[IAEP] public log of Activities being started Re: [SLOBS] SLOB meeting on January 7

Yama Ploskonka yamaplos at gmail.com
Wed Jan 9 02:13:37 EST 2013

Thank you, Tony

Unreliable? IMO most definitely, if the goal is to figure out *actual* use
Alas, you are probably correct in that there is no better data from 
other deployments either

The data displayed relies on opinions or hearsay. Thanks to this 
document, we "know" that teachers or parents or kids say about this or 
that, but, as with anything coming from surveys, we have no idea if what 
they say is what actually is happening.
If we ask teachers, "are you doing your job", do you think they will 
answer "yes"? or "no"?
Compare the charts page 7 and 8. they are supposed to report the same 
data, use of XOs in class. They do not match at all, the teacher's view 
is SO much higher. Page 19,  makes no sense compared to page 7, except 
when we understand these are content-free teacher-speak, "fully 
integrated with the program" at 32% ???

One problem with teacher-speak is that no one knows what it actually 
means. Notice lines 4-5 of page 20. Turns out that "Arts Areas" is the 
one that has been the least "integrated". However, it turns out that 
"draw or paint" is among the highest used activities, pages 11-12. What 
about the TamTams? So, what is this Arts Area supposed to mean, that 
TamaTam or Pain, Photo and Video and voice recording are not enough?
Page 10 gives still different and contradictory data with the others...

Opinions are important, when you are a politician. I guess some 
allowance needs exist for "perception" data.

However, I am amazed that I could not find even the slightest attempt to 
gather objective data, even when some would have been SO easy. Like, 
look if actually teachers are doing what they say they are doing in the 
main portal - page 17 - just look at the logs! As if these appointees 
had no idea that facts and opinions are not the same thing... (have they 
ever had a basic class in experimental method, or the basics of 
reproducible science research? In many ways I feel sorry)

IMHO, what we need is to actually have some sort of very simple built in 
/something/ that will log to a server *what* activity got opened, 
*when*. No need to log what machine it came out of.
Very easy to build valuable knowledge out of it.
What for?
1) if something gets used a lot, great. Maybe improve it further, as it 
really is a favorite
2) something doesn't get used, let's figure out why, help it, or put it 
out of its misery

Maybe Sugar is a humongous success, the data will prove it. Let's give 
it an *objective* proof and certofocate.
If, as I believe, it needs a serious, *deep* re-assessment in view of 
making it *useful* some day, this data will tell us better where to 
look. No fair to be navigating in fog, guided by surveys!

On 01/08/2013 11:53 PM, forster at ozonline.com.au wrote:
>> do you think it were possible to somehow push into the server (and then
>> up to the Internet) suitably anonymous data that tells at least what
>> activities have been started (at least a count within a timeframe, say,
>> every week)?
>> As part of this "cloud" effort?
>> Reason: After all these years, we have not yet much reliable data on
>> whether the XO or Sugar is used or not, or what it is used for, if at all.
> Hi Yama
> We do have data from Ceibal
> http://www.anep.edu.uy/anepdata/0000031610.pdf
> Is this data unreliable? I would expect a lot of this data to be similar across deployments. What extra data do you want to capture.
> Tony

More information about the IAEP mailing list