On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 17:42, Costello, Rob R <costello.ro...@edumail.vic.gov.au> wrote: > > 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 was hoping that this decision would be taken at the activity, content and deployment levels and that the Sugar platform itself wouldn't need to take a position that excludes the others. Not about being "agnostic about learning" but about providing a superset of what each approach requires so more people can come play together regardless of their beliefs. Regards, Tomeu > 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 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 > _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep