Re: [Sugar-devel] versus, not
On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Bill Kerr wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Walter Bender > wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Bill Kerr wrote: >> >> > however, I do think the roll back of enlightenment principles is not >> > well >> > understood (http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/nonUniversals) and >> > that a >> > better understanding might persuade more people of the need to keep >> > searching and struggling for different ways to go against some of the >> > tide >> > of local culture - there is a recent interesting comment thread on mark >> > guzdial's blog which is worth reading from this point of view >> > http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3F4TMBURELZZK >> > >> >> Regarding Guzdial's blog, I am optimistic. While I had always feared >> that "phone culture" would turn us into a society of consumers of >> services that Ma Bell chose for us; but the iPhone and the Android are >> programmable and, while Apple is the iPhone gatekeeper, the meme that >> phones can be programmed is spreading. This is a huge step forward. > > I'd also point out that there are some other great themes in the mark > guzdial comments thread, eg. the difficult question of the need to transcend > a marketing approach (dialogue b/w mark guzdial and alan kay) > > I've recently had some striking experiences from a couple of people - both > huge mac fans - who I thought perversely avoided anything to do with > programming, including visual drag and drop using scratch or even raw HTML > markup > > The Guzdial blog helped me make the connection - that the mac way does in > fact brainwash people to the mentality that everything is perfect, beautiful > and shiny as it comes packaged to you, that there is an app for everything. > > Although I find that most students will accept "simple" challenges such as > scratch programming and become absorbed in them this minority(?) trend does > worry me - Guzdial's blog is pretty much devoted to the theme of how induce > more students into programming in view of the trend to falling enrolments in > programming courses (in Australia too, as well as the USA) > > I then thought of some notes I made a couple of years ago after reading John > Maxwell's history of the dynabook > (http://thinkubator.ccsp.sfu.ca/Dynabook/dissertation): > http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/alanKay+talk > > What sort of user interface is suitable for learning? > > We have become very used to a certain style of user interface, one which is > “user friendly” and which gives us access to the function of the computer. > The user friendly user interface has been designed by experts to not demand > too much of the end user. Some systems take this a step further and actively > discourage the user from becoming curious about how things work under the > hood. > > It is not just a matter of “user friendly”, in itself that is not serious > grounds for complaint. It is the idea of users as users of clearly defined > applications that have been developed by “experts”. In large part this state > of things has arisen through commercialisation. A marketable commodity > requires a clear definition. So proprietary applications are developed as a > black box as an expression of “efficient software engineering”. In this > commercial vision the “personal computer” is not really personal because > most of its interfaces have been standardised which transforms the actors > into docile agents who respond in predictable ways to stimuli. > > “my life belongs to the engineers ... we hesitate to exist” (Latour) > “The self evident state of the art blinds people to other possibilities” > (Andy diSessa) > > If you start from a more philosophical perspective of amplifying human > reach, of computer as a meta medium for expressing the creative spirit then > the attitude to the user is different. The user, as well as being a user, is > also a potential constructionist designer and developer who eventually will > be able to create their own tools. So, the tools for exploring the system > should be powerful and easily accessible. This is one of the features of > Smalltalk. > > The ethic is one of mutability and simplicity. Every component of a system > is open to be explored, investigated, modified and built upon. The tool / > medium distinction is blurred and so is a lot of other false clarity. Rather > than a world of reified “experts”, “engineers”, “designers”, “end-users”, > “miracle workers” and “plain folks” it would be better to blur these > boundaries, particularly for learning environments. > Elliott Soloway summed it up nicely: Learning-centric design should be our goal. -walter -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] versus, not
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Walter Bender wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Bill Kerr wrote: > > however, I do think the roll back of enlightenment principles is not well > > understood (http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/nonUniversals) and > that a > > better understanding might persuade more people of the need to keep > > searching and struggling for different ways to go against some of the > tide > > of local culture - there is a recent interesting comment thread on mark > > guzdial's blog which is worth reading from this point of view > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3F4TMBURELZZK > > > > Regarding Guzdial's blog, I am optimistic. While I had always feared > that "phone culture" would turn us into a society of consumers of > services that Ma Bell chose for us; but the iPhone and the Android are > programmable and, while Apple is the iPhone gatekeeper, the meme that > phones can be programmed is spreading. This is a huge step forward. I'd also point out that there are some other great themes in the mark guzdial comments thread, eg. the difficult question of the need to transcend a marketing approach (dialogue b/w mark guzdial and alan kay) I've recently had some striking experiences from a couple of people - both huge mac fans - who I thought perversely avoided anything to do with programming, including visual drag and drop using scratch or even raw HTML markup The Guzdial blog helped me make the connection - that the mac way does in fact brainwash people to the mentality that everything is perfect, beautiful and shiny as it comes packaged to you, that there is an app for everything. Although I find that most students will accept "simple" challenges such as scratch programming and become absorbed in them this minority(?) trend does worry me - Guzdial's blog is pretty much devoted to the theme of how induce more students into programming in view of the trend to falling enrolments in programming courses (in Australia too, as well as the USA) I then thought of some notes I made a couple of years ago after reading John Maxwell's history of the dynabook ( http://thinkubator.ccsp.sfu.ca/Dynabook/dissertation): http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/alanKay+talk What sort of user interface is suitable for learning? We have become very used to a certain style of user interface, one which is “user friendly” and which gives us access to the function of the computer. The user friendly user interface has been designed by experts to not demand too much of the end user. Some systems take this a step further and actively discourage the user from becoming curious about how things work under the hood. It is not just a matter of “user friendly”, in itself that is not serious grounds for complaint. It is the idea of users as users of clearly defined applications that have been developed by “experts”. In large part this state of things has arisen through commercialisation. A marketable commodity requires a clear definition. So proprietary applications are developed as a black box as an expression of “efficient software engineering”. In this commercial vision the “personal computer” is not really personal because most of its interfaces have been standardised which transforms the actors into docile agents who respond in predictable ways to stimuli. “my life belongs to the engineers ... we hesitate to exist” (Latour) “The self evident state of the art blinds people to other possibilities” (Andy diSessa) If you start from a more philosophical perspective of amplifying human reach, of computer as a meta medium for expressing the creative spirit then the attitude to the user is different. The user, as well as being a user, is also a potential constructionist designer and developer who eventually will be able to create their own tools. So, the tools for exploring the system should be powerful and easily accessible. This is one of the features of Smalltalk. The ethic is one of mutability and simplicity. Every component of a system is open to be explored, investigated, modified and built upon. The tool / medium distinction is blurred and so is a lot of other false clarity. Rather than a world of reified “experts”, “engineers”, “designers”, “end-users”, “miracle workers” and “plain folks” it would be better to blur these boundaries, particularly for learning environments. ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] versus, not
One of the real pleasures of this adventure we are on is that there has been thoughtful criticism of ideas. I cannot get away with vague or sloppy thinking. On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 4:37 AM, Bill Kerr wrote: > I'm not sure what is meant by a "big tent" > > Why do some people want a big tent for learning theory but not a big tent > which accepts both FOSS and proprietary software? Phrasing it that way is > intended to encourage people to think about what sort of thing is learning > and hopefully will not be interpreted as just being provocative for its own > sake. FOSS is a theory of learning. We don't need to reach consensus about either learning theory or FOSS, but to be members of this community, we must agree that we can progress from critique to making positive changes. > you can have a big tent where people don't discuss learning theory because > it's too hard to reach agreement > > you can have a big tent where people passionately argue about learning > theory but actually listen to what each is saying and argue rationally > > when I look at minsky's theory of mind I see that he supports multiple > models of thinking but also argues against models of thinking that he thinks > are incorrect or which emphasise only one way of doing things, eg. although > he helped create connectionism he now thinks it has too much influence As Martin points out, Sugar Labs is building tools. But we are not agnostic about how they are used. We are deliberately building affordances into our tools to encourage and promote learning activities that are "C" in their nature, because we believe that that is the principle means by which learners will reach a level of fluency as described by Alan. But the tools can be used in support of other learning theories and, to rephrase Minsky, "if you don't learn something more than one way, you don't learn it." > that suggests another version of a big tent which I favour - cherry picking > the best parts out of different learning theories / activities based on > criteria (not stated here) that are substantial I wear an engineer's hat: "What is the best solution I can build today?" not a scientist's hat: "What is the best possible solution?" Ergo, +1 for cherry picking. > > I don't believe that thinking people are agnostic about how people learn > > it seems to me that alan kay has presented a possibly strategic view of > progress on these questions (that learning about bricks will not > automatically lead to building arches, that we need more than just focusing > on building blocks) - but that for various reasons we are not in a position > to implement the learning materials based on that view in practice in the > activities > > for me to sit in the big tent holding