the goal of rethinking the traditional intervention strategy. Using theoretical multi-dimensional models of different relationships between poverty and the environment at the household or community levels, we tested the effectiveness of these poverty alleviation strategies. For example, a popular and empirically supported narrative is that poor people degrade their environment, but less well-known empirical evidence shows how poor people do not disproportionately deteriorate the environment. They are often stewards of nature and create and maintain features such as agricultural biodiversity. Take for example, the Pamir Mountains of Tajikistan and Afghanistan, which are characterised by high biological and cultural (aka biocultural) diversity. In a context like this, people may be poor in monetary terms but care for an incredible diversity of agricultural crops with their rich ecological knowledge and cultural practices. And the diversity of traditional seeds may, in turn, help make them resilient at a regional level to shocks. In such places, the conventional push “over the barrier” to increase food production (through improved seeds or fertilisers) may risk losing biodiversity or traditional knowledge. Our models show how a transformation strategy in which endogenous actions change the status quo could in some contexts alleviate poverty without serious consequences for nature and culture. This possibility creates space for currently underrepresented narratives of development, such as agro-ecology or food sovereignty. Innovative crops of the Alai Valley in Burgan Suu, Kyrgyzstan. Transformative change The results of the models show that conventional development interventions that ignore nature and culture can reinforce poverty; transformative change may be necessary in those contexts; and asset inputs may be effective in others. These results are synthesised in the “poverty cube”, which shows how we brought together the multi-dimensionality of poverty, different intervention pathways and diverse contexts. Our approach to poverty traps may be useful for people in the development field to think through the implications of diverse development trajectories. Prior to our multi-dimensional poverty cube, poverty-trap models usually considered only the monetary dimension of being poor. Now, development actors can more easily envisage the consequences of different alleviation strategies on not just economic well-being but also on nature and culture – and how they interact. The framework we developed may be useful for categorising interventions and their consequences on nature and culture across different sectors. An interdisciplinary endeavour The paper emerged from a number of years of collaboration between a theoretical physicist, sustainability scientists, and an economist. It involved a highly interdisciplinary research approach. The importance of biophysical and cultural settings for poverty alleviation has long been understood. But interventions continue to be designed based on the poverty trap, a concept that usually neglects these factors. Our poverty cube could help donor agencies better integrate poverty, environment and culture in their thinking and development planning. Integrating these factors will be a major challenge for the Sustainable Development Goals. What we need to do next is dig deeper into understanding how this type of dynamic multidimensional modelling can be used in place-based studies aimed at communities. L. Jamila Haider, PhD candidate, Sustainability Science , Stockholm University and Steven J Lade, Researcher in resilience of social-ecological systems, Stockholm University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Ignore the fads: teachers should teach and students should listen (2025-12-17T11:42:00+05:30)

Greg Ashman, UNSW Sydney When imagining a teacher at work there’s a good chance you picture someone standing at the front of a classroom, explaining concepts and asking questions. Add to this students independently applying the concepts with some corrective feedback from the teacher and you have a form of teaching known as “explicit instruction”. What is explicit instruction? It’s as old as the hills and pretty effective; so much so that the New South Wales government’s Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation (CESE) recently published a report that stresses explicit teaching as one of its seven evidence-based themes. You may have heard of the Direct Instruction initiative in Cape York that is being promoted by Noel Pearson. This is a specific form of explicit teaching where lessons are scripted and a clear progression through concepts is mapped out in accordance with the ideas of the American educationalist Siegfried Engelmann. Although it is too early to say how the program is going in Cape York, Engelmann’s ideas have demonstrated great potential in the US, notably through the huge “Follow Through” project of the 1960s and 1970s. There is a large body of evidence for explicit teaching more generally. Different types of research examining a range of learning goals support the basic principles. But not all explicit instruction is equally effective. You might therefore imagine that researchers would be working on ways to fine-tune it. What makes a good explanation? How should concepts be sequenced? How can we ensure students are thinking about the key ideas? What’s the right balance between abstract concepts and concrete examples? Unfortunately, explicit instruction is unfashionable. While accepting that it has a role to play, educationalists often seem ambivalent towards it, sometimes describing explicit approaches using pejorative terms such as “drilling”. The key principle behind explicit instruction is that the teacher fully explains ideas and concepts. In this sense, its opposite is something that is often called “inquiry learning” where students are asked to pose questions and find out things for themselves. In such programs, teachers are seen as co-learners rather than subject-matter authorities. There is little evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of inquiry learning for learning new concepts (although it can be effective for those who are more expert in a subject). When tested in controlled experiments, features characteristic of inquiry learning such as problem-solving are shown to be less effective than features characteristic of explicit instruction such as the use of worked examples. And a number of attempts to introduce programs similar to inquiry learning have met with very little success over the past 50 years. Why is explicit instruction daggy? Despite this, inquiry learning is very much in vogue. Teacher education courses run units on it even though you would struggle to find equivalent units on explicit instruction. A recent report from the OECD on “Schools for 21st-Century Learners” has a whole section on inquiry learning while mentioning explicit instruction only in passing. New science VCE courses in Victoria have focused on incorporating inquiry learning and will require evidence that it has taken place. The physics VCE study design explains that: In VCE Physics students develop a range of inquiry skills involving practical experimentation and research, analytical skills including critical and creative thinking, and communication skills. As the OECD report also suggests, the evidence in favour of inquiry learning may be lacking but it is assumed to be superior in preparing students for the 21st century by developing ill-defined skills such as critical thinking or creativity. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that such skills are highly dependent upon knowing a lot about the subject: if you want to think critically about physics, then first learn a lot of physics. There may also be philosophical reasons that educationalists choose to privilege inquiry methods over explicit instruction. There is a tradition of questioning teacher-led approaches to education that is at least 200 years old. Philosophers of education such as John Dewey and Paolo Freire have criticised the notion that a teacher’s role is to impart knowledge. Freire called it the “banking model” and found that it did not fit his revolutionary principles. Others believe it to be inimical to the spirit of democracy. How can students grow up to ask questions if we expect them to defer to a teacher’s authority in the classroom? This argument fails on two counts. Firstly, teachers really should know more than their students, so why pretend otherwise? Secondly, it fails to recognise the compassionate and empathetic ways in which contemporary teachers structure explicit instruction in the classroom, providing plenty of time for students to be heard. Clearly, there are instances where we might choose to use varied approaches to learning for a wide variety of reasons. I am all in favour of balance. Sometimes, we may be seeking to build motivation. At other times, we may simply wish to mix things up a bit. However, an unbalanced focus on inquiry learning that sidelines the proven practice of explicit instruction should be a matter of serious concern. Greg Ashman, Experienced teacher and PhD candidate in instructional design, UNSW Sydney This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Play-based learning can set your child up for success at school and beyond (2025-11-03T12:54:00+05:30)

Natalie Robertson, Deakin University; Anne-Marie Morrissey, Deakin University, and Elizabeth Rouse, Deakin University As the new school year begins, many families are deciding where to enrol their child in preschool or school. Preschools and schools offer various approaches to early education, all promoting the benefits of their particular programs. One approach gaining momentum in the early years of primary school curriculum is play-based learning. Research shows play-based learning enhances children’s academic and developmental learning outcomes. It can also set your child up for success in the 21st century by teaching them relevant skills. What is play-based learning? Children are naturally motivated to play. A play-based program builds on this motivation, using play as a context for learning. In this context, children can explore, experiment, discover and solve problems in imaginative and playful ways. A play-based approach involves both child-initiated and teacher-supported learning. The teacher encourages children’s learning and inquiry through interactions that aim to stretch their thinking to higher levels. For example, while children are playing with blocks, a teacher can pose questions that encourage problem solving, prediction and hypothesising. The teacher can also bring the child’s awareness towards mathematics, science and literacy concepts, allowing them to engage with such concepts through hands-on learning. While further evidence is needed on cause and effect relationships between play and learning, research findings generally support the value of good quality play-based early years programs. How does it compare to direct instruction? Play-based learning has traditionally been the educational approach implemented by teachers in Australian preschool programs. It underpins state and national government early learning frameworks. Research has shown the long-term benefits of high-quality play-based kindergarten programs, where children are exposed to learning and problem solving through self-initiated activities and teacher guidance. In contrast to play-based learning are teacher-centred approaches focused on instructing young children in basic academic skills. Although this more structured teaching and learning style is the traditional approach to primary school programs, research is emerging that play-based learning is more effective in primary school programs. In these recent studies, children’s learning outcomes are shown to be higher in a play-based program compared to children’s learning outcomes in direct-instruction approaches. Research has also identified young children in direct-instruction programs can experience negative effects. These include stress, decreased motivation for learning, and behaviour problems. This is particularly so for children who are not yet ready for more formal academic instruction. What can be gained through play-based programs? As with traditional approaches, play-based early years programs are focused on teaching and learning. In such programs, play can be in the form of free play (activity that is spontaneous and directed by the child), and guided play (also child-directed, but the teacher is involved in the activity as a co-player) with intentional teaching. Both have benefits for children’s learning. To capitalise on these benefits, an optimum play-based program will provide opportunities for both free play and guided play. Involvement in play stimulates a child’s drive for exploration and discovery. This motivates the child to gain mastery over their environment, promoting focus and concentration. It also enables the child to engage in the flexible and higher-level thinking processes deemed essential for the 21st century learner. These include inquiry processes of problem solving, analysing, evaluating, applying knowledge and creativity. Play also supports positive attitudes to learning. These include imagination, curiosity, enthusiasm, and persistence. The type of learning processes and skills fostered in play cannot be replicated through rote learning, where there is an emphasis on remembering facts. The inquiry-based nature of play is supported through the social interactions of teachers and children. Teachers take an active role in guiding children’s interactions in the play. Children are supported in developing social skills such as cooperation, sharing and responding to ideas, negotiating, and resolving conflicts. Teachers can also use children’s motivation and interest to explore concepts and ideas. In this way, children acquire and practice important academic skills and learning in a playful context. For example, research indicates the increased complexity of language and learning processes used by children in play-based programs is linked to important literacy skills. These include understanding the structure of words and the meanings of words. Another study found children’s vocabulary and ability to tell a story was higher in a play-based classroom than a traditional classroom. Teacher-led learning and direct instruction methods have their place in educational contexts. But the evidence also points to the benefits of quality play-based programs for our youngest learners. In play-based programs, time spent in play is seen as important for learning, not as a reward for good behaviour. In such classrooms, children have greater, more active input into what and how they learn. Research shows play-based programs for young children can provide a strong basis for later success at school. They support the development of socially competent learners, able to face challenges and create solutions. Natalie Robertson, Lecturer in Early Childhood Education, Deakin University; Anne-Marie Morrissey, Senior Lecturer in Early Childhood Education, Deakin University, and Elizabeth Rouse, Senior Lecturer, Early Childhood Education, Deakin University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

4 creative ways to engage children in STEM over the summer (2025-10-17T12:42:00+05:30)

Amber M. Simpson, Binghamton University, State University of New York 4 creative ways to engage children in STEM over the summer: Tips to foster curiosity and problem-solving at home: The Trump administration is reshaping the pursuit of science through federal cuts to research grants and the Department of Education. This will have real consequences for students interested in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or STEM learning. One of those consequences is the elimination of learning opportunities such as robotics camps and access to advanced math courses for K-12 students. As a result, families and caregivers are more essential than ever in supporting children’s learning. Based on my research, I offer four ways to support children’s summer learning in ways that feel playful and engaging but still foster their interest, confidence and skills in STEM. 1. Find a problem Look for “problems” in or around your home to engineer a solution for. Engineering a solution could include brainstorming ideas, drawing a sketch, creating a prototype or a first draft, testing and improving the prototype and communicating about the invention. For example, one family in our research created an upside-down soap dispenser for the following problem: “the way it’s designed” − specifically, the straw − “it doesn’t even reach the bottom of the container. So there’s a lot of soap sitting at the bottom.” To identify a problem and engage in the engineering design process, families are encouraged to use common materials. The materials may include cardboard boxes, cotton balls, construction paper, pine cones and rocks. Our research found that when children engage in engineering in the home environment with caregivers, parents and siblings, they communicate about and apply science and math concepts that are often “hidden” in their actions. For instance, when building a paper roller coaster for a marble, children think about how the height will affect the speed of the marble. In math, this relates to the relationship between two variables, or the idea that one thing, such as height, impacts another, the speed. In science, they are applying concepts of kinetic energy and potential energy. The higher the starting point, the more potential energy is converted into kinetic energy, which makes the marble move faster. In addition, children are learning what it means to be an engineer through their actions and experience. Families and caregivers play a role in supporting their creative thinking and willingness to work through challenging problems. 2. Spark curiosity Open up a space for exploration around STEM concepts driven by their interests. Currently, my research with STEM professionals who were homeschooled talk about the power of learning sparked by curiosity. One participant stated, “At one time, I got really into ladybugs, well Asian Beatles I guess. It was when we had like hundreds in our house. I was like, what is happening? So, I wanted to figure out like why they were there, and then the difference between ladybugs and Asian beetles because people kept saying, these aren’t actually ladybugs.” Researchers label this serendipitous science engagement, or even spontaneous math moments. The moments lead to deep engagement and learning of STEM concepts. This may also be a chance to learn things with your child. 3. Facilitate thinking In my research, being uncertain about STEM concepts may lead to children exploring and considering different ideas. One concept in particular − playful uncertainties − is when parents and caregivers know the answer to a child’s uncertainties but act as if they do not know. For example, suppose your child asks, “How can we measure the distance between St. Louis, Missouri, and Nashville, Tennessee, on this map?” You might respond, “I don’t know. What do you think?” This gives children the chance to share their ideas before a parent or caregiver guides them toward a response. 4. Bring STEM to life Turn ordinary moments into curious conversations. “This recipe is for four people, but we have 11 people coming to dinner. What should we do?” In a recent interview, one participant described how much they learned from listening in on financial conversations, seeing how decisions got made about money, and watching how bills were handled. They were developing financial literacy and math skills. As they noted, “By the time I got to high school, I had a very good basis on what I’m doing and how to do it and function as a person in society.” Globally, individuals lack financial literacy, which can lead to negative outcomes in the future when it comes to topics such as retirement planning and debt. Why is this important? Research shows that talking with friends and family about STEM concepts supports how children see themselves as learners and their later success in STEM fields, even if they do not pursue a career in STEM. My research also shows how family STEM participation gives children opportunities to explore STEM ideas in ways that go beyond what they typically experience in school. In my view, these kinds of STEM experiences don’t compete with what children learn in school − they strengthen and support it. Amber M. Simpson, Associate Professor of Mathematics Education, Binghamton University, State University of New York This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Concept Coaching on mission to modernise youth football (2025-08-14T12:54:00+05:30)

Concept Coaching FA celebrate winning the Concept Coaching Under-9 Knockout Cup - DAVID SCARLETT, 14 Aug 2025, HEAD coach and tournament organiser of Concept Coaching Football Academy, Roger Smith, is determined to continue working towards the development of youth football from the grassroots level. Smith and Concept Coaching have hosted over 30 grassroots events since 2018 in support of early development of young footballers. The organisation concluded its Under-9 and Under-11 Super League on May 4 at the D’Abadie Recreation Ground. In the Under-9 division, Trendsetter Hawks won the league title and Concept Coaching FA claimed the knockout phase with a 2-1 penalty shootout win against the Hawks. Hawks also won the Under-11 league and reversed the roles from the Under-9 division by beating Concept Coaching 2-1 in regular time. In an interview with Newsday, Smith said, “Grassroots football is critically important to our country as it sets up the future of football in young players such as awareness, understanding and gaining experience to go to the next level – a higher age group at club level or an entrance to the Secondary Schools Football League (SSFL) – with an understanding of the game and its demands. Trendsetter Hawks won the Concept Coaching Under-11 Super League trophy. - “I'm not satisfied with the state of grassroots football in the country as we are stuck in old methods, styles and systems and, compared to other countries, we are behind.” Smith said he was proud of how the Super League was executed. “The Concept Coaching Under-9 and Under-11 Super League was a tremendous success. The format was of Fifa standard with respect to field dimensions and rules. This meant a platform for development and understanding of the demands of football such as objectives, skills and technique – all what I had hoped to accomplish.” He said the academy not only gives children a competitive platform to develop, but helps groom talent to boost the SSFL. This was Concept Coaching’s third edition of the tournament in this format, and Smith was pleased with the support he received from coaches, parents and players. However, he said the Super League experienced challenges in securing sponsorship and venues, forcing them to play at different venues each match day. Owing to the lack of female grassroots competitions, this tournament allowed girls to play in the boys’ Super League, which provided them with valuable experience, Smith said. He implores coaches to get on board with grassroots development and emphasised that there can’t be any quick fix. “At Concept Coaching FA, we teach our players to understand the game so when faced with situations in games, they are better able to find solutions.” Concept Coaching’s next tournament will be the Concept Coaching King’s Cup for Under-7, Under-9, Under-11 and Under-13 age groups on May 10 at the D’Abadie Recreation Ground. This will be followed by the club’s first overseas competition as they travel to Jamaica for the Genesis Cup from May 30 to April 3 where they will play in the Under-11 division.Smith will then launch the Concept Coaching Under-15 Super League in June. Concept Coaching on mission to modernise youth football - Trinidad and Tobago Newsday

Blending heritage with modern farming (2025-08-01T12:03:00+05:30)

Participants engage in hands-on bamboo craft training during the SSU Skill Development Workshop at Sungratsu. SSU workshop equips students with traditional craft and modern organic farming techniques MOKOKCHUNG, JUNE 26 (MExN): The Sungratsu Students Union (SSU) organised a two-day skill development workshop from June 24 to 25 under the theme “Self-Reliance,” aimed at empowering the Arju Centre, Sungratsu. The workshop sought to blend traditional cultural knowledge with modern organic farming techniques, equipping students with practical skills for sustainable living and income generation. On the first day, held at Senden Salang, Sungratsu, students received hands-on training in bamboo craftsmanship, learning to make items such as baskets, mats, indigenous plates, and machete handles. Sessions also included value addition techniques like pickle-making from leftover products. Alongside the practical training, theory classes delved into folklore, tradition, and the cultural heritage nurtured through the Arju (boys' dormitory) and Tsuki (girls' dormitory) systems. Master trainers emphasised that bamboo crafts are not just functional tools but represent the stories, customs, and identity of the community. SSU President Tekameren Aier said the crafts reflect the village’s rich heritage and could serve as viable livelihood options when preserved and passed on. Senior student leader Lanulemba Longchar said the broader objective was to instil cultural pride and self-reliance. “This isn’t just about skills,” he said. “It’s about ensuring our traditions live on and helping students realise they can create value from what’s already around them.” On the second day, participants visited Yimchalu, a tourist farm village, where they observed organic green tea processing and engaged in agricultural and allied activities. These sessions were led by experts from Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK), Yimsemyong, Mokokchung, and focused on the practical aspects of organic farming, kitchen gardening, and local raw material utilisation for marketable products. Lanulemba underscored the need for resource awareness, stating, “The goal is to raise individuals who are not liabilities but contributors to society.” Day one trainers included K Zulu Lemtur, Nokenwapang Ozukum, Imolila, Mejongsangla, Alisoa Aier, Shilutemsu Walling, Rediwapang, De Temjensangla Pongener, Chubayondang Walling, and Takawati Walling.Day two resource persons were C Wati Walling, Village Council Chairman of Yimchalu, and Dr Sarenti from KVK Yimsemyong, along with his team. Blending heritage with modern farming | MorungExpress | morungexpress.com >

How to protect yourself from misinformation in the digital world (2025-06-20T11:47:00+05:30)

UW Professor Cindy Aden greets attendees. With the exponential growth of social media, online news sources (credible and otherwise), chat groups, and artificial intelligence (AI), more and more people are using the internet as their primary source of news and information. While much of this information is credible, much is not. And emerging tools like AI are making it increasingly difficult to separate the accurate from the harmful. In an effort to help local consumers of information sort through this, the Friends of the Edmonds Library offered a Tuesday afternoon program aimed at helping us become more savvy in identifying and acting on misinformation. Led by Jason Young and Cindy Aden, both representatives from the University of Washington’s Information School, the session focused on the important role that emotion plays in misinformation, and how to improve and build your personal digital acumen so you are better prepared to explore online. “One distinction I want to make right off the bat is the difference between misinformation and disinformation,” began Aden. “It comes down to where the information comes from and why. Misinformation is inaccurate information that may be unintentional. Disinformation on the other hand is formulated to intentionally deceive and manipulate. Sometimes it’s difficult to tell these apart. Knowing the source can help, but it’s not foolproof. But one thing is for certain: with the growth in social media, it is much easier to spread misinformation. “The concept of alternative facts is almost mind-boggling,” she continued. “Folks can say whatever they want, regardless of whether it has any basis in fact. It allows them to stay within their own realm of what they think should be true. This leads to an effect we call conformation bias where you only look for information that supports your chosen beliefs and at the same time you ignore information that doesn’t support your point of view.” She went on to explain that part of confirmation bias is that our brains are always looking for a more efficient way to interpret information and have a natural bias to maintaining what we already believe. It’s simply easier for the brain to say, “oh yeah, this fits with what I already believe” than to say, “oh wait, this fact doesn’t fit so I need to re-examine and perhaps change my core beliefs.” In the latter case, your brain is forced to either reinterpret the new information to fit its chosen beliefs, ignore the new information, or – most difficult of all – change its core beliefs. “Our brain looks for familiar patterns, and it’s truly frightening to give these up,” she explained. “We want to find something safe and familiar. It’s extremely difficult for folks with deeply entrenched beliefs to change their minds.” Advertiser Content And social media feeds this. One way is by using algorithms that in effect curate your information by looking for things similar to what you’ve looked for before and then presenting them to you. And the advent of new and more sophisticated techniques using AI and deep fakes adds to the problem of differentiating between what is real and what is not. “And for increasing numbers of folks, social media is their only source of information,” she added. “So there’s the problem,” said Jason Young as he took over the session. “For the rest of today, we’ll be looking at what we can do about it.” He went on to explain that the two major drivers of the misinformation problem are changes in technology and a social shift that has resulted in many folks simply not wanting the truth anymore. They want to embrace false things because they’re more comfortable that way – that’s classic confirmation bias. “First technology,” he continued. “Today anyone with a cell phone and an internet connection can say anything they want and people on the other side of the world hear it instantly. AI can produce fake photos (remember when we used to say pictures don’t lie – we can’t say that anymore), and fake videos, where a misinformation purveyor can make politicians and officials – anyone really – look like and say whatever they want.” Professor Jason Young explains how to sift through online information to separate the real from misinformation. He pointed out that this kind of misinformation targets not just your mind, but your emotions as well. By playing on emotions the misinformation purveyor hopes to get you to react more quickly than you should by confusing you and getting you to take action without thinking. “The classic example is getting a call from a grandchild in trouble who needs money right away,” he said. “The voice sounds right, and the kid knows your name, so you rush to the 7-Eleven, buy a cash card and give the number to the scammer without taking time to think it through. Only later you learn that the child’s voice was faked and your money is gone.” Young then presented a simple technique to raise media literacy and help you see through misinformation. It’s called SIFT – the S stands for stop; the I for investigate; the F for find other coverage; and the T for trace the information to the original source. “Stop is the vital first step,” he explained. “When you find potentially suspicious information, don’t immediately act on it, share it or anything else. Next check out the source – ask yourself is there is a reason you should believe it, is it credible, is it something you’ve heard of before? If it smells funny, do a Google search on the