On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 02:08, Gonzalo Odiard <godi...@gmail.com> wrote: > In the context of Sugar we need a simple way to students to send their work > to the teacher and a simple way to the teacher to group these works, and > follow the progress. > Can we start with it?
You mean something that works without a server such as Moodle? If so, I think we should start by thinking who is going to review and stabilize that work, as we are getting very short of maintainers. Regards, Tomeu > Gonzalo Odiard > > On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Caroline Meeks > <carol...@solutiongrove.com> wrote: >> >> Yama, >> Great vision! >> I break this down into two parts. >> 1. Software that assess students, track and displays results, quickly and >> efficiently without using up a lot of instructional time. >> 2. Software and a content library that analyzes these results and gives >> students the right learning objects/experiences for their current level and >> learning style. >> #1 is straightforward programming. >> #2 is a grand challenge! >> Both 1 and 2 already happen without technology, just substitute "teacher" >> for "software" and adjust the grammer. >> What is interesting is that for a teacher #1 is the difficult, time >> consuming, boring piece that is challenging to do well, especially in large >> classes and #2 is one of the interesting, creative parts of their job. >> >> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Yamandu Ploskonka <yamap...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On 04/21/2010 05:06 PM, Caryl Bigenho wrote: >>> >>> In essence, every child deserves an IEP (Individual Educational Plan) >>> which are expensive and time consuming to develop and thus are reserved for >>> an elite group: the special needs children. Every child has special needs. >>> Every child needs an IEP. But where will the funds, personnel, and >>> curriculum come from to provide it? >>> >>> Caryl >>> >>> Haha! that was to be point number 2, that I somehow forgot and the >>> message went into drafts and I sent it later without checking.... Thanks >>> Caryl, good catch, that was missing >>> >>> so, >>> >>> 2) As per 1) (now below somewhere in the earlier messages), each child >>> and educator is unique. Just like Caryl mentions it, to do an IEP is >>> complicated, expensive, etc, but in essence it is about gathering data and >>> reactions to stimuli from an individual and following certain protocols to >>> interpret them and then act certain interventions that correspond to the >>> said individual. >>> >>> You know what? Computers are grrrreat! at handling data, interpreting it >>> by following algorithms, and then giving an output that corresponds to the >>> inputs entered. In slightly better English, a computer could present >>> certain activities to a child, and from the way the kid responds, determine >>> the course of action to help said kid to learn. And computers don't mind at >>> all to help Johnnie one way, and then help Sally a very different way, >>> keeping strict track of each one, and not just adapting the way things are >>> presented to each child's style of learning (uh, I believe the current >>> buzzword is neural cognition something). Of course this might have a chance >>> if the programmers are not one-size-fits-all lusrs. >>> >>> example: 310 - 220 >>> Right answer is 90, OK, next. >>> >>> but, among the "wrong" answers some do tell us some things. Like someone >>> answered 110. That is not a random error, but something that needs a >>> specific intervention, not just telling the kid he needs to "do more math >>> problems". Another telling error would be 190. Also, some exercises would >>> be presented in audio, others involving putting things in places, etc, >>> trying to figure out what style a kid is best at - then using that style as >>> a good road for learning new stuff, but also a chance to catch up some other >>> styles he is less strong in. >>> >>> Yes yes yes, this involves some AI, something sort of dead after the >>> dot.com bubble. But it could be done - some such computer-based interactive >>> tools already exist for some diagnoses, and also for some therapies, >>> interestingly enough some of the software in use is the same version >>> released in the late 90s... >>> >>> Now for the very best thing: >>> >>> Computers can be immensely patient. >>> >>> They can be immensely customisable. A computer doesn't care if it needs >>> to work slowly-like with Matt, doing good reinforcing with little pink >>> dinosaur dances to keep him interested, and they still are just the same old >>> pile of gray metal, just as good, even if they sit in front of Josh, who >>> might just beat Doogie Howser by graduating UCLA at 8. It just feeds him >>> more stuff faster, thus not just helping him learn, but keeping him out of >>> boredom trouble, and best of all, out of Mrs. Crabby's hair, does she hate >>> show-offs. >>> >>> Is this just a gedankenexperiment? >>> >>> It obviously hurts any chance of getting this to work that my people >>> skills and my grant-application skills are both extra low, because this >>> would need some money to put together a prototype. Unless this hits some >>> wave of viral networking, and this message gets passed on to someone who >>> could fund it... >>> >>> An IEP and made-to-size interventions, for every one, for every single >>> one of those very special, very uniquely created kids, whatever abilities, >>> skills, giftings, interests they have. And also, very important, to help >>> the teacher - not replacing him by any means, but taking away the routine, >>> the drudgery, the need to be a specific fit to every child, letting the >>> teacher focus in human relationship, behavior, communication, while the >>> detail and step by step work is helped by the machine. >>> >>> There. >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: carol...