[IAEP] IAEP Digest, Vol 84, Issue 2

[Sora Edwards-Thro]

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:48 PM, <tkkang at nurturingasia.com> wrote:

> 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


The concept of "Loan1" could be relevant at a school level. Start with
giving 5 or 10 XO laptops - schools normally want more, but see what they
do those 5 or 10 first. Or, start with XO-1 laptops, and then upgrade to a
"shinier" version (XO-4) after they're proven they can make good use of the
XO-1s.

But, even if you loan the technology, schools require significant
infrastructure investment to get even the smallest program up and running
(electrical, Internet, training). If you do not provide that, it will be
difficult for the program to work (In your honest report, TK, you explain
that you were unfortunately unable to train the teachers, which made
success unlikely).

Sidenote: TK, I know nothing about working with disabled students, but
maybe you can look at assistive apps
<http://www.friendshipcircle.org/blog/2011/02/07/7-assistive-communication-apps-in-the-ipad-app-store/>
designed
for other devices for inspiration of what might work on the XO.

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


TK, I really like the work you have done with others to get SD card user
accounts working. I think it's a fantastic way to allow the maximum number
of children to benefit from the computers you are able to provide.

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Tony Anderson <tony_anderson at usa.net> wrote:

> 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.
>

That's how many of our programs began in Haiti: the US-based organization
that gives funds to a school or orphanage contacted us to bring laptops and
provide training. They pay for the server equipment that we install. For
the most part, it's working. When it's not working, it's because the
US-based organization did not understand important factors such as
electrical infrastructure and paying teachers' salaries. They do not always
have a vision when they ask for computers of how the computers will be
used; computers are a fun and useful toy. You have to make sure they
understand that using the computers requires more work from their teachers
and teachers expect to be paid for that. Even sponsors who appear to have a
lot of money available do not always want to spend the funds on this, for
whatever reason.

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.
>

Yep, we're also trying to do that in Haiti. Sponsors are the main issue.
Schools have the XO laptops and would like to use them; they do not have
electricity or funds to pay teachers. We'll be reviving our second and
third programs this summer. I hope that experience will enable us to put a
price-tag on getting a program going again so we can start reaching out to
people to pay for it. We already have some rough ideas about what solar,
Internet, and teacher salaries cost in the developing world: I think $3000
- $4000 would do it in most cases, depending on how many laptops you wanted
to start using again. That's for a year of Internet and after-school
instruction, and 25 laptops. I'll some better budget stuff soon.

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.
>

Monitor is most expensive. But it looks like maybe you can use an old TV
<http://www.reddit.com/r/raspberry_pi/comments/23cs1r/how_do_i_connect_rpi_to_my_tv/cgvpjhg>
(not
as ubiquitous as cell phones, but available in many households in the
developing world)?

>
> Since it never leaves the lab, the packaging is not important.


 The packaging may still be important if we're talking about how long the
Pi will last before it breaks. Most labs will not be sealed or
climate-controlled, so dust and heat are still issues.

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.


I'm confused about why learners would "never have a chance to read ebooks,
listen to music" etc on a thin-client model. Is it because the processing
power of the model is limited, or because you do not envision the school
encouraging those activities?


> 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.
>

Unfortunately, many schools do not allow kids to take laptops home anyway.
We try to promote after-school and weekend access in order to give the kids
more freedom. It's not ideal, but it's the best we can get. I hope that
over time and with encouragement the teachers will become more lenient as
they see the value of "off-task" activities.

>
> 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)?
>

It helps the mission because when you're working in the developing world,
you take what you can get. Ideally, we're approached by sponsors before
they've invested in computer initiatives for schools, like you said. But
sometimes, they will already have tablets, cell phones, laptops,
e-readers...We need to be able to adapt to that.

>
> 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.
>

Nope! Thanks for bringing up some very good points.



>
>
>
>
>
> >-----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
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150303/4525fbcd/attachment-0001.html>