[IAEP] educational brew

[Bill Kerr]

in part this is a discussion about what works in the educational marketplace
and what is cutting edge and pushes education forward, the latter will
usually be a minority and difficult or nearly impossible to implement
position

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable man
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man.”
— George Bernard Shaw, Maxims for Revolutionists
(quoted by Ian Piumarta in a
paper<http://www.vpri.org/pdf/rn2006001a_colaswp.pdf>advocating
widespread unreasonable behaviour)

given that the initial plan of selling  millions of xos direct to
governments did not eventuate - and that the xo spawned commercial netbooks
- then the marketplace pressures are impossible to avoid, idealism meets
capitalist reality - a hard problem to solve

On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Costello, Rob R <
Costello.Rob.R at edumail.vic.gov.au> wrote:

>  i think Kathy is really on to something here ..taps some things i've been
> turning over and thinking of sending to the list
>
> my day job is now working for company that designs educational maths
> software
>
> i don't have time to do anything much here - for sugar - but i will offer
> these observations in the hope they might help - will use maths as example
> ..probably applies to greater or lessor extent to other curriculum areas
>
> most teachers that i know want to know that any 'innovation' 'addresses the
> curriculum'
>
> i now think its risky to try to push a cool concept that doesn't do that
> ...new media has to 'look like' the old media, at least to some extent, for
> a time, and then smuggle in some of its new capabilities ...to misquote
> something Alan Kay said somewhere ...and he might have quoted it from
> somewhere
>
> i still think that Papert is a genius and i love his writing, but i have
> come to think his approach to constructionism is too polarised ... he seems
> to think nothing good can come out of 'school maths' (ie that its procedural
> learning based approach amounts to 'feeding kids the menu') and the whole
> thing should be redone (eg with a Logo flavour)
>
> thats an appealing thought to people like me ...probably to many here
> ...since it seems there is a comparable or greater level of learning and
> analytical process in tinkering with more self directed programming,
> designing your own models etc, ....
>
> but this won't overturn the inertia in traditional curriculum content
>
> for example i can see no maths curriculum in the world (i've been looking
> at lots of them in detail  recently) that is doing much more than including
> a few references to recursion or iteration...(there was more 'programming'
> in my year 12 course in 1985)
>
> the crowd i work for are successful because they have done what Kathy
> describes - built up a strong sequence of activities that address
> traditional maths learning  .. now reworking that for different curricula
>
> Bryan Berry in his comments from Nepal also talks about this - the need for
> content that clearly addresses the curriculum ... also a stronger basic
> framework for planning generic lessons or chunks of curriculum (so they
> leaned on moodle and integrated flash ...but he talks of a html5 / js
> 'education on rails' sort of template that has 'fill in' sections for
> lesson plans, assessment etc)
>
> personally, i tend to baulk at the cookie cutter aspect of this (and it
> needs to be customisable or will strike mismatch with local approaches and
> models)
>
> I would have suggested just going down the scratch / etoys / logo /
> gamemaker sort of line if i'd been advising at the time
> (and maybe pippy but I couldn't get it to run and the code samples look a
> bit complex for beginners) ...-
>
> that is, i would have been more in the 'provide interesting tools and see
> what happens' camp - and i now think it would not have got traction...its an
> acquired taste that is too unfamiliar to reach critical mass, even if the
> devices are physically present
>
> it never did transform my class room either, unless i kept experimenting
> with new ways to use and model the tools ...Alan Kay talks of road testing
> and refining good lessons with a few teachers over extended periods - thats
> great . but you have to face the kids for the rest of the week and year
> somehow as well ... so something more standard will have to go in there in
> the meantime while we all develop the examplar lessons of how etoys can be
> used to teach science etc
>
> i see a lot of productive thrashing out of more technical aspects and
> communication here (how many on that wiki for example :)  - but not much on
> which theory of instructional design is really held to, and how it really
> influences the design of the software
>
> 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 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<http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep> 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
>



-- 
Bill Kerr
http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20090505/2157678b/attachment-0001.htm