Pure Reason Inspiration!

[hyperborean]

I've been working on this paper for my Teaching Profession class this morning, and so far I've only just now finished the introduction... but it's a good introduction. And it was inspired by Pure Reason Revolution, by i. He Tried to Show Them Magic / ii. Ambassador's Return / iii. Asleep in Eidertown. Here you go, if you wish to see:

No Fear: Q-Learning in the tunnel of POMDP

“Nothing succeeds in which high spirits play no part. …such a destiny of a task compels one every instant to run out into the sunshine so as to shake off a seriousness grown all too oppressive.” – Frederick Nietzsche

What is success for the spirited student? Is it responsibility, like sport, for the goal of success to supercede the reward? Such responsibility, such seriousness is guaranteed indeed, designed to match a loser to every winner in contest; as such, it is a zero-sum success. And I find it hard to see that sort of success a realm of high spirits. Although one need not look that deep as the answer isn’t buried in the deep. Success? – it’s not even to be found in the shallows.* It is right on the surface, face to face, “Nothing succeeds in which high spirits play no part,” brings to mind some idea of success in which high spirits are at play. Then the kind of success one might feel some responsibility for, is therefore a spirit that, “compels one every instant to run out into the sunshine…” Before I examine the interplay of these thoughts on the responsibility of educators and the success of students in a modern article, I would like to continue this examination of spirit in the form of a short parable:

Ultimately he was found outside. On every sunny day he was caught there, just walking around the sunlit schoolyard, far from where class was held. We wondered: what was this student going to learn out there? Nothing, we feared. Nothing to raise his grades, and that would make it harder for him to be incorporated back inside the classroom. The entire faculty was aware; that out there all the student would learn was not to look directly at the sun. This they feared because we saw him do just that, appearing to focus on just that section of the sky. And as decision makers, we knew, we must provide the student a better way.

Hence with the intention of bringing his attention back to where class was held, we gave him detention. All day he sat, while the sun shown brightly outside was just beyond the blinds. In detention, we are sure; he was waiting for someone to turn off the lights, so he could go outside and be with the bright blue sky. Surely, that was not his responsibility, and we are responsible to this day to make that lesson quite clear. No one asked him why he was out there in the first place, because his irresponsibility is in esse the causa sui of his action. He was never meant to be out there in the first place, and that day, in the dim detention center he was shown the light.

The last proof of his existence was this evidence, on a piece of paper that fell from his desk as he left, he wrote, “What am I doing here?” Fellow students and friends say that later, the student would be at home and in bed – a restless night for such a patient knight. He must have dreamt of alienation, awfully worried. Was he no longer wanted at school? And no longer given respite at home? Despite this worry, our patience had past. Today just as that night, we can confirm that where his actions converged with the conviction to escape from class, as it happened so many times, our policy was thus; to provide indefinite detention until the students’ attention was turned back where class was held.

That morning a ransom note was given and received by a secretary in a sad state. Her mourning had explained one of the students had been taken away, stolen, and the only demand was that, “…all payment being made to the principal will be given to the students in stead, that payment to the principle is to be shared, all in all.” Spoken word of the stolen student spread like creeping fire, intense and in control of the attention of the whole student body. And without rest from this consumptive, it was too soon that other students who were being given detention were also going missing, leaving similar notes, yet none knew who was responsible. We decided whoever demanded such a strange reward for ransom could not be serious. Despite this, the students were nevertheless absent indefinitely. The danger was apparent, a parent threatened to take her child to another school. What were we to do? Where would we go, to be safe from this nightmare? We gathered far from the sun, where the solution could attract our attention; it was deep in the complex apparatus of the problem.

So, on we went underground! To hold all classes in the tunnel underground that connected the grade school to the middle to the high school. It was perfect: the same standard was incorporated throughout the whole environment; the student body was no longer separated by inconsistent and unmanageable affairs of various competing members. Teachers were given spotlights to direct their classes, in the dark down there. Their responsibility was never clearer; like the predominance of cornea that protects the eye, even as the iris takes a new shape when it has to narrow or widen the pupil, to allow enough light to travel through to form an image in the retina. The teachers could teach what was needed to be taught without interference. And the students would perform exactly as they needed to match the standards at best.

