[IAEP] [Sugar-devel] versus, not

[Kathy Pusztavari]

I'll have to admit I don't have much right to request, complain, or even
discuss.  If I don't get off my butt and program something myself then I'm
part of the problem.

But I'll tell you, it is difficult to start in this programming environment
where the learning curve is extremely steep (coming from Oracle and PL/SQL
stored procedures).  I'm still trying to figure out WHERE to start playing
with Python let alone how.

-Kathy

-----Original Message-----
From: iaep-bounces at lists.sugarlabs.org
[mailto:iaep-bounces at lists.sugarlabs.org] On Behalf Of Walter Bender
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 6:26 AM
To: Bill Kerr
Cc: iaep; Sugar-dev Devel
Subject: Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] versus, not

One of the real pleasures of this adventure we are on is that there has been
thoughtful criticism of ideas. I cannot get away with vague or sloppy
thinking.

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 4:37 AM, Bill Kerr <billkerr at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure what is meant by a "big tent"
>
> Why do some people want a big tent for learning theory but not a big 
> tent which accepts both FOSS and proprietary software? Phrasing it 
> that way is intended to encourage people to think about what sort of 
> thing is learning and hopefully will not be interpreted as just being 
> provocative for its own sake.

FOSS is a theory of learning. We don't need to reach consensus about either
learning theory or FOSS, but to be members of this community, we must agree
that we can progress from critique to making positive changes.

> you can have a big tent where people don't discuss learning theory 
> because it's too hard to reach agreement
>
> you can have a big tent where people passionately argue about learning 
> theory but actually listen to what each is saying and argue rationally
>
> when I look at minsky's theory of mind I see that he supports multiple 
> models of thinking but also argues against models of thinking that he 
> thinks are incorrect or which emphasise only one way of doing things, 
> eg. although he helped create connectionism he now thinks it has too 
> much influence

As Martin points out, Sugar Labs is building tools. But we are not agnostic
about how they are used. We are deliberately building affordances into our
tools to encourage and promote learning activities that are "C" in their
nature, because we believe that that is the principle means by which
learners will reach a level of fluency as described by Alan. But the tools
can be used in support of other learning theories and, to rephrase Minsky,
"if you don't learn something more than one way, you don't learn it."

> that suggests another version of a big tent which I favour - cherry 
> picking the best parts out of different learning theories / activities 
> based on criteria (not stated here) that are substantial

I wear an engineer's hat: "What is the best solution I can build today?" not
a scientist's hat: "What is the best possible solution?"
Ergo, +1 for cherry picking.

>
> I don't believe that thinking people are agnostic about how people 
> learn
>
> it seems to me that alan kay has presented a possibly strategic view 
> of progress on these questions (that learning about bricks will not 
> automatically lead to building arches, that we need more than just 
> focusing on building blocks) - but that for various reasons we are not 
> in a position to implement the learning materials based on that view 
> in practice in the activities
>
> for me to sit in the big tent holding a strategic view feels different 
> to "too hard basket", agnosticism or a tower of babble - teaching with 
> an underlying strategic view is very different to just going along 
> with the tide

The analogy to "big tent" perhaps needs more of an explanation for those not
living day-to-day in earshot of the US political dialog.
Republican President Ronald Reagan referred to his party as a big tent in
the days of his popular majority. The current party is being accused of (or
admired for) being more fundamentalist in its ideology; this "either your
are with us or against us" approach has arguably resulted in a greatly
contracted constituency: there are more people who identify themselves as
Independents than as Republicans. As a result, it is being asserted both
from within and without that the Republicans have excluded themselves from
the debate.

We must engage teachers and learners even if we do not have consensus on all
aspects of learning theories, FOSS, or Sugar. Without the engagement, we
don't grow. Even more important, without the engagement, we don't learn.
That doesn't mean we don't have opinions or direction.

>
> that would mean work to understand and implement that strategic view 
> but also accept that we are not there yet (it will take some time) and 
> so it is perfectably understandable and desirable that people will use 
> and develop whatever is at hand or which they think important to 
> develop - no one can stop that anyway accept by successful arguing 
> someone out of a POV

We have a long ways to go and we need to keep debating as we go. But also we
need to continue "doing". And always be asking "Are there other ways to
approach this?" and "How might we make this better?"

> Does the "big tent" phrase add clarity to this conversation?
>

Perhaps not. But the discussion adds clarity to the overall mission of Sugar
Labs.

-walter

--
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org
_______________________________________________
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep