[IAEP] 90% fluency Re: Granny Cloud

[Alan Kay]

I didn't say "90% fluency", I said to "get 90% of the children to the level of 
fluency".

Cheers,

Alan




________________________________
From: Yamandu Ploskonka <yamaplos at gmail.com>
To: Caryl Bigenho <cbigenho at hotmail.com>
Cc: Alan Kay <alan.nemo at yahoo.com>; IAEP SugarLabs <iaep at lists.sugarlabs.org>; 
kksubbu.ml at gmail.com
Sent: Tue, November 2, 2010 12:38:17 PM
Subject: Re: [IAEP] 90% fluency Re:  Granny Cloud

For the record, I actually did agree with the guy, and when given a chance to 
present to that same group one week later, used this very concept together with 
a picture I took in Nepal of an old gentleman, as part of my talk (and I used 
Prezi, which was quite impressive... :-)

OTOH, agreeing with such way of handling data has seriously messed up with my 
compass for valid, evidence-based scientific data, which is why my request to 
understand better what Alan meant by 90% fluency...

On 11/02/2010 03:30 PM, Caryl Bigenho wrote: 
Hi All... 
>
>
>A bit of family history to shed light on my opinion on this...
>
>
>My Irish great-grandmother was unable to read and write when her first children 
>were born, back in the 1860's (she was born at the start of the Potato Famine). 
> She signed their birth certificates with an "X." Within a couple of years of 
>that (probable embarrassment) she was able to sign her name.  By 1904, when the 
>only photo I have seen of her was taken (just before she died), she posed with a 
>book... a la Whistler's Mother. And I have a copy of a letter she wrote in the 
>late 1890's. Being able to sign her name was the first step on her road to 
>literacy. It can be the same for the folks in Bolivia, or anywhere else... 
>regardless of their age.
>
>
>Caryl
>
>________________________________
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 15:12:36 -0500
>From: yamaplos at gmail.com
>To: alan.nemo at yahoo.com
>CC: iaep at lists.sugarlabs.org; kksubbu.ml at gmail.com
>Subject: [IAEP] 90% fluency Re: Granny Cloud
>
>When I was in Bolivia recently I happened to be present at a rather high-level 
>meeting where the matter of the literacy rate of Ecuador was being discussed, 
>and criticism of those critisizing it got criticized - apparently UNICEF or one 
>other such agency had disputed a 1% gain claimed by the government, who then had 
>to retract its figures.
>
>The main point had to do with "the breach".  Apparently or so we were told, you 
>can and should be able to count success in literacy even in cases that all you 
>have been able to achieve with that 70-year-old peasant was to get him to 
>recognize his name, or write it when prompted, and people who don't count that 
>as a gain in absolute literacy figures for the country are plain evil 
>imperialist capitalistic goons or their equivalent.
>
>In this context it surprises me less that many projects simply are not 
>interested in cause-effect research, based in objective data, regarding OLPC or 
>any of such. Qualitative research is in, as valid and acceptable, and so is 
>perception-based data and interviews rather than actual event/fact observation, 
>and technicalities are used to debunk data-based reports (this later actually 
>might be fair, if they play by the rules).
>
>Because we do not have suitably globally agreed-on scales and answers, answers 
>that are consistent at the same time with evidence-based research, political 
>correctness, and respect for the downtrodden, we are a bit stuck when it comes 
>to say if we are - where? - somewhere...
>
>As to myself, I will not dispute the claims by our President, Evo Morales, and 
>his government, that we have, in Bolivia, achieved 100% literacy.  There are, so 
>I've been told by some of the very people who have arrived to that number, solid 
>reasons and evidence that shows such an excellent goal and need has been met.
>
>Now, y'all at PARC, do you have some definitions that clarify what it is they 
>meant by 90% fluency?
>They are crucial, no doubt...  is that like 10% less than 100%?
>
>
>
>As to drop making technology available for the top quartiles just because the 
>low quartile is not getting any benefit, I have no words.
>
>It is very nice to want to close the breach, to want to help the least, but if 
>the only way to more equality is by setting up a lower ceiling for those who 
>actually could benefit at the least cost, then we are totally messed up, it 
>certainly is NOT unimportant.
>
>A colleague in the Sur list was mentioning "residual cognitive benefits" in the 
>form of new brain circuits.  When I think on how much more expensive it is to 
>get a good education to a kid with low socioeconomics than it is to a better-off 
>one, besides the whole issue of context I worry on how we do not realize the 
>consequences, importance and additional cost to go that extra mile - and in 
>doing so, refrain from discriminating against those who do not need all of that 
>effort, those whose 2-parent households get hit by taxes and their own expenses 
>as they do some of the push.  I know it gets silly very fast, but in real world 
>terms, let us not pretend we are surprised by the higher XO breakage rates among 
>urban poor kids in Uruguay, or the low breakage amongst the even poorer in 
>Nepal, when we know that one of those pretends that equality happens by saying 
>so, and the other carefully builds and together with the interested parties 
>prepares for difficult scenarios.
>
>Alas, 
>
>Yama
>
>
>
>On 11/02/2010 10:51 AM, Alan Kay wrote: 
> 
>>To me, this is the main point.
>>
>>Years ago (at PARC) we decided that in any meaningful world, we needed to help 
>>90% of the learners achieve real fluency (or judge our methods to be not good 
>>enough). Both the "90%" and "real fluency" are crucial (the latter is often 
>>abandoned when the former is held to be important).
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Alan
>>
>>
>>
>>
________________________________
From: K. K. Subramaniam <kksubbu.ml at gmail.com>
>>To: iaep at lists.sugarlabs.org
>>Sent: Tue, November 2, 2010 7:45:47 AM
>>Subject: Re: [IAEP] Granny Cloud
>>
>>On Tuesday 02 Nov 2010 8:17:34 am Caryl Bigenho wrote:
>>> Hi All...
>>> Here is a concise article that summarizes Sugata Mitra's work with the
>>> "Granny Cloud."  Note he says a 1 to 1 model doesn't work. He uses 4 to 1.
>>> http://dnc.digitalunite.com/2010/07/29/granny-cloud-to-teach-children-via-
>>> the-internet/
>>I would be wary of reaching any specific conclusion from such experiments. This 
>
>>is not to discourage new experiments but to highlight the fact the need of the 

>>hours are interventions that ensures that the number of students who are *not 
>>learning* should provably *decrease* during a three year window.
>>
>>When we throw technology X or method Y at the education problem and make the 
>>top two quartiles learn better but leave the bottom quartile out cold, then 
>>such a tech/method is a nice but unimportant development for tacking education 

>>issues we face today.
>>
>>Subbu
>>_______________________________________________
>>IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
>>IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
>>http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education 
>>Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org 
>>http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education 
Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org 
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
> _______________________________________________ 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/20101102/1ef3856e/attachment-0001.html>