Now no student would be able to get up and walk away in the middle of class, no one would be taken away by the everlasting gaze of the Sun outside on a picturesque day. Not one student was replaced by a ransom note this way, and so on. Soon the student body became accustomed to their new environment, attuned to the tunnel. The student body was daily lined up against the wall, with spotlights shined on them, so they could always study their shadows and learn from their mistakes. The student body learned to perform well this way. No one questioned, “What am I doing here?” anymore. And soon the ransom nightmare was over. Success was destined for us, finally. The decision makers never had to punish anyone ever again, for no one - not even the slower learning members of the student body who were given their appropriate place in the tunnel – for no one was out of place. It was just the way they learned from now on; in the tunnel, where class was held indefinitely.

[the dark fourth]

I like this story. It has cool imagery. And the style is nice and concise, as if it's merely explaining the surreal events....I can't really see the link with PRR but it has the same kind of tone. Dreamy. What does Q-learning mean? And what's POMDP?

[hyperborean]

Apr 9, 2008 16:41:56 GMT the dark fourth said:

What does Q-learning mean? And what's POMDP?

It's a long story, one that I'm learning as I write.

But... Q-learning is simply an, "array (Q) of learning" or - a learning environment. And POMDP is a "Partially Observable Markov Decision Process."

Which, I believe is the flaw in the "policy iteration" of a new set of rules being incorporated by a school near where I live; and that flaw results in, not a Markov Decision Process, but a Markov Chain - which invalidates the Q-learning environment with an unjustified "value iteration."

...this is really complex, I'm not sure you'll be able to understand until I write the rest of the paper - but it's not due till next week, so it probably won't be done until then.

[the dark fourth]

Wow, I never knew you could have a science of teaching...so who's Markov?

[hyperborean]

haha... you never knew there was a science of teaching? well... there isn't really - I'm kinda making this up as I go. but this is where I got started: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_process

[hyperborean]

The key here to making this up as I go, is that I'm totally unafraid of using things entirely out of context... basically building meta-metaphors and hoping it all makes sense in the end.

[hyperborean]

FINAL DRAFT - FIRST HALF:

“Nothing succeeds in which high spirits play no part. …such a destiny of a task compels one every instant to run out into the sunshine so as to shake off a seriousness grown all too oppressive.” – Frederick Nietzsche (Nietzsche, 2003, p.31)

What is success for the spirited student? Is it responsibility, like sport, for the goal of success to supercede the reward? Such responsibility, such seriousness is guaranteed indeed, designed to match a loser to every winner in contest; this is a zero-sum success. And I find it hard to see that sort of success encouraged in a realm of high spirits. Success – why look so deep? After all it’s not even to be found in the shallows. It is right on the surface, face to face. “Nothing succeeds in which high spirits play no part,” brings to mind some idea of success in which high spirits will be in play. As the success one might feel some responsibility for may be born of a spirit that, “compels one every instant to run out into the sunshine…”, some sense of responsibility can be derived from such a successful sprit. Success in this spirit yeilds at least a compulsion to act, being encouragement for the spirited student. Before I analyze the interplay of these thoughts on the responsibility of educators and the success of students, I would like to continue this examination of spirit in the form of a short parable.

Part I: Apprentice Of The Universe

Ultimately he was found outside. On every sunny day he was caught there, just walking around the sunlit schoolyard; far from where class was held. We wondered: what was this student going to learn out there? Nothing, we feared. We knew, nothing outside the classroom would raise his grades. The entire faculty was aware of this one thing; out there, all the student would learn was not to stare at the Sun. And so their logic was, the longer his eyes adjusted to the brightness, the harder it became for him to become incorporated back into the classroom.

Therefore within the intention of bringing his attention back to school, we focused our policy on detention. There for the responsibilities he learned, all day he sat; far from where class was held. Feeling life go outside, he waited. We watched him learning while the Sun shown brightly, just beyond the blinds. In detention, we were sure that he was waiting patiently for someone to turn off the lights, so he could go outside and be with the last remaining light. Surely he knew that was not his responsibility, so he must have learned it would be his reward.

No one wondered why he was outside in the first place, because the value of our policy was already in place. Out Latin teacher told us the student’s actions “were in esse the causa sui of his irresponsible state of mind.” That spirited student was never meant to be out there in the first place, and that day, in the dim detention center he was shown the light. Yet, what follows…?

Part II: Universe Of The Apprentice

Despite our best decisions and intention craft, ultimately he was dispirited as a delinquent he left us. The last proof of his existence was this evidence, written on a post-detention evaluation form, all he wrote was: “What am I doing here?” Fellow students, friends, and family members would say that later that day his head would rest on his pillow, “…surely he must have learned his lesson by then.” Tragically he was to be at home for the very last time. “What a restless night for a patient knight,” became a common consolation phrase. Our guidance counselor would reflect when he was interviewed in private: that student must have dreamt of alienation that night, with fear for when class was held again. We were awfully worried; such seriousness could supercede our success as decision makers of the detention policy.

