Bridging the Gaps: A Portal for Curious Minds

Evaluating the quality of teaching and learning in our schools, and assessing the effectiveness of our school systems and primary education frameworks is an important research area that focuses on questions such as “what works and what does not work in our schools”. An important aspect of this research is to evaluate the impact of factors such as class size, homework, use of digital technologies, duration of academic year, teaching very bright and weak learners in same cohorts on the quality of teaching and learning in our schools. Such research also focuses on measuring the effect-size of these and other factors on the performance of our education systems. Professor John Hattie has spent fifteen years synthesizing over 60,000 studies, involving about a quarter of a billion students. This meta-analysis – analysis of analyses – focuses on the questions that what works and what does not work in our schools and what matters in teaching. This is perhaps the biggest ever evidence-based research project in education. In this podcast I discuss with Professor Hattie the origin of this project, the studies that he has used in this project, and the approach that he has adopted to combine and consolidate data from these studies to perform this meta-analysis. We discuss in detail the findings of this meta-analysis. We also discuss the impact of “out of school factors” such as home environment on the performance of young learners. We discuss the concept of “Visible Learning” that Professor Hattie presents in his books and presentations, and try to explore how the education at primary level must evolve and should be aligned with the needs and expectations of twenty-first century learners. In his books Professor Hattie discusses eight mind frames or ways of thinking that must underpin every process and action in schools and school systems; I ask Professor Hattie to describe these eight mind frames in detail. An important finding that Professor Hattie highlights in his presentations is that the “biggest effect on student learning occurs when teachers become learners of their own teaching, and when students become their own teachers”; we discuss this statement in detail. Professor Hattie highlights that increase use of internet and communication technologies in schools presents an opportunity for the parents to get more involved in school affairs. Professor John Hattie is a researcher in the field of education, and is the Director of the Melbourne Education and Research Institute at the University of Melbourne. His research interests include performance indicators, models of measurements and evaluation of teaching and learning. He has written more than four hundred articles on these and related topics. His two very interesting books on these topics are: “Visible Learning” and “Visible Learning for Teachers”.

One of the most existing developments of the last two decades in the field of astronomy is the discovery of exoplanets: planets that orbit around the stars other then our sun. The idea of finding planets outside our solar system is not new; philosophers and scientists have imagined exoplanets for centuries. Giordano Bruno, an Italian philosopher, mathematician, poet, and astrologer theorised exoplanets in sixteenth century. However for centuries there was no mechanism available to detect exoplanets. The first two confirmed exoplanets were discovered in 1992. Since then the detection of new exoplanets continues. By September 2015 the number of confirmed exoplanets has reached 1892. In this podcast I discuss, in detail, with Professor Sara Seager, the fascinating research in the field of exoplanets. Professor Sara Seager is an astrophysicists and planetary scientist at MIT. Her science research focuses on theory, computation, and data analysis of exoplanets. Her research has introduced many new ideas to the field of exoplanet characterization, including work that led to the first detection of an exoplanet atmosphere. She is the author of two textbooks on these topics. She was part of a team that co-discovered the first detection of light emitted from an exoplanet, and the first spectrum of an exoplanet. In twenty thirteen she was awarded a MacArther Fellowship.

As NASA's New Horizons spacecraft approaches Pluto, Dr Mark Showalter describes in detail the nature of the mission and what to expect in terms of scientific findings. Dr Showalter discusses in detail the features of the spacecraft and the challenges involved as it approaches Pluto.

Multiple intelligences, future minds, and characteristics and expectations of 21st century learners with Dr Howard Gardner.

What is consciousness? In this podcast David Chalmers starts addressing this question by saying that “being conscious is when there is something it is like to be that being”. This argument was initially presented by an American philosopher Thomas Nagel in an influential paper “what is it like to be a bat”. This paper was first published in the Philosophical Review in 1974. David Chalmers is an Australian philosopher and a cognitive scientist specializing in the area of philosophy of mind. He is professor of philosophy and a director of the Centre for Consciousness at the Australian National University. He is also professor of philosophy at New York University. In 2013, he was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. In this podcast Chalmers discusses the nature of human consciousness, its place in nature, artificial intelligence, and the concept of singularity. In his paper “Consciousness and its Place in Nature” Chalmers describes some aspects of consciousness as easy problems and then discusses the hard problem of consciousness. In this podcast Chalmers explains in detail this approach of describing the challenge of understanding consciousness. Chalmers discusses the easy problems of consciousness and the hard problem of consciousness. An intriguing question is would we ever be able to solve the hard problem of consciousness? Some consider it an unsolvable problem and they give two main reasons for this: (1) inability of our brain to process the complicated information that would lead to an understanding of consciousness, and (2) as we all are conscious and do not have the ability to observe consciousness from outside, we cannot solve this problem. Chalmers shares his views on these points. Chalmers also discusses the relevance, and irrelevance, of artificial intelligence to the phenomenon of consciousness. If we assume that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon – a property of system is said to be emergent if it is in some sense more than the “sum” of the properties of the system’s parts – then as the processing power of computers is increasing, can it be said that one day consciousness may emerge in machines. One fundamental question is “what happens when machines become more intelligent than humans”. Chalmers says, “One view is that this event will be followed by an explosion to ever-greater levels of intelligences as each generation of machines creates more intelligent machines in turn. This intelligence explosion is now often known as the “singularity””. In this podcast we discuss these questions in detail. But is consciousness necessary; can a universe exist without consciousness? If we manage to make a machine, that can store and process information the way we store and process information, and if this machine can replicate our emotional behaviour as well, but it is not conscious, then a collection of such machines can live and function in a universe that does not have consciousness. Is it necessary to have consciousness in such a simulated world? A number of fascinating questions that arise at this point are: Will such machines live in a world that does not need consciousness? A world that can exist and function without consciousness. Will the machines of future be just super intelligent or will such machines have machines-consciousness? Is it possible that the consciousness that we experience is not real and it is just an illusion and is it possible that we are living in a simulation? Is it possible that in a universe where “they” have achieved singularity, perhaps “we” are artificially intelligent machines, living in a simulation, in a matrix?

A conversation with Dr Jill Tarter on the past, present and future for the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.

A Conversation with Professor Carol Dweck

What exactly is a memory? How much do we know about the processes that a human brain executes to store and retrieve a memory? An individual memory may contain different elements such as explicit information, one or many contexts, relevant emotions; does the brain pre-process all individual elements of a memory and then stores this processed memory as one single entity? Or, are different elements of an individual memory stored at different locations in the form of a connected structure or network, and are post-processed at the time of retrieval? In this case what are the chances that during this post processing of different elements of a memory, the retrieved memory gets contaminated resulting in a false memory that reshapes the past? How do non-conscious memories affect and shape our behavior? Daniel Schacter is a cognitive psychologist and is professor of psychology at Harvard University. His research explores the relation between conscious and unconscious forms of memory, the nature of memory distortions, how we use memory to imagine possible future events, and the effects of aging on memory. In this podcast at Bridging the Gaps professor Daniel Schacter shares and discusses cutting edge research on these topics. Research shows, explains Schacter, that the process of remembering and retrieving memories is a constructive activity. He points out that human memory system is not perfect. The system has its shortcomings and we are all affected by memory’s shortcomings in our everyday lives. In his book “Seven Sins of Memory” Schacter systematically classifies various memory distortions into seven basic categories. According to Schacter these seven memory distortion categories are: transience, absentmindedness, blocking, misattribution, suggestibility, bias, and persistence. In this discussion Schacter explains these memory distortions in detail, one by one. He emphasizes that “these memory distortions should not be viewed as flaws in system design, instead these distortions can be conceptualized as by-products of otherwise desirable features of human memory”. Schacter explains this statement. He then discusses the experiments and research studies to measure, estimate and understand these shortcomings of memory. I ask him that can we use the estimates of these seven shortcomings of memory for an individual to gauge the individual’s ability or lack of it to reconstruct memories? If we succeed in developing reliable techniques to make such measurements, these techniques can be used to improve the way we manage, document and process eyewitness testimonies in legal proceedings. Schacter shares his views on this. An interesting point that Schacter highlights in his presentations, and discusses in this podcast is that there is evidence of memory serving the needs of present, and the past being reshaped by current knowledge, beliefs and emotions. He shares his research findings on this. Remembering the past and imaging the future depend on a common network in the brain, known as the Default Brain Network. Shacter describes the Default Brain Network and discusses the research that focuses on the question that how this one network manages these two different processes. Just before finishing our discussion, I ask Daniel Schacter his views on human consciousness and on the question of how brain creates mind. Finally, I finish this podcast by asking Daniel Schacter what are major developments and breakthroughs that he envisages in the field of his research in the near future.

