Hi Tony
1. Most interesting learnable fields have numerous aspects, and many of these
require various kinds of skill learning.
The Kokorowski stuff could possibly be of great help in one part of the larger
picture. For example, very composer and artist does problem solving, but the
center of their arts is not problem solving. Yet, learning how to deal with
problems within an art is an important part of the larger picture.
Similarly, most forms of instrumental music playing require "chops" (technique)
to be developed, and this requires an enormous amount of drill and practicing
(and computers these days can provide very helpful tools here). But as Francois
Couperin said in his book about learning to play the harpsichord "I would
rather be moved than amazed" -- in other words, musical performance is not
primarily about chops.
The big difficulty in many "educational" schemes, particularly in a pragmatic
society in a pragmatic age is that the lesser is substituted for the greater
and the greater is redefined to be the lesser.
2. But, I also believe that educational technologies like the OLPC must have a
new kind of "mentoring user interface" which is "better than no teacher and
better than a bad teacher" (and as much better than these as possible). This
has been a 50 year dream and goal (since McCarthy's "Advice Taker" proposal),
and it is philisophically possible to achieve (pragmatically, on the scale of
Kennedy's "putting a man on the moon within the next decade" goal of the 60s).
In other words, "the Dynabook which can help its user learn what is needed" is
likely the only reasonable way to scale and distribute the educational quality
of experience that the billions of children in the world need.
And, this is another example in which the all too human tendency to claim
victory before achieving it will be an immense problem in really doing the job
well enough.
Cheers,
Alan
________________________________
From: "fors...@ozonline.com.au" <fors...@ozonline.com.au>
To: Alan Kay <alan.n...@yahoo.com>
Cc: gregsmit...@gmail.com; iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 9:37:47 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [IAEP] Comments on David Kokorowski, David Pritchard and
''Mastering'' Educational SW
I share Alan and Edward's concern that we are selling kids short, if physics
education is all about just getting the 'right' answers but want to break down
the question posed by Greg into some sub-questions:
1)Despite the limitations of education which focuses on getting the 'right'
answers, more structured or formulaic instruction may still have a place in
education.
2)If (1) is accepted, is there a useful role for programmed instruction by
intelligent tutors?
3)If (2) is accepted, can intelligent tutors give feedback by Socratic
questioning?
4)If (3) is accepted, what are the implications for the Sugar OS?
1) There is good evidence that more traditional education which focuses on
getting the 'right' answers to rather repetitive application of principles
learnt in worked examples, results in knowledge which is inert, which cannot be
used in real world situations. Real world problems are ill defined, multi
disciplinary, with poorly defined goals and multiple or no solutions. Rote
learning of standard solutions does little to advance real problem solving
skills.
If real world problem solving is accepted as the goal, this 'higher order
thinking' still requires a repertoire of basic skills including numeracy and
literacy. These basic skills may be best taught by traditional rote methods.
Arguably Newtonian mechanics could be included in this basic skill set.
2) Programmed instruction depends on how smart the intelligent tutor is.
Masteringphysics claims that through extensive trials, common misconceptions
have been identified and the intelligent tutor can react appropriately. Given
the millions of ways that it is possible to misunderstand, I retain mild
scepticism about their claims but am prepared to accept them for the moment.
3) Socratic questioning exposes inconsistencies in a learner's understanding or
mental model: “If you believe A then B flows as a consequence, but B is
inconsistent. Do you still believe A?” A good method of 1:1 tutoring, but is
the intelligent tutor really smart enough to get into the learner's head space
and expose the inconsistencies of their mental model?
4) Should something like Masteringphysics be reproduced in Sugar? Given the
immensity in doing the task well, I think no. Hopefully, if we wait, somebody
will produce similar materials on the net which are in the public domain. Sugar
then would need reliable network access, a compatible browser and the ability
to display multimedia. These issues have already been identified as Sugar
priorities.
Does Sugar offer the opportunity to do this stuff in a better or different way?
I see 2 features of the Sugar environment which make it different and
potentially better, to accessing web based materials with other OS's.
It is potentially reprogrammable by the student. Something like
Masteringphysic's intelligent tutor could be reprogrammed by students.
Unfortunately there is usually a disconnect between the programming skills and
the physics skills. That is, to reprogram a physics sim suitable for year 9
physics requires year 12 programming skills.
Collaboration is built in. Collaboration is not new in IT education. Forums,
blogs, wikis, Moodle all facilitate collaboration. Sugar just takes it a little
further by allowing easy collaboration at the activity level. It facilitates
peer tutoring, which I see mainly as an alternative to intelligent tutors, but
maybe there are synergies that I an missing.
Tony
_______________________________________________
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