What happened? That morning a ransom note was received by a secretary in a sad state. Her mourning had explained one of the students had been stolen from us essentially. He had become a hostage and the only demand that would have freed him presented a problem. His ransom said, “…that the payment being made to the Principal must be given to the students in stead. All payment to the principle will be given back, all in all.” Spoken word of the hostage situation spread like creeping fire, intense as it had ignited the interest of the whole student body. We were left without rest from this consumptive disease. Other students who had been held in detention began to go missing; when class was held again. One by one, they went missing and the same ransom note kept appearing.

The danger was apparent, a parent threatened to take her child to another school. No one knew who was responsible, yet we held onto the policy of detention. If our policy happened to change, then we had to admit our responsibility to maintain it was defeated. Surely that is what the ransom note really meant. So we gathered far from the Sun, to re-evaluate our values. The hypothesis to solve the hostage situation was thus: without a Cesaro Summation we could never attract the attention of the parent/student body to an attractive solution. Even though we were still working on a solution, that Cesaro Summation would cast a spell, which would distract them long enough for us to bury the problem.

The Article

Now is the time to interrupt this poor parable in order to explain the conflict that preceded it. That conflict lies in the constant tension between an individual students’ learning experience and the considerable pressure from a school’s policy that is directed towards the whole student body. I read that much into the following headline published on the front page of the April 4th, 2008 issue of the New York Times, School’s New Rule For Pupils In Trouble: No Fun. (Hu, 2008, p.1)

This is a colossal conflict rooted under a complex construct, although it seems daunting, it is possible to grasp it if one holds onto it with a magnificent spirit. So with the cache of the following devices, one may be able to reflect on these broken pieces and find some peace of mind. Therefore in the shadow of the resurrected colossus, under the warmth of the Sun: the brilliant bright introduction of a meta-metaphor; arriving at an analysis of the tangled web of sociological and psychological roots threaded through the article; finally some clarity may be found within a logical deconstruction, or, disentanglement of the conflict in No Fun by adapting a “mathematical framework for modeling decision-making in situations where outcomes are partly random and partly under the control of the decision maker.” (Wikipedia.org, 2008)

Now to take this examination of the successful spirit into the realm of the delinquent student as it is extrapolated from the New York Times article. In No Fun, a Cheektowaga, NY Middle School is the subject of a new school policy, which I will refer to as the “No Fun” policy. What has happened? The school has adopted a set of new rules applied to all its students in order to curb disrespect and raise grades. The controversy is that none of these new rules have been proven or at least shown to be effective, and it is the theory of various members of the academic community interviewed in the article that these new rules might actually have a negative effect on the students.

Back to the spirit of the delinquent student, which is seen as the catalyst for the implementation of “No Fun” across the school board. I would claim that even as it seems to be on the outside of the policy iteration, it still desires value. In essence one wants to be included in the community even though one is marked as delinquent. Yet the Cheektowaga Middle school has provided us with a bouncer to keep the delinquent member of its culture far from the grave and, it might as well be assumed, eternal rest of the student body. At this point I am inclined to ask, “Which is the delinquent, the dispirited student or the Cheektowaga School?”

I am calling to attention the supposed responsibility of the school to maintain a positive learning environment for its students. As I am sure that the “No Fun” policy is, if not creating a negative impact, suspect. The suspicion arose from the use of abnormally harsh rules to alter the generally accepted learning environment with little to no proof of the validity of the policy.

And so it began: “Like a bouncer at a nightclub, Melissa Gladwell was parked at the main entrance of Cheektowaga Central Middle School on Friday night, with a list of 150 names highlighted in yellow marker, the names of students barred from the after-hours games, crafts and ice cream because of poor grades or bad attitudes.” (Hu, 2008, p.1) The article presents a great polarity between decision makers and the learning environment they are responsible to provide. The first point that strikes me as crucial to this conflict is that we are talking about a Middle School. These students are at a point in their development where they are forming the most solid personal perception of the world they live in. Thus I would suggest more nurture and care here, than the harsh and impersonal “No Fun” policy seems to be able to afford.

There is therefore another great point in polarity: what of maturity? I think the role of the faculty in the school should be encouraging more than punishing. The school’s policy of “No Fun” should be reversed. To require more after school activity in the school community as in sports, math, science, and poetry clubs for students who have bad attitudes and low grades. It is that disparity, or, that lack of insight in the school’s decision makers that had caught my alarm.

