Thank you, Gabriel. I will follow your advice and at least read the
Methodology section before I opinate further on this particular study.
However, it is my personal conviction that even a small, badly reported
study, but based in objective, reproducible methods like the one that
courageous "Inspectora" of yours published right before retirement, is
heaps better any day from even great and expensive studies that are
indirect in the data they focus on. In the former we can make our own
conclusions out of clear cut data. In the latter the data we have,
maybe extremely well measured, is about assumptions, opinions, desires,
and not about facts.
On 05/27/2011 08:20 PM, Gabriel Eirea wrote:
Yama:
There are two parts in the report. The first one (quantitative) is
based on polls performed periodically by a state agency that is very
comprehensive (not limited to technology but covers a lot of
information) and used extensively and routinely for defining policies
in many different areas. The second part (qualitative) is based on
interviews designed specifically for this research project.
Social science is not my area so I can't judge what you can call
"objective" or not. If you mean by "objective" some kind of automated
mechanism for retrieving the data I think you won't find it in this
report. However, you seem to imply that objective data and interviews
are mutually exclusive, that is an incorrect idea.
I wouldn't dismiss the report because of being based on interviews.
Serious studies can be performed if the right methodology is used. All
I can say is that this is an academic study performed by a team of
very competent and experienced researchers and financed by Universidad
de la República, that you know is autonomous and independent from the
government (in particular independent from Ceibal).
You can read the Methodology section that is located right at the
begining, is quite detailed, and would answer all your doubts about
the validity of the results.
Regards,
Gabriel
2011/5/27 Yamaplos .<yamap...@gmail.com>:
Gabriel,
Thank you for pointing us to this document
I downloaded it and gave it a quick skim. At 110 pages, it will be
hard I read in detail, though I wish I had the time. So, please allow
me to cheat and ask you a question. Does this report have *any*
objective data measurement on the use of XOs? (pages? :-))
Or as in most all previous Ceibal 'research',data on actual use of XO
is based only on interviews?
thank you!
Yamandu
2011/5/27, Gabriel Eirea<gei...@gmail.com>:
Hi,
I recommend reading the research report "El Plan Ceibal: Impacto
comunitario e inclusión social (2009 – 2010)" written by a research
group at ObservaTIC, Universidad de la República, Uruguay. This report
provides a serious and independent view of the impact of Plan Ceibal
with a focus on communities and families, but also includes
interesting information about the use of the XO in schools and the
impact on education.
It is written in Spanish and available at:
http://www.observatic.edu.uy/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Informe-Final-CEIBAL-inclusi%C3%B3n-social-Rivoir-Pittaluga.pdf
Regards,
Gabriel
_______________________________________________
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