Is philosophy dead? Well over the past few years a number of scientists and researchers have said that we don’t need philosophy, philosophy should not be taught, it is waste of time and some have suggested that philosophy is dead. This is obviously a question that should be discussed at Bridging the Gaps. Tim Maudlin, professor of philosophy at New York University, says that the scientists, particularly physicists, who suggest that philosophy is dead, simply don’t know what is done now-a-days in philosophy of physics. An important point that Maudlin makes is that if there are philosophers who intend to write about physics and have no expertise in physics, perhaps this is not a good idea. In his view one of the main reasons that negative remarks are being made about philosophy is that philosophers are writing about topics without having expertise in these areas. Maudlin says that if you want to know about the nature of matter, and nature of space and time, and if you want to understand large-scale structure of cosmos, you need input from science. Maudlin says that tendency in the last forty years has been that philosophers become more and more competent in the particular sciences that they intend to comment on. He notes, “particularly in physics we get people whose training is in physic”. A number of researchers with undergraduate degrees in physics, and some even with doctorates in physics, feel that foundational issues in physics are not appreciated and supported in physics departments. They drift over into philosophy department so that they could easily pursue very foundational and conceptual questions. After discussing the bittersweet relationship between philosophy and science, we touch upon a number of other topics that Tim Maudlin’s research focuses on, these are: Nature of Time: is time real, or is it just an illusion? Is time directional? Nature of Spacetime Quantum Physics and Entangled Particles Observer Effect and Wave Collapse Function Structure of the Universe at the Plank Scale The title of one of your books is the Metaphysics within Physics, is there metaphysics within physics? Can philosophy assist and guide us to understand these difficult to understand concepts?

How much do we think about thinking? How aware usually are we of our awareness, and about what is happening around us? Jonathan Schooler, professor of psychology at the University of California (Santa Barbara), whose research focuses on consciousness, memory, meta-awareness, mind-wandering, and mindfulness, describes meta awareness as our ability to take explicit note of the current contents of consciousness. He notes that when we are not focusing on what is happening around us, we generate imaginative thoughts that are unrelated to external circumstances. It is common to experience such imaginative thoughts and experience moments when our minds have wandered away from the situation at hand. Schooler suggests that mind wandering is indicative of different kinds of attentional fluctuations. In this podcast Schooler describes mind-wandering as a phenomenon when a person’s attention is less directed towards external environment and it shifts more towards an internal train of thought. But is mind-wandering an attribute of attention or is this an attribute of consciousness? Jonathan Schooler shares his views on this. In this podcast, we also touch upon: Mind-wandering: day dreaming vs planning for future and goal setting Measuring frequency of mind-wandering: is there a scale to estimate the level of mind wandering an individual is involved in? What level and frequency of mind-wandering should be considered as a problem and not a tool to plan and imagine our future? Is there any evidence that attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is associated with increased frequency of mind wandering? Can we say that mindfulness is a state when no mind wandering is going on? In their publications, Jonathan and his colleagues suggest that mindfulness training might hold potential for reducing mind wandering. So a question is that what kind of mindfulness training can assist us in reducing mind-wandering?