So there is a competition - leaving a colossal remnant of this conflict in its dust - of two equally immature groups, the policy makers, or, decision makers and the students. Yet such a colossal conflict might require a more subtle touch before I fully excavate it. It looks to me like the colossus, like the wolf in the fable of the “3 Little Pigs”, becomes buried in the rubble of the houses that the pigs keep building. The administration of the school reminds me of the Little Pigs, all bothered by a wolf at the door. Yet poor, poor students, perceived as the wolf, as the antagonist in this story, are looking for some shelter. Although they may me marked as delinquent, they do deserve the opportunity for improvement.

On the other hand, one might look at these delinquent students, as the real Little Pigs instead – rebuilding their homes every time the wolf comes by and huffs, and puffs, and blows all their progress down. Ah – but they are delinquents/deviants! What good have they done so far? I’d support this other hand by claiming that the troubled students have come from an environment that might not encourage the same values that their school is supposed to encourage. And even when the school refuses to encourage them, they still come wanting to be included in the community. They are inevitably spirited, even though their spirits may not match up to the standardized test of the policy at work.

But all of this competition might as well take place at the end of the universe; since no positive results have as of yet been reported. Although, if this scene were taking place at the end of the universe, it is theoretically possible that the Little Pigs would be able to look up from the grass and glass ruble of their shattered progress, and see 3 other Little Pigs in a parallel universe looking back at them. It would be the meeting place of the decision makers and the students in the learning environment at the nexus of the crisis! In that I have read the article in the New York Times and will try not to simply recapitulate it, I believe that we, the readership, are given passage through the material catalyst of the article to that so called nexus at the end of the universe. Even though I have come to a solution to the crisis of the conflicted policy, my answer will not likely reach the end of the universe pictured above for quite some time. So it seems reasonable to visit the story still in progress and follow it to its incorporated convergence.

Part III: The Dark Third

So, on we went underground! To hold all classes in the tunnel that connected the grade school to the middle to the high school and so on. Soon the same standard was incorporated throughout the whole array of the learning environment. The student body was no longer separated by the unmanaged affairs of various faculty members. In the dark third there is a circular tunnel underground, a panopticon; where classes are held. We gave the faculty a spotlight to direct the student body in the tunnel.

Our responsibility was covered, to cast the shadow of the student body in a bathing glow of the spotlight. This new policy of surveillance reigned down there. Like the predominance of cornea that protects the eye, even as the iris takes a new shape when it has to narrow or widen the pupil, to allow enough light to travel through to form an image in the retina; any dust bounced off is easily swept away. The pupils were successfully protected, and they would follow the spotlights from one end to the other in that fashion, always seeing the light at the end of the tunnel!

That is how our values changed from teaching responsibility to protecting the pupils from changing degrees of light: to constantly keep them in perpetual commotion where classes are held. The faculty could now teach to the test without interference. At least our student body is guaranteed to perform, to match our standards at best. Only now there is time to reflect. We were told it couldn’t be done, and then we got funding to do it. We drew the blinds to protect your eyes, from the everlasting gaze of the Sun outside. Dig. …You told us, you dreamed too much to dream that night. Dig. Then we woke you, and told you, “If only in a dream, you could tell the difference between teacher and student.” Dig. Guru, you thought you could fool us. So you asked us, “The test falls to decision makers, not dungeon masters?” We told you there was a difference, while we were digging your grave the panopticon was hollowed.

[hyperborean]

So I just got this back the other day. The final draft is edited or altered a bit from what I've posted so far of the first third, but you get the general idea. So - after spending the first half of class yelling at my class about A.P.A. errors in citations, my teacher gave me back my paper with a perfect score - despite the fact that it had numerous in-text citation errors (I didn't know you were supposed to use the article title for the in-text citation when you include info from an anonymous article from the internet.)

My theory - is that I totally mystified my Prof. with the creative writing aspect of it. She sat down with me after class and explained that she had to wait until all the other papers were graded to read mine, because it seemed to strike some resonant or relevant chord in her. She said it kept her up that night, "like a Harry Potter book." (this is a Intro To Teaching Profession teacher, not an English or Lit. teacher - so I had to forgive the reference to Harry Potter.) And so, I think I finally succeeded in writing an academic paper so captivating that it didn't end up censored and graded poorly because it didn't follow a standard formatting rubric. That's been my goal for a while; because people in the past have tended to say I go on too many tangents or get too verbose, and I think my grades suffer because of my unconventional style.

[the dark fourth]

A triumph for Pure Reason Inspiration, I would say! Nice!