[IAEP] Volunteer-driven development of educational software

[Bill Kerr]

On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 2:53 AM, Greg Smith <gregsmitholpc at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Bill,
>
> I'm glad you followed up on this. I wanted to send an e-mail saying that
> there is great learning software and I agree with the ones you list.
>
> It sounds like you are not convinced that its all great stuff but I can say
> that eToys, Scratch and Turtle Art are all very popular and well used in our
> deployments.


I don't think I said that, I think those three programs are great in many
ways - wrt to this conversation the implication would be that adults can
have fun with them too, which is true for me


> I like your classification.. I would just add one general purpose tool to
> the first section: Browse.


Agree. I wasn't try to be complete - am working on a more complete list -
I'm not sure that my classification is all that good but it might be good
for more discussion


> The hardest part for me is figuring out what is "learning". If we really
> knew what that means then I think choosing or building the right software
> would be relatively easy!


What I have argued and on carefully reading Minsky's book this became
clearer - there is no single way of learning, there is no unified learning
theory and I think it follows from Minsky that it is unlikely there will
ever be one, well, not in our lifetimes (be wary of those who claim to have
the best learning theory)

I recently read Gleik's biography of Feynmann - the impression gained there
is that we are unlikely to see a unified theory of physics either - as one
layer of the problem is solved then a new set of problems emerges - again
there were cautions there that once scientists start to try too hard to
unify then they tend to lose their creative spark (not Feynmann but others)

Minsky points that out too - any good physicist will half half a dozen
models of how something complex works - same as for learning

cheers


>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Greg S
>
>
> Bill Kerr wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Albert Cahalan <acahalan at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  Greg Dekoenigsberg writes:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Greg Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>> I think that producing useful activities that are intended
>>>
>>>> solely for kids, with a strong pedagogical element, is still
>>>> a largely unsolved problem.
>>>>
>>> It's worse than that.
>>>
>>> It's not a problem restricted to activities. It hits Windows
>>> and MacOS as well. It's not merely an unsolved problem, but
>>> a very poorly defined problem.
>>>
>>> Put aside the platform for the moment, and the implementation
>>> details. (note: "requires a strong AI" is not just a detail!)
>>> Simply try to imagine some purely educational software that
>>> wouldn't be dreadful. Got any ideas?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I can't think of any educational software that is "intended solely for
>> kids"
>> that is worthwhile.
>>
>> new slogan - improve the quality of your dog food so that you want to eat
>> it
>>
>>
>> eg. Scratch or etoys or turtle art or logo is designed largely with kids
>> in
>> mind (it is deliberately cut down in some way, not fully featured) but
>> nevertheless is still fun and offers new learning ideas for adults
>>
>> software that is "intended solely for kids" is phoney, eg. maths blaster
>> (lets make maths fun for kids by rewarding mundane arithmetic activity
>> with
>> something totally unrelated to the task), aka dressing up the dog
>>
>> it might be useful to classify "educational software". Here is a very
>> rough
>> first attempt which I'm sure could be improved on but might help get
>> discussion moving:
>>
>> *group one - extending reach*
>> most software fits under generalised groupings of extending the reach of
>> humans
>>
>> word processing - better than previous writing tools
>> spreadsheets - better than previous maths tools
>> image manipulation - better image tools
>> wikipedia - more accessible encyclopaedia
>> dr geo II - geometry is more accessible
>> simulators - x2o, inspired by the incredible machine
>> Moodle claims to have a social constructivist theory but I think it's
>> really
>> just for incremental improvement on what schools already do (still looking
>> at moodle though for more information), social constructivist is a fairly
>> meaningless phrase anyway
>> etc
>>
>> *group two* *- great leap forward*
>> what bits of software have a specific educational focus based on a more or
>> less worked out theory, ie. software that can make a claim to being a big
>> leap forward in educational computing, more so than making something we
>> can
>> already do more accessible (yes these claims are often dismissed as
>> grandiose)
>>
>> cmap - concept mapping, Novak
>> hypercard - ? (now defunct)
>> logo, turtle art - Papert, Piaget
>> etoys - Kay, Bruner
>> scratch - Resnick
>> some games (Gee's semiotic domains theory)
>>
>> *group three - simple training *
>> (necessary but not very interesting)
>> eg, typing tutors
>>
>> *group four - dressing up the dog *
>> - cute software that pretends to be interesting but isn't:
>> eg. maths blaster type
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20081119/a18644f5/attachment.htm