Necker Cubes and Rhomboids
This is a Necker cube:
It’s an example of shifting perspectives. You can push the front of the cube to the back, move the back to the front, and even flatten it into a six-sided, two-dimensional shape. You can feel your brain shifting its focus as you do this — a kind of gestalt click as the perspectives snap into place.
Shading the cube makes this clearer:
Since we’re focusing on our use of metaphors lately, let’s use the Necker cube to discuss perspective, optics, and in-class focus1.
In-class focus remains the most powerful predictor of your eventual success. Notice how much it’s interwoven throughout these posts:
Note the dates of publication for these, too. Every month or so, you’ve gotten an interstitial lecture — the equivalent of a chapter in a textbook or an actual, in-class lecture, as you no doubt know — that clarifies and explicates the need to stay focused in class.
An Important Reminder of How You Receive Instruction
Every post is a lesson unto itself. This one, for instance, is mostly concerned with an update to the “Rubicon protocol” that tracks your in-class focus, but it also links back to important class updates while teaching you about perception and optics.
The depth of this course lies in interstitial teaching. That’s how we weaponize your class time: by arming you with a dozen different kinds of instruction before you walk in the door.
If you aren’t reading carefully, you miss out on that chance. You won’t understand what we’re doing, why we’re doing it, or how it helps you. It’s a self-inflicted wound, but that’s not the point; the point is to treat the wound before you bleed out.
Back to the less violent metaphor of Necker cubes:
A Shift in Rubicon Scores
In the most recent update to the course, I explained what the numbers in Infinite Campus mean. Now I’m shifting that online feedback in a small but significant way. It’s a shift in perspective only, like the shift of a Necker cube’s front and back.
What you’ll find now are assignments linked to each GAP panel. They will be named, for example, “Crossing the Rubicon: Q3A.” These assignments have had every parameter set to zero: zero points available, zero weighting, etc., and they aren’t factored into your averages at all.
Every “point” in this category indicates one of the unacceptable choices outlined in this guide. That occasionally ironic list, again:
- doing homework for another class
- playing games
- sending text messages
- watching videos
- sleeping
- rappelling down the side of the building and escaping into the woods
- gossiping
- complaining
- gazing too long into the abyss
- checking social media accounts
Last quarter, each Rubicon “point” reflected a single period during which you made a choice like these. The shift in perspective is this: You can now receive a “point” multiple times during each class period. Think of it as pro re nata, or PRN, which means “on demand.” These are PRN Rubicon tallies.
As an example, imagine that you are given the makerspace for the period, and you can choose between three separate course assignments: reading a book, writing an essay, or analyzing recent test prep. You work on the essay, but you get distracted by text messages for five minutes in the middle of the period. That ought to be tallied up as a Rubicon “point,” right?
But it can’t be treated exactly like the student who was sitting next to you, since she decided to do homework for another class for the entire period, including a trip to the iLC to pick up a printed copy. That has to yield more “points” than your (admittedly avoidable) lapse.
As another example, imagine that it takes you five minutes to settle down and begin a timed assignment that requires 40 minutes to complete. That’s a lapse in assiduousness, and it ought to be noted. It affects your learning. It’s not equivalent, however, to the student who stops every five minutes to gossip during the timed writing, effectively ruining the essay as a representation of her best efforts.
What this means is that the online grade book will reflect point values above a zero, indicating the frequency and severity of your lapses. We’ll try that for a GAP panel or two, see if it motivates you differently, and discuss other options.
As you accumulate “points” for this Rubicon tally, you can always sit with me during a free period and go over what you’re doing wrong. It should be obvious, though, and that brings us back to Necker:
It’s actually not about perspective. It’s not, at least, as subtle as pushing the front of a cube back and forth. There’s no optical illusion at all. When I note that you’ve crossed the Rubicon, it could be for any number of obviously inappropriate decision. You’re one of those cubes, or some variation thereof; but you’re obviously, irrefutably some kind of Necker-like shape.
The metaphor’s getting away from me, so to put it plainly: If you don’t want “points” for doing the wrong thing, don’t do the wrong thing. There are multiple perspectives on every choice you make, and I’ll always err on your side. I’ll always try to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you accumulate “points” (which I keep putting in quotation marks, hoping to find a better noun; this whole operant-conditioning thing makes my skin crawl), it means you were obviously and irrefutably doing the wrong thing.
That’s the feedback. Numbers in that column online indicate that you need to refocus. Make that in-class focus a strength, and you’ll see greater success overall. Remember to read this poster:
It’s the poster by our door. You can’t miss it.
Focus on in-class focus. And, as necessary, stop making excuses for your lack of self-control.
I actually prefer the original version of the cube, which is the Necker rhomboid on the right of this image:
I hadn’t heard of it until I looked through the notes section of the New World Encyclopedia entry on Necker cubes, which is the first link in this post. The lesson, as always, is to train yourself to click on links and follow ramiform paths to new information. That encyclopedia’s next entry, for instance, gives us an even better metaphor for what we do, although it isn’t one I’d advertise too much. ↩
I really like this whole concept because as you had said it is a way to motivate yourself. It is a reminder that if you are off task it will be recorded and that number isn’t something you can hide from. It will give you something to learn from and a reason to try harder and to become more aware of the choices you are making on a daily basis. Although you may not realize yourself that you are off task someone is noticing it and it could be affecting others. One thing I really like about reading these posts is that there is always something to take away from them or something to learn whether it is a new word or a brand new concept there is always something. It is also interesting when reading these posts to think about the different traits we use in class and see how they are shown throughout these posts and how to incorporate them more often into your life.