@solutiongrove.com >>> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:00:22 -0400 >>> To: yamap...@gmail.com >>> CC: subb...@gmail.com; iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org >>> Subject: Re: [IAEP] Data vs Critical Thinking - Can Sugar give schools >>> both? >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Yamandu Ploskonka <yamap...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I highly respect you initiatives, Caroline, not just because they start >>> as a basically good idea, but then you do great follow-through that I wish I >>> will learn more from. And this is a great initiative, your email waiting a >>> long time in my inbox because it was so good I wasn't figuring out how to >>> contribute, though I felt I needed to at least share a couple thoughts. >>> >>> Thank you for your kind words :) >>> >>> Something sort of along these lines I have been pursuing pretty much >>> since forever, but in my case it has not passed from being a >>> gedankenexperiment, alas. >>> >>> My reflection goes along these ways >>> >>> 1) each child (and each teacher!) is unique in abilities, giftings, >>> potential and actual skills, learning styles... >>> >>> from this we can infer that "one-size-fits-all" education is not as good >>> - for the child - as education that fits each child's way. >>> >>> one-size-fits-all education is cheaper, >>> >>> The interesting thing is that RTI is actually being implemented as a cost >>> savings measure in the US. In the US schools often identify up to 15% of >>> their students as needing "special education". They are then >>> generally segregated into separate classrooms or pulled out of class into >>> resource rooms where they receive instruction with highly qualified teachers >>> in small class sizes. Lots of money is spent on this but the outcomes for >>> the students are generally extremely poor. In addition, many students with >>> reading problems are not referred until they start failing, often around 3rd >>> or 4th grade. The referal process itself is expensive, involves tests and >>> lots of meetings. >>> With RTI policy makers are hoping to teach more students in their normal >>> classroom and remediate learning problems early, reducing identification of >>> special ed students and reducing costs. Although the results of the studies >>> show that improves performance for all students, cost savings by reducing >>> special ed is a major driver in adoption. >>> >>> >>> seems to work, is the way it is done everywhere... arguments hard to >>> beat, though for generations it was SOP, for those who could afford it, to >>> have tutors to work with their kids one-on-one, something obviously >>> impractical and impossible to scale-up to the needs and the rights we >>> recognize now. >>> >>> enter differentiated instruction, which sadly has meant often some kind >>> of apartheit, where the "A" tier gets attention, funding, the best >>> teachers... >>> >>> Again an interesting cultural difference. In the >>> US differentiated instruction, when its being used to refer to a single >>> classroom, seems to usually mean more attention to the lower performing >>> students. >>> We do definitely also have tracking where students who test high enough >>> go to separate classes and receive more of everything. But that is not what >>> the people here in the US usually call differentiated instruction. >>> >>> >>> It is now SOP that there are "better" schools parents fight to get their >>> kids in. Contrariwise, many classrooms are by design mixed-things and some >>> sort of forced integration has been a fashion for a while, and for a while >>> failing schools got more funding, a trend that took a while to turn around >>> since it was discovered that it encouraged failure. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Your proposal indicates "more intensive instruction" for the "students >>> that are struggling", which is nice, no doubt for those, but maybe unfair to >>> the others. It appears many more "scholar athletes" lately are getting >>> diagnosed for disorders that allow them to use chemicals that otherwise are >>> banned... I am concerned that if the way to get better schooling is to be >>> lower tier, there might be a rush for it. >>> >>> Nod, I agree. I think there is a fundamental dilemma that society and >>> indeed every teacher faces around who gets instructional attention. My hope >>> working with technology is to raise the general level and the amount of >>> resources, I don't imagine that we will ever really eliminate this dilemma. >>> Interestingly I worry about it on the other side in this case. In the >>> kindergarten class I observed the struggling students had an hour of small >>> group phonics lessons. The other students had shorter reading groups and in >>> the rest of the time they played with blocks, math games, used computer >>> software and read. I worry about the struggling students having enough time >>> for exploration and play. >>> To me our goal needs to create technology that provide the best possible >>> experiences for students receiving the intensive instruction and those who >>> are left with more time for individual activities and I think Sugar can >>> absolutely support both. >>> Personally I'm more impressed with the data collection and analysis part >>> of RTI. I the goal I'd like to see us work towards is to sue the data used >>> to give every student instruction right in their zone of