[IAEP] IAEP Digest, Vol 84, Issue 2

[tkkang at nurturingasia.com]

Good analysis Tony. I live in the Get1 world that started me to work on the Give1 world. In fact the Give1 world has changed to Loan1 world. With that I could try to predict the chance of success before scaling up or saying No.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/64216380/OLPdisAbledC-N-1

We will have alot to do with Bernie/XSCE/mOLP when we meet in 3 weeks time. Fixing lot of arrangements and playtime followups of the mOLC Project. 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/219619484/mobile-Open-Learning-Chest-mOLC-Project

Cheers and olpc 2.015!



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tony Anderson [mailto:tony_anderson at usa.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 09:35 AM
>To: iaep at lists.sugarlabs.org
>Subject: Re: [IAEP] IAEP Digest, Vol 84, Issue 2
>
>Hi, Sean
>
>I thought the strategy of OLPC was very clear - sell national 
>governments on providing laptops to all of their children. However, 
>OLPC, independent of this strategy,  made two critical decisions: G1G1 
>and using open software that have made all the difference.
>
>The open software decision led to the development of the our current 
>community,  Nicholas Negroponte's famous 'software' mistake.
>
>The G1G1 model defines our community problem today. The Give 1 part gave 
>focus on the need to provide and support the laptops at community 
>schools in the developing world where electricity is a problem, internet 
>is unknown, and hands-on experience with computers is minimal. The Get 1 
>model gave focus on the use of the XO by one's grandchildren in the home 
>where internet access is ubiquitous and everyone has hands-on experience 
>with computers.
>
>This is analogous to the difference between teaching a Spanish speaking 
>child English as a second language in Massachusetts and in rural Peru.
>
>The XO-1 is still viable in the Give 1 world. Outside of hardware 
>problems, it delivers the same educational experience it did in 2007.
>
>Naturally, the XO-1 is not marketable in the Get 1 world. The developers 
>and supporting volunteers live in the Get 1 world. As a consequence 
>going to a software model which jettisons etoys in the interest of 
>keeping up with Fedora seems a reasonable tradeoff. Someone in Give 1, 
>who has never before had a computer in their hands, is unlikely to know 
>or care what model of Fedora is installed.
>
>This begs the question, what has changed between Sugar 0.82 and 0.104 
>that significantly improves the value of the XO in primary school 
>education in the Give 1 world?
>
>We should consider the real model of deployments (aside of the national 
>ones). Some individual or group in the Get 1 world decides to sponsor a 
>set of laptops for a specific school or library in the Give 1 world, the 
>deployment.
>
>The role of the sponsor is to coordinate with the deployment, develop a 
>plan to provide electrical power (e.g. agreeing to pay for utility bill 
>or getting an agreement that the deployment will pay), acquire the 
>laptops, arrange for the laptops to be delivered to the deployment 
>(often in luggage), and arrange for someone with technical skills to go 
>to the deployment to set up the system and show the staff how it works. 
>Naturally, my personal interest is that the sponsor should supply a 
>school server and one or more routers to provide the XOs with access to 
>some of the information the Get 1 world routinely obtains from the internet.
>
>Normally, installation of software is not an issue. The sponsor handles 
>that. The ongoing problem is that the community assumes the deployment 
>has a similar familiarity with computers as is common in the Get 1 
>world. The only introduction to computers is typically a few day 
>workshop at the deployment when the laptops are delivered and installed. 
>Further, the clear pedagogical vision is not communicated leaving the 
>deployment to figure out how the XOs are to used effectively. The 
>laptops are not used to provide continuing education in their use. The 
>consequence is the often observed drift at the deployment into limbo 
>(i.e. the computers spend most of thier time in the packing boxes).
>
>If we need a marketing program, it is to find sponsors to fund and 
>support deployments in the Give 1 world. This program should be 
>accompanied by an effort to find unused XOs and get them deployed for 
>the simple reason that the initial $200 investment is paid and they are 
>immediately usable. Where are the XOs given to Mongolia? The program 
>should include particular attention to making the task of sponsorship as 
>easy as possible and on giving the sponsor a clear understanding of the 
>pedagogical goal of the program.
>
>Should we encourage or recommend deployments of computers/tablets/smart 
>phones other than the XO? So far as I am aware there are no Sugar-based 
