[IAEP] educational brew

[Tomeu Vizoso]

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 17:42, Costello, Rob R
<Costello.Rob.R at edumail.vic.gov.au> wrote:
>
> at the risk of dragging practical developers into a theoretical discussion,
> i would suggest sugar needs to more clearly nail down its educational
> position... and then some structures like lesson templates .. which will
> inevitably be limited in some ways

I was hoping that this decision would be taken at the activity,
content and deployment levels and that the Sugar platform itself
wouldn't need to take a position that excludes the others.

Not about being "agnostic about learning" but about providing a
superset of what each approach requires so more people can come play
together regardless of their beliefs.

Regards,

Tomeu

> i know without developers nothing happens .. but without a clear educational
> vision it seems to me that the end point development vision may also be
> unclear ... maybe a group of people with both interests needs to look at
> that  (probably not me, and yes, possible democracy issue)
>
> ie i don't think the technical agenda in itself cannot lead that discussion
> ..
>
> letting it just evolve  - eg a smorgas board of possible learning objects -
> most recently circuits etc - is interesting ...but i think would benefit
> from a consistent educational model behind it ...its not much good hanging
> various offerings out there suggestively for teachers and kids to use (there
> are a lot of examples of governments spending a fortune producing 'learning
> objects' in the hope that teachers will sequence them together for kids.. by
> and large it has not been a productive path...)
>
> the problem is that those seeking and making these things are not your
> typical time pressued teachers - whose IT skills and technical background
> are not, by and large, in the same league as developers (and developers do
> not always have a feel for the classroom).. relatively few teachers will
> seek it out if there is not a series of coherent lessons nearby
>
> [the model of what to make - platform (scratch, etoys, etc) or more limited
> demo is also had to pin down - at what level do you extend  / adapt /
> restart ]
>
> these somewhat conserative (modest? balanced?) conclusions are hard lessons
> for me ..since i was one of the ones who was still programming in the small
> hours when teaching (which is to say the more open ended stuff appeals to
> me) - and i always hope that something like geogebra or scratch will bridge
> the gap between being easy to customise and flexible in application ...maybe
> something will
>
> i also fully agree with Kathy that personalisation can mean software
> intelligently adapts the sequence of lessons... i've seen that in action as
> well
>
> i also think the nice open ended stuff needs to be in there...but needs to
> function as extension and example and context ... not the main approach for
> most kids .. much as i think the approach adds the 'working mathematically'
> aspect that all the content needs and supports
>
> have discussed this with Bill before .. and while he doesn't necessarily
> agree with my figures (i think does with broad concept), but for the sake of
> provoking discussion, i would say 80% of the learning game can be
> instructionist sequences of learning
>
> 20% can then be the more open ended constructionist approach
>
> my own preferences go the other way, so its against the grain for me to come
> to that conclusion ...but i think its a more viable and realistic approach
> to take
>
> i know traditional curriculum can get suffocating and dry ..but the answer
> is not to throw it out or pretend its not a reality that is still there
>
> Bryan says he would aim at 'content first' next time  - i can now see the
> logic of this
> not just access to wikipedia ...but recognisable sequences of lesson
> materials
>
> for what its worth i also think the curriki.org approach is interesting -
> lots of content being donated from everywhere - but my feeling is its going
> to be a problem having so much in there without some consistent format or
> approach.. that is someone needs to pull it together
>
> a work of art has to choose some limitations.. i gather the XO hardware has
> done this ... and no doubt the software developers who have laboured
> heroically have done so as well... i just think curriculum design needs to
> be more in the mix, IMHO
>
> may be wrong ..and discount my view down as i don't think i can input much
> time required to significantly contribute to any of this (and my
> background is not linux flavoured) ...but i would still suggest considering
> the view of an educator looking at ICT enabled learning  ..
>
> {i;ve done laptop trials with kids in MS environments as well - and in my
> view they can make a difference in enabling a self directed approach to
> part of the curriculum (less than 20% of the course in most settings) - but
> i don't think in themselvs would much compensate for lack of formal
> curriculum or teacher skills (so unless there is a clear matching of content
> to local needs - something that looks more like lessons for most kids - i
> can't see the educational transformation via the simple provision of the
> computer.. )..
>
> cheers ..noble vision...reaching kids
>
> rob
>
> --
> Kathy Pusztavari kathy at kathyandcalvin.com wrote:
>
> I'm of the direct instruction camp.  If skills and concepts are not build
> upon each other correctly, you will get kids that either learn a concept
> wrong (then they have to unlearn it) or fail and then feel like they are
> stupid.  Having a kid with autism, I've seen both.  Unfortunately, I've seen
> both with typical kids or even smart ones under poor teaching practices.
> This is especially true for teaching reading - Project Follow Through showed
> that direct instruction was by far the most effective in teaching period.
>
> What I'm suggesting is taking effective practices and putting them in a
> computer model.  Using short videos or whatever (flash like animation) to
> teach concepts.  I'd love to see students answer questions from the computer
> and use open source audio to text to ensure the student is following along
> and can at least properly use mathematical (or whatever subject) vocabulary.
> Verbal feedback also ensures the student is engaged and not just along for
> the ride.  All this can be fun, and be presented in a systematic and
> sequencial way so as not to lose the student.
>
> By just throwing some skills at the student, that is not called teaching.
> You have to design a program or set of programs that can actually teach many
> skills and concepts.  In other words, maybe have it to where the teacher
> actually adds in the curriculum with their sequence into a flat file or
> database but the program will take care of presentation due to its
> modularity.  I'm thinking Typing Turtle, here.  With Typing Turtle I can put
> in a sequence of teaching keys.  I have 30 lessons but have only taught 5
> keys.  This is broken down for my son.  Another kid could learn those 5 keys
> in maybe 10 lessons.  Right now I would have to re-write the lessons for the
> other kid but you see where I am going with this - an amazing and stupendous
> program would adjust automatically for each kid - probably via analyzing
> thousands of kids.
>
> The books I listed are the "bible" of teaching.  No kidding.  They can be
> used by just about anyone to sequence teaching to ensure you don't skip
> steps and lose kids.  It should help nerds (what I loving call you guys)
> when they program modules.  How do you teach a skill or concept when you are
> not sure the student has prerequisite skills or knowledge?
>
> -Kathy
>
> Important - This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received
> in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening or using
> attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any loss,
> damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or
> not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files our
> liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any
> representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender,
> and not necessarily those of the Department of Education and Early Childhood
> Development.
>
> _______________________________________________
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>