a strategic view feels different to > "too hard basket", agnosticism or a tower of babble - teaching with an > underlying strategic view is very different to just going along with the > tide The analogy to "big tent" perhaps needs more of an explanation for those not living day-to-day in earshot of the US political dialog. Republican President Ronald Reagan referred to his party as a big tent in the days of his popular majority. The current party is being accused of (or admired for) being more fundamentalist in its ideology; this "either your are with us or against us" approach has arguably resulted in a greatly contracted constituency: there are more people who identify themselves as Independents than as Republicans. As a result, it is being asserted both from within and without that the Republicans have excluded themselves from the debate. We must engage teachers and learners even if we do not have consensus on all aspects of learning theories, FOSS, or Sugar. Without the engagement, we don't grow. Even more important, without the engagement, we don't learn. That doesn't mean we don't have opinions or direction. > > that would mean work to understand and implement that strategic view but > also accept that we are not there yet (it will take some time) and so it is > perfectably understandable and desirable that people will use and develop > whatever is at hand or which they think important to develop - no one can > stop that anyway accept by successful arguing someone out of a POV We have a long ways to go and we need to keep debating as we go. But also we need to continue "doing". And always be asking "Are there other ways to approach this?" and "How might we make this better?" > Does the "big tent" phrase add clarity to this conversation? > Perhaps not. But the discussion adds clarity to the overall mission of Sugar Labs. -walter -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] versus, not
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Bill Kerr wrote: > I'm not sure what is meant by a "big tent" Personally, I am building tools so... ... > when I look at minsky's theory of mind I see that he supports multiple > models of thinking but also argues against models of thinking that he thinks > are incorrect or which emphasise only one way of doing things, Exactly. I try to work to build things that are open (and useful) to many users, many (most?) of which may not agree with me. If you ask me what do I think is best, I may have an opinion, but I am an adaptable person. My software[1] is adaptable too. A tiny bit opinionated perhaps ;-) , but flexibility is more important. After all, practitioners have enough trouble with real life, I am not going to add a small-mind-designed bit of software to their problems. [1] Note: Most of my education related work is on Moodle but I'm not its designer. So "my software" is "my sometimes interesting changes to Moodle". The mind behind Moodle is Martin Dougiamas, and it's from him that I've picked the "flexible" mantra. People use Moodle for teaching in very open ways... and other people use Moodle in incredible small-minded, beancounting-style corporate training. A very big tent indeed. Very glad to be reading Alan's posts in this thread too. cheers, m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] versus, not
I'm not sure what is meant by a "big tent" Why do some people want a big tent for learning theory but not a big tent which accepts both FOSS and proprietary software? Phrasing it that way is intended to encourage people to think about what sort of thing is learning and hopefully will not be interpreted as just being provocative for its own sake. you can have a big tent where people don't discuss learning theory because it's too hard to reach agreement you can have a big tent where people passionately argue about learning theory but actually listen to what each is saying and argue rationally when I look at minsky's theory of mind I see that he supports multiple models of thinking but also argues against models of thinking that he thinks are incorrect or which emphasise only one way of doing things, eg. although he helped create connectionism he now thinks it has too much influence that suggests another version of a big tent which I favour - cherry picking the best parts out of different learning theories / activities based on criteria (not stated here) that are substantial I don't believe that thinking people are agnostic about how people learn it seems to me that alan kay has presented a possibly strategic view of progress on these questions (that learning about bricks will not automatically lead to building arches, that we need more than just focusing on building blocks) - but that for various reasons we are not in a position to implement the learning materials based on that view in practice in the activities for me to sit in the big tent holding a strategic view feels different to "too hard basket", agnosticism or a tower of babble - teaching with an underlying strategic view is very different to just going along with the tide that would mean work to understand and implement that strategic view but also accept that we are not there yet (it will take some time) and so it is perfectably understandable and desirable that people will use and develop whatever is at hand or which they think important to develop - no one can stop that anyway accept by successful arguing someone out of a POV Does the "big tent" phrase add clarity to this conversation? On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 3:03 AM, Walter Bender > wrote: > > Fair enough. I agree that *most* people on the list agree that there > > is not just one right way. And to use a metaphor that has been > > oft-spoken in the US news of late, Sugar Labs has to have a "big > > tent." > > > > Sugar itself has affordances that can be used in support of many > > educational approaches and virtually any content area. > > Completely for the big tent, and wide ranging use models. It also > means I have to swallow hard when people use things I build in ways > that I consider... not particularly good. You might hear me mention > that "that's a practise that I don't emphasize" ;-) > > cheers, > > > > > m > -- > martin.langh...@gmail.com > mar...@laptop.org -- School Server Architect > - ask interesting questions > - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first > - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff > ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] versus, not
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 3:03 AM, Walter Bender wrote: > Fair enough. I agree that *most* people on the list agree that there > is not just one right way. And to use a metaphor that has been > oft-spoken in the US news of late, Sugar Labs has to have a "big > tent." > > Sugar itself has affordances that can be used in support of many > educational approaches and virtually any content area. Completely for the big tent, and wide ranging use models. It also means I have to swallow hard when people use things I build in ways that I consider... not particularly good. You might hear me mention that "that's a practise that I don't emphasize" ;-) cheers, m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] versus, not
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Bill Kerr wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 7:43 AM, Walter Bender > wrote: >> >> ===Sugar Digest=== >> >> I encourage you to join two threads on the Education List this week: >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-April/005382.html, which >> has boiled down to an instruction vs construction debate; and >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-April/005342.html, which >> has boiled down to a debate of catering to local culture vs the >> Enlightenment. I encourage you to join these discussions. > > Agree that these are important discussions > > Need to be careful about the use of the versus depiction of these > discussions IMO, this tempting shorthand can create the wrong impression Fair enough. I agree that *most* people on the list agree that there is not just one right way. And to use a metaphor that has been oft-spoken in the US news of late, Sugar Labs has to have a "big tent." Sugar itself has affordances that can be used in support of many educational approaches and virtually any content area. But while we can and should be inclusive and not tie the hands of good teachers or alienate administrators, we can encourage behaviors we think are generally productive, such as looking at problems from multiple points of view, engaging in the criticism of ideas, in particular, the ideas of the Enlightenment. > eg. I would see direct instruction as a must for autistic children but don't > see that it follows as a general model for all education (special needs are > special) or that we should even think it is possible to have a correct > general model. I don't think there is one and good teachers swap between > multiple models all the time. > > no one on this list has argued overtly against "the enlightenment" or that > local culture ought not to be taken into account, eg. Ties said "think > practical", the response was of the nature that our context demands we do certain course of action> > > however, I do think the roll back of enlightenment principles is not well > understood (http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/nonUniversals) and that a > better understanding might persuade more people of the need to keep > searching and struggling for different ways to go against some of the tide > of local culture - there is a recent interesting comment thread on mark > guzdial's blog which is worth reading from this point of view > http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3F4TMBURELZZK > Regarding Guzdial's blog, I am optimistic. While I had always feared that "phone culture" would turn us into a society of consumers of services that Ma Bell chose for us; but the iPhone and the Android are programmable and, while Apple is the iPhone gatekeeper, the meme that phones can be programmed is spreading. This is a huge step forward. -walter -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
[Sugar-devel] versus, not
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 7:43 AM, Walter Bender wrote: > ===Sugar Digest=== > > I encourage you to join two threads on the Education List this week: > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-April/005382.html, which > has boiled down to an instruction vs construction debate; and > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-April/005342.html, which > has boiled down to a debate of catering to local culture vs the > Enlightenment. I encourage you to join these discussions. Agree that these are important discussions Need to be careful about the use of the versus depiction of these discussions IMO, this tempting shorthand can create the wrong impression eg. I would see direct instruction as a must for autistic children but don't see that it follows as a general model for all education (special needs are special) or that we should even think it is possible to have a correct general model. I don't think there is one and good teachers swap between multiple models all the time. no one on this list has argued overtly against "the enlightenment" or that local culture ought not to be taken into account, eg. Ties said "think practical", the response was of the nature that our context demands we do however, I do think the roll back of enlightenment principles is not well understood (http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/nonUniversals) and that a better understanding might persuade more people of the need to keep searching and struggling for different ways to go against some of the tide of local culture - there is a recent interesting comment thread on mark guzdial's blog which is worth reading from this point of view http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3F4TMBURELZZK ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