source’s name. Then check the subject matter – Google is great for this too. Has anyone else reported on this? Can you find where the story originated? If an image is involved do a Google image search to see where else it’s been published.” He then provided an example from a real post on X (formerly Twitter): “You see this, and it’s emotional, it’s scary,” he explained. “A zombie virus that poses a threat to humans, comes from Russia, and will be unleashed by climate change. Pushes lots of buttons, right?” But go back to SIFT. First check out the source, Buzzing Pop – is it credible, has any other news organization reported this? Check for other information about zombie viruses. Check the photo to see if it’s real, created, or from somewhere unrelated. “This will take you less than five minutes with Google,” he added. Young then took up how to detect false images and videos generated or altered by AI. “AI is getting better all the time,” he explained, “and it’s getting harder to see through it. At this time, deep fakes still have trouble with image backgrounds, eyeglasses, teeth and hair, so if these don’t look quite right, you’re likely dealing with a fake, but newer AI techniques are making it harder to tell.” In the two images above, the girl on the left is real. But look at the man on the right. The hair doesn’t look natural, and the background is mottled. He’s a fake. “But our old SIFT technique still applies,” he concluded. “When you encounter something that seems odd, stop and take a moment to look closely. Is it asking you to do something weird? Is it trying to make you click on a link?” If you do a Google image search on a person’s face, it will give info on where that face has appeared before – if there’s no backstory, you’re likely dealing with an AI-generated fake. “The bottom line is to be careful. Remember that people have lied and hidden truths forever, but technology is making it so much easier and widespread.” he added. “Don’t share something (especially if it’s sensational and you just feel drawn to click it) on social media until you check the sources and do the research. Try to be aware of your own confirmation biases, avoid following clickbait, and don’t get pulled in by buzzwords and emotional content. The purveyors of misinformation are getting better all the time, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot of good information out there, and little bit of thought and fact-checking will go a long way to helping you separate the good from the bad.”— Story and photos by Larry Vogel  How to protect yourself from misinformation in the digital world

More Than 90% of Schools in England Ban Smartphone Use, 13 US States Have Already Taken Action (2025-06-14T11:38:00+05:30)

– Getty Images for Unsplash+ Without a government body to legislate the result, UK education authorities have discovered that over 90% of national schools have instituted smartphone bans, a measure still being debated by industry members and scientists. Representing a triumph of distributed sovereignty, a survey of more than 15,000 schools found that 99.8% of elementary schools and 90% of middle schools had instituted some form of ban, the Guardian reports. The paper further claimed that education leaders in the UK have largely supported school autonomy and guidance rather than government regulation on the question of smartphones, and the schools seem to have used that autonomy quite decisively. Current Education Secretary Bridget Philipson said that the results of the survey represents “comprehensive evidence,” that “shows our approach of backing headteachers to implement bans in their schools is working.” Individual school action has showed before that prohibiting smartphone use in schools, or at least while classes are in session, can improve student performance. Some classes used tablets and phones as teaching materials, and such usage wasn’t included in the survey findings of device usage. “A lot of this is about a battle for attention, a battle for focus and concentration. It’s not just about having your phone out and using it, it’s the mere presence of the phone,” Tom Rees, chief executive of the Ormiston academies trust, one of the largest private school businesses in the country, told the Guardian. “There’s evidence that tells us that even if your phone is in the same room, it could be in your bag or pocket, your brain is leaking attention, still thinking about it and being drawn to it, wondering if there has been a notification on it and what it might be.” Ormiston was the first academy chain to go smartphone-free, Justine Elbourne-Cload, co-chair of the St Albans primary schools consortium, the first institution in the country to implement a total smartphone ban for under-14 age groups, said that parents’ reactions had been “phenomenal.” “They are really onboard. Parents are crying out for that support.” In the United States, policies on phone usage are being left up to the states, and several have already implemented some forms of restrictions. In Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Arkansas, governments have allocated grant money to any school district that wants to begin controlling smartphone and device usage by closing them away in secure pouches or boxes at the beginning of lessons. Florida and California have passed prohibitions already, with the latter mandating its effect by the end of the next school year (July 1st). Ohio, Virginia, Minnesota, Indiana, and Louisiana have all passed measures that compel schools to come up with their own programs and methods for reducing, controlling, or eliminating smartphone and device usage during school hours or in classrooms. Several other states, including Washington and Alabama, have taken a lighter touch, passing non-binding measures that encourage schools to take action, rather than mandating it.“The research is clear: Reducing the use of cellphones in class improves concentration and learning, improves mental and physical health, and reduces pressures caused by social media,” said Washington schools superintendent Chris Reykdal in an official guidance document. More Than 90% of Schools in England Ban Smartphone Use, 13 US States Have Already Taken Action

Underground nuclear tests are hard to detect. A new method can spot them 99% of the time (2025-06-12T11:49:00+05:30)

