Hilaire Fernandes a écrit : > Hello, > > To start on that, what about simply listing for each teaching domain the > most important need, then evaluate what we have in the community? > > As a maths teacher I can tell in this domain, for secondary education: > > -spreadsheet (calc, gnumeric), > -interactive geometry (drgeo,kig) > -cas (maxima - better used from texmacs) > -text editing (openoffice,texmacs) > -plotting (geg -we've i18n it-, kmplot)
as a physics teacher I can add xmgrace (easy to interface with experimental data sources). I've i18ed it too. best regards, Georges. > -3D geometry (nothing yet) > > > If necessary, I can have a closer look for primary school ones as well. > > Although proceeding that way is not that perfect (as it does not look at > innovative software not used yet) it helps to get some categories of > software teachers are waiting for. > > Hilaire > > Jane Weideman a écrit : > > Hello Edubuntu Listers. > > > > I have found myself in the rare position of having time to go through > > some of the old post on the lists to see if they have been addressed > > adequately, and I cam across this message from the Flint. > > > > I do think the application evaluation process remains critical, and > > while we have to make some autocratic (while trying to be as democratic > > as time allows) selection for edubuntu 1.0, obviously we want to and > > will need a more refined and defined process for handling this in > > future. > > > > Your input on the matter will be appreciated. > > > > On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 08:38 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >>... moving forward with the Edubuntu > >> > >>>release for October. We need to start looking at the various packages > >>>available and evaluating them, as well as classifying them in 3-4 > >>>categories such as Junior Primary (6-8), Senior Primary (9-11), Junior > >>>High (12-14) and Senior High (15-17) etc. > >>> > >> > >>This process of evaluation is critical. As a member of the Arlington > >>County Public Schools Advisory Council on Instructional Technology, (ACI- > >>Tech) this is the most discussed need for the educational change agent. > >> > >>My own feeling is that rather than looking for packages and evaluating > >>them, it would be wiser and more effective to build a mechanism that > >>allows all the educators out there to evaluate packages and our job > >>becomes tabulating and displaying the evaluations. This is a paramount > >>importance to the educational community, basically because all they really > >>do is to evaluate, it is the stuff of their daily lives (ever get a bad > >>grade? :^). Essentially, no evaluation methodology, no edubuntu. > >> > >>What we may need is a mechanism similar to what has been built to evaluate > >>installs. I talked some about this and I feel that this evaluation > >>capability should be somewhat user intrusive, but should allow three > >>general goals: > >> > >>1. You can tell it to buzz-off and you never see it again. > >>2. You can tell it what you think on a casual user basis. > >>3. You can get seriously medieval. > >> > >>The result can be a successful evaluation which is communicated in the > >>same way as the install evaluations. The same mechanism is used (actually > >>re-used :^), to get this information back to the evaluation process which > >>in turn updates the evaluation web site (and yadda-yadda). > >> > > > > > >>Kindest Regards, > >> > >>Paul Flint > > > > > > -- > http://www.ofset.org/petition > Pétition de soutien au développement > de logiciels libres pour l'éducation. > > > -- > edubuntu-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/edubuntu-devel > -- Georges KHAZNADAR et Jocelyne FOURNIER 22 rue des mouettes, 59240 Dunkerque France. Téléphone +33 (0)3 28 29 17 70
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- edubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/edubuntu-devel