proximal >>> development and to make it easy for teachers to find alternative teaching >>> approaches for students who don't respond to the first way something is >>> taught. >>> I do think there is power in learning from research >>> backed pedagogical methods like RTI, especially when >>> they emphasize something like Data which is a good match for technology. >>> However, this is a good conversation because part of RTI is very based in >>> the US public school culture of spending more resources on special ed >>> students. So we need to dissect it and take the pieces that create better >>> learning for all students. >>> Thanks! >>> Caroline >>> >>> >>> >>> On 04/20/2010 09:29 AM, Caroline Meeks wrote: >>> >>> Hi Subbu, >>> Not off topic in my opinion. >>> RTI consists of: >>> 1. Scientific, Research-Based Instruction- Delivered in Tiers, with >>> students who are struggling getting more intensive instruction. >>> 2. Screening of all students. >>> 3. Progress monitoring (about every 2 weeks) for the students getting the >>> more intensive instruction (the 'intervention'). >>> US based discussions of RTI focus on how it effects the pipeline to >>> special education. But in many OLPC contexts I don't think there is a >>> special education to be referred to. I think if kids can't make it in the >>> general classroom they drop out. Thus a system that keeps more kids on >>> track is valuable. >>> Discussions of how to improve instruction is very on topic for RTI. In >>> RTI terms you could think about it in two ways. Are the materials part of a >>> Tier I (all students) instruction or are they for Tier II, for struggling >>> students. The great thing about technology, be it a laptop or a mp4 player, >>> is that it could be used in both ways. The whole class could use it, and we >>> could help teachers match up specific weakness in students with specific >>> learning objects for a Tier II like intervention. >>> I'm focusing a lot on the screening and progress monitoring pieces of RTI >>> because, thanks to huge, long, high stakes tests that teachers don't see >>> results back from for months, assessment has gotten a bad name. >>> RTI assessment is quick and results are immediate, specific and actionable. >>> >>> Yes, on the cell phones/hand helds for doing the assessments. In the US >>> palm pilots are used. I do think setting it up on a cell phone would be far >>> more economical. >>> Thanks for responding. :) >>> Caroline >>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:36 AM, K. K. Subramaniam <subb...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Tuesday 20 April 2010 06:01:33 am Caroline Meeks wrote: >>> > Why can't computers for children both give them the means for creation, >>> > independent learning, collaboration etc etc. and give their teacher >>> > detailed, nuanced, actionable data on what skills they have mastered >>> > and >>> > what they are still struggling with? >>> Computer-centric vocabulary is becoming obsolete today. Talking about >>> computers today is a bit-like talking about DC/Induction motors in our >>> homes. >>> We don't think of mixers, juicers, grinders, washing machines etc as >>> motor >>> machines, do we? Kids don't think of mobile phones as computers. They >>> think >>> of them as phones, cameras, voice recorders, mp3/mp4 players etc. >>> >>> >Problem solvers, groundbreaking pioneers and visionary leaders need to >>> > know >>> >their phonics and their basic math skills. We have the capability to >>> > build >>> >tools that help teachers know and track which students are struggling >>> > with >>> >what skills, and provide the collaborative framework for them to collect >>> >data and share it to determine what works to teach those skills to all >>> >students. >>> Just a few weeks back, I had a discussion with village school teachers >>> about >>> using smart machines to enliven language lessons. The discussion veered >>> around >>> using mini-speakers with mp3 player in classrooms. The players, about 4" >>> cube >>> take in 2GB USB flash, SD card or micro-SD cards and play for 5 hours on >>> a >>> single charge. They cost about $8-$10 here and 2GB card can easily hold >>> about >>> four-five years of language lessons. Neither teachers nor 6-9 year olds >>> think >>> of them as computers. >>> >>> We could also think of using portable mp4 players (for visual lessons) or >>> smartphones (for data collection). These machines don't exclude the use >>> of >>> laptops for authoring lessons and give more options for children to learn >>> languages, math and science. >>> >>> [Apologies if this is OT on a RTI thread] >>> >>> Subbu >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Caroline Meeks >>> Solution Grove >>> carol...@solutiongrove.com >>> >>> 617-500-3488 - Office >>> 505-213-3268 - Fax >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) >>> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org >>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Caroline Meeks >>> Solution Grove >>> carol...@solutiongrove.com >>> >>> 617-500-3488 - Office >>> 505-213-3268 - Fax >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) >>> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org >>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep >> >> >> -- >> Caroline Meeks >> Solution Grove >> carol...@solutiongrove.com >> >> 617-500-3488 - Office >> 505-213-3268 - Fax >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) >> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > > > > -- > Gonzalo Odiard > Responsable de Desarrollo > Sistemas Australes > > > _______________________________________________ > 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