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

[forster at ozonline.com.au]

Thanks

I did not realise that it was all self reported data, I assumed that there was Journal data too, my Spanish is not good enough

Tony

> 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
> 
> _____________________________________________________
> This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
> see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning