[math4] So, what shall we do?

[Adam Schreiber]

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu at sugarlabs.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 16:09, Greg Dekoenigsberg <gdk at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Karlie Robinson wrote:
>>
>>> Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote:
>>>> Copying and pasting my latest blog post to stimulate conversation.
>>>> Comments very welcome.  :)
>>>>
>>>> Also, perhaps we should consider getting people together for a kickoff
>>>> meeting.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I've emailed the local Rochester volunteers/SIG members pointing them to
>>> your blog and this list which should help them understand more about the
>>> project.  My blind faith in the group effort wasn't enough to fill in
>>> the blanks as to what would actually be going on.
>>>
>>> I do think we need to get our formal communications ironed out.  As in
>>> meetings, and IRC now that we have the mailing list to land on.  Will we
>>> use the Fedora OLPC IRC channel?
>>
>> Well, I kinda think that's what this mailing list is for -- to talk that
>> stuff out.  :)
>>
>> Is this a Fedora project?  Is it a Sugar project?  To be honest, I haven't
>> given it much thought -- I've got a wiki page and a mailing list at
>> sugarlabs, and I've got hosting space pending at fedorahosted.org.  :)
>> Honestly, I don't much care.  If we can get enough people to say "yes, I'd
>> like to get together and talk about this stuff," the details are all
>> footwork.  We need people.
>
> I think we have enough people to start things, by the number of devs
> that have popped into #sugar to say hi and asked how to get started on
> that ultra cool 4gm project.
>
> I'm in to help as I can for these people to get up to speed developing
> sugar activities, so maybe we need to start distributing work? Do we
> have a set of activities we can start designing right now? Also, do we
> have designers on board?

I haven't thought about designs for an activity yet, but the
dungeon/tome model seems as good as any.  Especially if the model is
extended to consider collecting multiple pages from a tome that form a
set of lessons.

I have given a good deal of thought to 4.N.1, 4.N.2, 4.N.6, and 4.P.1
and believe that pedagogically, they should be grouped together in so
much as positive and negative powers of ten are constructed the same
way and it is instructive to use one to build on the other.  Also, N.2
and P.1 are essentially the same skill but with a different twist.

Later if older maths were also constructed in the form of activities a
good foundation in N.1 and N.6 would facilitate the understanding of
algebras in different bases.

Cheers,

Adam