i think Kathy is really on to something here ..taps some things i've been
turning over and thinking of sending to the list
my day job is now working for company that designs educational maths software
i don't have time to do anything much here - for sugar - but i will offer these
observations in the hope they might help - will use maths as example ..probably
applies to greater or lessor extent to other curriculum areas
most teachers that i know want to know that any 'innovation' 'addresses the
curriculum'
i now think its risky to try to push a cool concept that doesn't do that ...new
media has to 'look like' the old media, at least to some extent, for a time,
and then smuggle in some of its new capabilities ...to misquote something Alan
Kay said somewhere ...and he might have quoted it from somewhere
i still think that Papert is a genius and i love his writing, but i have come
to think his approach to constructionism is too polarised ... he seems to think
nothing good can come out of 'school maths' (ie that its procedural learning
based approach amounts to 'feeding kids the menu') and the whole thing should
be redone (eg with a Logo flavour)
thats an appealing thought to people like me ...probably to many here ...since
it seems there is a comparable or greater level of learning and analytical
process in tinkering with more self directed programming, designing your own
models etc, ....
but this won't overturn the inertia in traditional curriculum content
for example i can see no maths curriculum in the world (i've been looking at
lots of them in detail recently) that is doing much more than including a few
references to recursion or iteration...(there was more 'programming' in my year
12 course in 1985)
the crowd i work for are successful because they have done what Kathy describes
- built up a strong sequence of activities that address traditional maths
learning .. now reworking that for different curricula
Bryan Berry in his comments from Nepal also talks about this - the need for
content that clearly addresses the curriculum ...
also a stronger basic framework for planning generic lessons or chunks of
curriculum (so they leaned on moodle and integrated flash ...but he talks of a
html5 / js 'education on rails' sort of template that has 'fill in' sections
for lesson plans, assessment etc)
personally, i tend to baulk at the cookie cutter aspect of this (and it needs
to be customisable or will strike mismatch with local approaches and models)
I would have suggested just going down the scratch / etoys / logo / gamemaker
sort of line if i'd been advising at the time
(and maybe pippy but I couldn't get it to run and the code samples look a bit
complex for beginners) ...-
that is, i would have been more in the 'provide interesting tools and see what
happens' camp - and i now think it would not have got traction...its an
acquired taste that is too unfamiliar to reach critical mass, even if the
devices are physically present
it never did transform my class room either, unless i kept experimenting with
new ways to use and model the tools ...Alan Kay talks of road testing and
refining good lessons with a few teachers over extended periods - thats great .
but you have to face the kids for the rest of the week and year somehow as well
... so something more standard will have to go in there in the meantime while
we all develop the examplar lessons of how etoys can be used to teach science
etc
i see a lot of productive thrashing out of more technical aspects and
communication here (how many on that wiki for example :) - but not much on
which theory of instructional design is really held to, and how it really
influences the design of the software
at the risk of dragging practical developers into a theoretical discussion, i
would suggest sugar needs to more clearly nail down its educational position...
and then some structures like lesson templates .. which will inevitably be
limited in some ways
i know without developers nothing happens .. but without a clear educational
vision it seems to me that the end point development vision may also be unclear
... maybe a group of people with both interests needs to look at that
(probably not me, and yes, possible democracy issue)
ie i don't think the technical agenda in itself cannot lead that discussion ..
letting it just evolve - eg a smorgas board of possible learning objects -
most recently circuits etc - is interesting ...but i think would benefit from a
consistent educational model behind it ...its not much good hanging various
offerings out there suggestively for teachers and kids to use (there are a lot
of examples of governments spending a fortune producing 'learning objects' in
the hope that teachers will sequence them together for kids.. by and large it
has not been a productive path...)