Mark Hoggard, Australian National University Since the first detonation of an atomic bomb in 1945, more than 2,000 nuclear weapons tests have been conducted by eight countries: the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan and North Korea. Groups such as the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization are constantly on the lookout for new tests. However, for reasons of safety and secrecy, modern nuclear tests are carried out underground – which makes them difficult to detect. Often, the only indication they have occurred is from the seismic waves they generate. In a paper published in Geophysical Journal International, my colleagues and I have developed a way to distinguish between underground nuclear tests and natural earthquakes with around 99% accuracy. Fallout The invention of nuclear weapons sparked an international arms race, as the Soviet Union, the UK and France developed and tested increasingly larger and more sophisticated devices in an attempt to keep up with the US. Many early tests caused serious environmental and societal damage. For example, the US’s 1954 Castle Bravo test, conducted in secret at Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands, delivered large volumes of radioactive fallout to several nearby islands and their inhabitants. Between 1952 and 1957, the UK conducted several tests in Australia, scattering long-lived radioactive material over wide areas of South Australian bushland, with devastating consequences for local Indigenous communities. In 1963, the US, the UK and the USSR agreed to carry out future tests underground to limit fallout. Nevertheless, testing continued unabated as China, India, Pakistan and North Korea also entered the fray over the following decades. How to spot an atom bomb During this period there were substantial international efforts to figure out how to monitor nuclear testing. The competitive nature of weapons development means much research and testing is conducted in secret. Groups such as the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization today run global networks of instruments specifically designed to identify any potential tests. These include: air-testing stations to detect minute quantities of radioactive elements in the atmosphere aquatic listening posts to hear underwater tests infrasound detectors to catch the low-frequency booms and rumbles of explosions in the atmosphere seismometers to record the shaking of Earth caused by underground tests. A needle in a haystack Seismometers are designed to measure seismic waves: tiny vibrations of the ground surface generated when large amounts of energy are suddenly released underground, such as during earthquakes or nuclear explosions. There are two main kinds of seismic waves. First are body waves, which travel outwards in all directions, including down into the deep Earth, before returning to the surface. Second are surface waves, which travel along Earth’s surface like ripples spreading out on a pond. The Comprehensive Test-Ban-Treaty Organization uses seismic stations to monitor the globe for underground nuclear explosions. The difficulty in using seismic waves to monitor underground nuclear tests is distinguishing between explosions and naturally occurring earthquakes. A core goal of monitoring is never to miss an explosion, but there are thousands of sizeable natural quakes around the world every day. As a result, monitoring underground tests is like searching for a potentially non-existent needle in a haystack the size of a planet. Nukes vs quakes Many different methods have been developed to aid this search over the past 60 years. Some of the simplest include analysing the location or depth of the source. If an event occurs far from volcanoes and plate tectonic boundaries, it might be considered more suspicious. Alternatively, if it occurs at a depth greater than say three kilometres, it is unlikely to have been a nuclear test. However, these simple methods are not foolproof. Tests might be carried out in earthquake-prone areas for camouflage, for example, and shallow earthquakes are also possible. A more sophisticated monitoring approach involves calculating the ratio of the amount of the energy transmitted in body waves to the amount carried in surface waves. Earthquakes tend to expend more of their energy in surface waves than explosions do. This method has proven highly effective for identifying underground nuclear tests, but it too is imperfect. It failed to effectively classify the 2017 North Korean nuclear test, which generated substantial surface waves because it was carried out inside a tunnel in a mountain. This outcome underlines the importance of using multiple independent discrimination techniques during monitoring – no single method is likely to prove reliable for all events. An alternative method In 2023, my colleagues and I from the Australian National University and Los Alamos National Laboratory in the US got together to re-examine the problem of determining the source of seismic waves. We used a recently developed approach to represent how rocks are displaced at the source of a seismic event, and combined it with a more advanced statistical model to describe different types of event. As a result, we were able to take advantage of fundamental differences between the sources of explosions and earthquakes to develop an improved method of classifying these events. We tested our approach on catalogues of known explosions and earthquakes from the western United States, and found that the method gets it right around 99% of the time. This makes it a useful new tool in efforts to monitor underground nuclear tests. Robust techniques for identification of nuclear tests will continue to be a key component of global monitoring programs. They are critical for ensuring governments are held accountable for the environmental and societal impacts of nuclear weapons testing. Mark Hoggard, DECRA Research Fellow, Australian National University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Does the Suzuki method work for kids learning an instrument? Parental involvement is good, but other aspects less so (2025-05-08T13:11:00+05:30)

