[IAEP] educational brew

[Bill Kerr]

The other thing I should have said about rob's post but didn't was that I
pretty much agree with all of it as a description of the reality we face,
ie. my experiences of being an innovative teacher are similar enough to what
rob describes as to make it pointless to quibble about the differences

my support for the continuation of widespread unreasonable behaviour (in the
xo tradition) is based on acceptance of that reality

On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Bill Kerr <billkerr at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20090505/4d033088/attachment-0001.htm