The “points” are a great system to motivate people and keep students on task. It is super simple, because if you are doing something wrong, you get a point. If you don’t want a point, don’t do something wrong. The new way of doing it, with the chance of getting multiple points in a period instead of just one point a period, is an interesting change. I think it will motivate students differently, since if they are off task a whole period they could get three points off, a big change from the one point they would have gotten off last quarter. Hopefully this will motivate students more moving forward, maybe to the point where the “point system” won’t be needed to inspire students to work hard and excel in this class.
With timed writing being the heavy focus of this week, it’s so important that we learn how to not get distracted for periods of 40 minutes, because there isn’t time for that on the AP. Unfortunately, we need to be able to sit through a three-hour test with only a short break and be completely focused the entire time to not fall behind. Sometimes being focused the whole time will still leave some of us behind, because there is no time or room to think. The point system, especially now that we can get multiple points in just one period, I think will really help us realize how off-focus we truly are or aren’t, so then we can proceed to either working on not getting any points or maintaining that consistent focus.
I agree. There’s absolutely no time to lose focus on the AP, so it’s good to practice staying on task now. In the real world, you can’t lose focus at work, while watching children, etc. so it’s imperative that we learn how to keep focus now. Practicing staying on task is a skill that we will need and use for the rest of our lives. We can’t shy away from it; instead we have to learn how to master it. Being that we live in a world with so many distractions (the number one distraction probably being cellphones and technology) it’s important that we know how to keep focus and resist the temptation of giving into distractions. The makerspace is a great place to learn how to keep focus before losing focus could lead to huge consequences in the real world, like losing your job or someone getting hurt.
I think this system is actually a privilege that most students will find annoyance in. When I first read about the new system, I was initially slightly aggravated because I felt like every class period would be like judgement day. However, I thought about it for a bit longer and realized that when we aren’t doing the right thing in class, Mr. Eure notices- regardless of the Rubicon score system. Either way, he is going to see us doing the wrong thing and make note of it in his memory. With the Rubicon points, he is actually letting us know if we are continuously off track during class or not. This gives us a chance to fix our issues before GAP time comes. It is a blessing in disguise. Without the scores, some students might continue behaving poorly and then their GAP score will reflect that. The Rubicon points are not added into our grade, and therefore have no effect on the GAP score (as long as you fix your class productivity after receiving points).
I think that the necker cube is a completely applicable metaphor for this topic. The necker cube displays the human brain’s ability to interpret something in multiple ways. You can see the cube facing downwards as well as upwards, and even as a two-dimensional figure. Since we can see this one object from numerous points of view, it makes for a relevant metaphor regarding the Rubicon. We have grown accustomed to the fact that the maximum number of points that can be lost in a period is one, despite how many infringements there were. Getting used to the new rule of being accounted for each violation is like changing your view of the necker cube’s orientation. The Rubicon is still the same concept, we’re just going to have to be more focused during class time.
I agree with everyone else, that the point system is an effective way of keeping students on task and focused. However I feel there can be some downfalls with it, whereas it isn’t reprimanded and it is just recorded. This can cause for misunderstandings, and give us inaccurate feedback. For example, sometimes I am on my phone for a majority of the period. However this is not me being off task, it is simply for my Pareto project where I need an app that is not available on chromebooks. From afar, it looks as if I am texting and being unproductive when I am actually just doing my work and putting in the same amount of focus I would if I was on my computer. Now I do understand that this situation is rare, and that normally when kids are on their phone it is not for homework. However it is something I do a lot, rather its to study the notes written on my phone or simply check the reminders from the google classroom app. I just think this idea should be given some thought, that just observation and what we see can be misleading. If I were to get reprimanded for being on my phone, I would explain and show that I was doing my work and there would be no miscommunication.
This post really helped clarify exactly how this Crossing the Rubicon system works. After we received our most recent score, everyone in my class, including was, were very confused. I sit with three other people, and we all received a wide range of varying scores. This confused me because anytime we have been off task has been when we all are talking together, so we should have the same amount of points. Other students were confused about this same thing. But this post has explained to me that even though students may sit together, all of the little things that each student independently does goes into this score. Every time one of us checked out phones, took a long time to settle in, stared into space, etc. gave that one person a point. Not the whole table, because not everyone was involved in that.
I have to agree completely with Maggie. When we received our most recent scores I was taken back mostly because I didn’t realize how off task I have been. As well as the girls I sit with had different scores. But it doesn’t mean I haven’t been doing my work which I now realize. The points system is really useful because now I can use this as drive to help me stay focussed for 40 minutes and make the most of the makerspace environment. There’s nothing wrong with being distracted every once and awhile, as it happens to everyone. It’s really just a matter of being able to refocus yourself and being aware of how you use each 40 minute work time.
This is a thoughtful response. Thank you for sharing it.
this new style of points is a very good system.It counts the amount of times you were unfocused in class which i think is very god but at the end of the day i think we should know how many points we got off for each day,in that the next day we know to stay on task. A small reward system if you do good and a wake up call if you do bad.