>deployments on laptops other than the XO (Classmate in Argentina?). The 
>initial reaction to Raspberry Pi is that when you added the essential 
>peripherals (monitor, keyboard, camera, microphone) and packaged them in 
>a portable package - the cost would be comparable to that of an XO. I 
>have seen nothing to change that judgement.
>
>If we are willing to accept a computer lab model in which the XOs never 
>leave the school - the 'thin-client' model may be useful. In this model, 
>the computer may be a Raspberry Pi with a monitor, keyboard, and mouse. 
>Since it never leaves the lab, the packaging is not important. The 'thin 
>clients' could be connected to the school server by an ethernet switch. 
>One obvious consequence is that the learners will never have a chance to 
>read ebooks, listen to music, listen to native English speakers, 
>complete KA Lite exercises, or explore what they can do in Scratch or 
>Turtle Blocks. They will get access to the computers on a schedule set 
>by the school and will be expected to stay 'on task' while in the lab.
>
>HTML5, CSS3, and Javascript certainly need to be supported by Sugar at 
>the level of Python. Does this require replacing Python? Is Python ready 
>to join APL and Basic in computer museums? A simple localhost (software 
>feature) enables javascript to launch Sugar activities or resume them 
>from the Journal. Lionel Laske's Sugarizer works on an XO as far as I know.
>
>I think the concern about making Sugar viable on any platform is 
>reasonable if Sugar is viewed as one computer application among many. It 
>is certainly what the Get 1 world expects. However, how does this help 
>the mission of providing a laptop to every child in a community school 
>in the developing world (the 60% without internet)?
>
>This issue of the plan for the future of Sugar and the olpc initiative 
>is not simple and it does not have any easy answers.
>
>Tony
>
>On 03/02/2015 06:36 PM, iaep-request at lists.sugarlabs.org wrote:
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 22:57:57 +0100
>> From: Sean DALY<sdaly.be at gmail.com>
>> To: Samuel Greenfeld<samuel at greenfeld.org>
>> Cc: IAEP SugarLabs<iaep at lists.sugarlabs.org>
>> Subject: Re: [IAEP] Planning for the future
>> Message-ID:
>> 	<CANnY+GN+QAv1jQiUJH380RQ7gFzoeD0_xF4z_iFqMav9cSEciQ at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> Hi Samuel,
>>
>> thanks for this
>>
>> I believe Sugar has had a clear pedagogical vision from day one, but has
>> not had a strategy for some time.
>>
>> Outside the XO, Sugar's historical technical architecture has unfortunately
>> kept it out of reach from all but the most determined and tech-savvy
>> teachers (and journalists). Without a pancake button download and one-click
>> installer, the installation barrier is too high. OLPC's historical focus on
>> the hardware was never helpful either, and the main reason OLPC got mauled
>> by incorrect memes was they didn't want to accompany journalists past the
>> unfamiliarity barrier of the XO (hardware+software).
>>
>> In my view there are only a few ways to overcome this issue:
>>
>> * Develop 1-click installers for Windows / MacOS / GNU/Linux. I had
>> suggested maintaining a matrix of preconfigured (i.e. languages/keyboards,
>> prepopulated Journal, selection of Activities) VMs over Oracle VirtualBox,
>> whose license allows free distribution for nonprofit and educational
>> purposes. Upsides were immediate fullscreen Sugar experience without
>> touching the configuration of the host computer. The downsides were huge VM
>> images and the effort required to build and maintain the matrix. At the
>> time I suggested we approach Oracle for corporate sponsorship, but some
>> community members voiced objections.
>>
>> * Arrange for Sugar to be preinstalled on low-cost, reliable machines other
>> than XOs. This is complex and would require a sales force (or working with
>> a partner's) since no OEM will make that investment without a prospect of
>> selling many thousands of units. As an alternative I had suggested we ride
>> the wave of Raspberry Pi units (five million sold in three years) by
>> developing an SD card for it based on Sugar on a Stick, but there was no
>> interest in that effort. I still believe a Sugar-branded version (case +
>> teacher starters kit -documentation) could have an impact.
>>
>> * Migrate to a web-based Sugar compatible with browsers on any platform.
>> Lionel's Sugarizer is I think a fabulous solution.
>>
>>
>> I've heard it suggested that marketing could do fund-raising, but donors
>> large and small won't want to contribute unless there is a plan. I've been
>> bewildered what the plan is for some time.
>>
>> Sean
>
>_______________________________________________
>IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
>IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
>http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>