the problem is that those seeking and making these things are not your typical
time pressued teachers - whose IT skills and technical background are not, by
and large, in the same league as developers (and developers do not always have
a feel for the classroom).. relatively few teachers will seek it out if there
is not a series of coherent lessons nearby
[the model of what to make - platform (scratch, etoys, etc) or more limited
demo is also had to pin down - at what level do you extend / adapt / restart ]
these somewhat conserative (modest? balanced?) conclusions are hard lessons for
me ..since i was one of the ones who was still programming in the small hours
when teaching (which is to say the more open ended stuff appeals to me) - and i
always hope that something like geogebra or scratch will bridge the gap between
being easy to customise and flexible in application ...maybe something will
i also fully agree with Kathy that personalisation can mean software
intelligently adapts the sequence of lessons... i've seen that in action as well
i also think the nice open ended stuff needs to be in there...but needs to
function as extension and example and context ... not the main approach for
most kids .. much as i think the approach adds the 'working mathematically'
aspect that all the content needs and supports
have discussed this with Bill before .. and while he doesn't necessarily agree
with my figures (i think does with broad concept), but for the sake of
provoking discussion, i would say 80% of the learning game can be
instructionist sequences of learning
20% can then be the more open ended constructionist approach
my own preferences go the other way, so its against the grain for me to come to
that conclusion ...but i think its a more viable and realistic approach to take
i know traditional curriculum can get suffocating and dry ..but the answer is
not to throw it out or pretend its not a reality that is still there
Bryan says he would aim at 'content first' next time - i can now see the logic
of this
not just access to wikipedia ...but recognisable sequences of lesson materials
for what its worth i also think the curriki.org approach is interesting - lots
of content being donated from everywhere - but my feeling is its going to be a
problem having so much in there without some consistent format or approach..
that is someone needs to pull it together
a work of art has to choose some limitations.. i gather the XO hardware has
done this ... and no doubt the software developers who have laboured heroically
have done so as well... i just think curriculum design needs to be more in the
mix, IMHO
may be wrong ..and discount my view down as i don't think i can input much time
required to significantly contribute to any of this (and my background is not
linux flavoured) ...but i would still suggest considering the view of an
educator looking at ICT enabled learning ..
{i;ve done laptop trials with kids in MS environments as well - and in my view
they can make a difference in enabling a self directed approach to part of the
curriculum (less than 20% of the course in most settings) - but i don't think
in themselvs would much compensate for lack of formal curriculum or teacher
skills (so unless there is a clear matching of content to local needs -
something that looks more like lessons for most kids - i can't see the
educational transformation via the simple provision of the computer.. )..
cheers ..noble vision...reaching kids
rob
--
Kathy Pusztavari kathy at kathyandcalvin.com
<http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep> wrote:
I'm of the direct instruction camp. If skills and concepts are not build
upon each other correctly, you will get kids that either learn a concept
wrong (then they have to unlearn it) or fail and then feel like they are
stupid. Having a kid with autism, I've seen both. Unfortunately, I've seen
both with typical kids or even smart ones under poor teaching practices.
This is especially true for teaching reading - Project Follow Through showed
that direct instruction was by far the most effective in teaching period.
What I'm suggesting is taking effective practices and putting them in a
computer model. Using short videos or whatever (flash like animation) to
teach concepts. I'd love to see students answer questions from the computer
and use open source audio to text to ensure the student is following along
and can at least properly use mathematical (or whatever subject) vocabulary.
Verbal feedback also ensures the student is engaged and not just along for
the ride. All this can be fun, and be presented in a systematic and
sequencial way so as not to lose the student.
By just throwing some skills at the student, that is not called teaching.
You have to design a program or set of programs that can actually teach many
skills and concepts. In other words, maybe have it to where the teacher
actually adds in the curriculum with their sequence into a flat file or
database but the program will take care of presentation due to its
modularity. I'm thinking Typing Turtle, here. With Typing Turtle I can put
in a sequence of teaching keys. I have 30 lessons but have only taught 5
keys. This is broken down for my son. Another kid could learn those 5 keys
in maybe 10 lessons. Right now I would have to re-write the lessons for the
other kid but you see where I am going with this - an amazing and stupendous
program would adjust automatically for each kid - probably via analyzing
thousands of kids.
The books I listed are the "bible" of teaching. No kidding. They can be
used by just about anyone to sequence teaching to ensure you don't skip
steps and lose kids. It should help nerds (what I loving call you guys)
when they program modules. How do you teach a skill or concept when you are
not sure the student has prerequisite skills or knowledge?
-Kathy
Important - This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received in
error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening or using
attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any loss, damage
or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not,
resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files our
liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any
representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender, and
not necessarily those of the Department of Education and Early Childhood
Development.
_______________________________________________
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