Timothy McKenry, Australian Catholic University Giving children an instrumental music education can be expensive. In addition to purchasing an instrument and paying the cost of music lessons, parents invest their time by encouraging practice, attending recitals and driving their child to and from lessons. Parents rightly want value-for-money and confidence that their child’s teacher employs an evidenced-based, proven teaching method. There are numerous approaches to teaching music, each with its own philosophy and history. To a parent looking to make an informed choice about music lessons, the options can be befuddling. But given the research highlights parental involvement as an important component for a successful music-learning experience, developing an understanding of the teaching method is vital. One method that polarises the music education community is Shinichi Suzuki’s (1898-1998) “talent education” (saino kyoiku), commonly known as the Suzuki method. It was first conceived as a system for teaching the violin. The Suzuki method arrived in Australia in the early 1970s and was quickly applied to a variety of instruments. Research highlights a range of positive outcomes for children learning how to play an instrument via the Suzuki method. It also shows Suzuki is not the only method that works. While the degree of parental involvement may mean Suzuki is not right for every family, the caring learning environment it encourages is one worth emulating. What is the Suzuki method? Shinichi Suzuki playing the violin. 1. Talent is no accident of birth The Japanese word saino has no direct English translation and can, in context, mean “talent” or “ability”. Shinichi Suzuki believed talent is not inherited, and any child could excel musically, given the right learning environment. Today, advocates of the method continue to echo Suzuki’s idea that “the potential of every child is unlimited”, and caring learning environments help children unlock that potential. 2. All Japanese children speak Japanese Suzuki credited the development of saino kyoiku to the realisation the vast majority of young children naturally and easily develop language skills. By examining the experiences that facilitate language development (including listening, imitation, memory and play), Suzuki devised the “mother-tongue” method for early childhood music education. Children can begin their music education from birth through listening, and can start learning an instrument from as young as three years old. In contrast to some Western approaches to music teaching, reading music notation is not prioritised and is delayed until a child’s practical music ability is well established. In the same way a child generally learns to talk before learning to read, students of the Suzuki method start by listening to and imitating music rather than sight reading sheet music. 3. Character first, ability second Taken from the motto of the high school Suzuki attended until 1916, “character first, ability second” is the overriding aim of the Suzuki method. In saino kyoiku, music learning is a means to an end: students are taught an instrument to facilitate them becoming noble human beings. Some students of the Suzuki method have undoubtedly progressed on to a career in music. But creating professional musicians and celebrating child prodigies or virtuosos is not a priority of the method. 4. The destiny of children lies in the hands of their parents The Suzuki method requires a major contribution from a parent and a home environment that wholeheartedly embraces the child’s music-making. A parent needs to participate in formal lessons, record instructions from the teacher and regularly guide and monitor practice at home. The learning process is a three-way relationship between the child, the parent and the teacher. The parent becomes a “home teacher” who helps their child develop new skills, provides positive feedback and guides the content and pacing of practice sessions. The benefit of having a parent-mentor at home is the feature that sets Suzuki apart from other teaching methods. The parent can greatly regulate time spent practising and what they do during practice. Some music teachers have criticised the Suzuki method for teaching children to a high level at an earlier age than usual, for an over-reliance on rote learning, for robotic playing, for a focus on classical music, and for a lack of engagement with music notation and improvisation. What does the research say? The research into music education supports many aspects of the Suzuki method. For example, one study that sought to compare different modes of parental involvement in music lessons found a clear benefit from parental involvement. This benefit was not limited only to the Suzuki method. The message from this study is: the more interested the parent, the better the learning for the child. Another study compared Suzuki’s approach to teaching rhythm with the BAPNE method (Body Percussion: Biomechanics, Anatomy, Psychology, Neuroscience and Ethnomusicology). The study concluded both methods had merit and should be integrated. A recent thesis from the University of Southern Mississippi compared the Suzuki method with the method of its fiercest critic, the O’Connor method. The O’Connor method is an American system where a set of music books are sold to teachers and students, and training to accredit teachers. These books are tailored to different levels of ability. This method is less focused on parental involvement in teaching and the selection of music is more geared towards American music. The study found the two approaches could both be effective and shared common aspects related to technique, expression and the mechanics of learning the violin. The thesis does claim the O’Connor method embraces a more diverse musical repertoire. But the modern Suzuki organisation says its teachers have more flexibility in incorporating different styles of music. Finally, a study out of South Africa highlights ways the Suzuki method can be adapted for use in different cultural contexts. The authors examined the challenges associated with Suzuki’s requirement for high levels of parental involvement for orphans and children from low-income and single-parent families. These challenges could be overcome by a community approach to music education. In a group learning setting, older and more advanced students mentored younger, less advanced students and provided the encouragement and guidance otherwise provided by a parent. Some aspects of the Suzuki method remain steeped in controversy. There is no reliable evidence to support the idea that musical training improves character and a sizeable body of research contradicts the notion that genetics has no role in musical aptitude. Timothy McKenry, Professor of Music, Australian Catholic University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.