<HTML dir=ltr><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=unicode"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16830" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>i think Kathy is really on to something here ..taps some things i've been turning over and thinking of sending to the list</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>my day job is now working for company that designs educational maths software</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>i don't have time to do anything much here - for sugar - but i will offer these observations in the hope they might help - will use maths as example ..probably applies to greater or lessor extent to other curriculum areas</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>most teachers that i know want to know that any 'innovation' 'addresses the curriculum'</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>i now think its risky to try to push a cool concept that doesn't do that ...new media has to 'look like' the old media, at least to some extent, for a time, and then smuggle in some of its new capabilities ...to misquote something Alan Kay said somewhere ...and he might have quoted it from somewhere</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>i still think that Papert is a genius and i love his writing, but i have come to think his approach to constructionism is too polarised ... he seems to think nothing good can come out of 'school maths' (ie that its procedural learning based approach amounts to 'feeding kids the menu') and the whole thing should be redone (eg with a Logo flavour)</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>thats an appealing thought to people like me ...probably to many here ...since it seems there is a comparable or greater level of learning and analytical process in tinkering with more self directed programming, designing your own models etc, ....</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>but this won't overturn the inertia in traditional curriculum content</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>for example i can see no maths curriculum in the world (i've been looking at lots of them in detail  recently) that is doing much more than including a few references to recursion or iteration...(there was more 'programming' in my year 12 course in 1985) </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>the crowd i work for are successful because they have done what Kathy describes - built up a strong sequence of activities that address traditional maths learning  .. now reworking that for different curricula</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>Bryan Berry in his comments from Nepal also talks about this - the need for content that clearly addresses the curriculum ...</FONT> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>also a stronger basic framework for planning generic lessons or chunks of curriculum (so they leaned on moodle and integrated flash ...but he talks of a html5 / js 'education on rails' sort of template that has 'fill in'</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2> sections for lesson plans, assessment etc)</FONT></DIV></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>personally, i tend to baulk at the cookie cutter aspect of this (and it needs to be customisable or will strike mismatch with local approaches and models) </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I would have suggested just going down the scratch / etoys / logo / gamemaker sort of line if i'd been advising at the time</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>(and maybe pippy but I couldn't get it to run and the code samples look a bit complex for beginners) ...- </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>that is, i would have been more in the 'provide interesting tools and see what happens' camp - and i now think it would not have got traction...its an acquired taste that is too unfamiliar to reach critical mass, even if the devices are physically present</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>it never did transform my class room either, unless i kept experimenting with new ways to use and model the tools ...Alan Kay talks of road testing and refining good lessons with a few teachers over extended periods - thats great . but you have to face the kids for the rest of the week and year somehow as well ... so something more standard will have to go in there in the meantime while we all develop the examplar lessons of how etoys can be used to teach science etc</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>i see a lot of productive thrashing out of more technical aspects and communication here (how many on that wiki for example :)  - but not much on which theory of instructional design is really held to, and how it really influences the design of the software</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>at the risk of dragging practical developers into a theoretical discussion, i would suggest sugar needs to more clearly nail down its educational position... and then some structures like lesson templates .. which will inevitably be limited in some ways</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>i know without developers nothing happens .. but without a clear educational vision it seems to me that the end point development vision may also be unclear ... maybe a group of people with both interests needs to look at that  (probably not me, and yes, possible democracy issue)</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>ie i don't think the technical agenda in itself cannot lead that discussion .. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>letting it just evolve  - eg a smorgas board of possible learning objects - most recently circuits etc - is interesting ...but i think would benefit from a consistent educational model behind it ...its not much good hanging various offerings out there suggestively for teachers and kids to use (there are a lot of examples of governments spending a fortune producing 'learning objects' in the hope that teachers will sequence them together for kids.. by and large it has not been a productive path...)</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>the problem is that those seeking and making these things are not your typical time pressued teachers - whose IT skills and technical background are not, by and large, in the same league as developers (and developers do not always have a feel for the classroom).. relatively few teachers will seek it out if there is not a series of coherent lessons nearby </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>[the model of what to make - platform (scratch, etoys, etc) or more limited demo is also had to pin down - at what level do you extend  / adapt / restart ]</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>these somewhat conserative (modest? balanced?) conclusions are hard lessons for me ..since i was one of the ones who was still programming in the small hours when teaching (which is to say the more open ended stuff appeals to me) - and i always hope that something like geogebra or scratch will bridge the gap between being easy to customise and flexible in application ...maybe something will</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>i also fully agree with Kathy that personalisation can mean software intelligently adapts the sequence of lessons... i've seen that in action as well</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>i also think the nice open ended stuff needs to be in there...but needs to function as extension and example and context ... not the main approach for most kids .. much as i think the approach adds the 'working mathematically' aspect that all the content needs and supports</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>have discussed this with Bill before .. and while he doesn't necessarily agree with my figures (i think does with broad concept), but for the sake of provoking discussion, i would say 80% of the learning game can be instructionist sequences of learning </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>20% can then be the more open ended constructionist approach</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>my own preferences go the other way, so its against the grain for me to come to that conclusion ...but i think its a more viable and realistic approach to take</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>i know traditional curriculum can get suffocating and dry ..but the answer is not to throw it out or pretend its not a reality that is still there</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bryan says he would aim at 'content first' next time  - i can now see the logic of this</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>not just access to wikipedia ...but recognisable sequences of lesson materials</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>for what its worth i also think the curriki.org approach is interesting - lots of content being donated from everywhere - but my feeling is its going to be a problem having so much in there without some consistent format or approach.. that is someone needs to pull it together</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>a work of art has to choose some limitations.. i gather the XO hardware has done this ... and no doubt the software developers who have laboured heroically have done so as well... i just think curriculum design needs to be more in the mix, IMHO </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>may be wrong ..and discount my view down as i don't think i can input much time required to significantly contribute to any of this (and my background is not linux flavoured) ...but i would still suggest considering the view of an educator looking at ICT enabled learning  .. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>{i;ve done laptop trials with kids in MS environments as well - and in my view they can make a difference in enabling a self directed approach to part of the curriculum (less than 20% of the course in most settings) - but i don't think in themselvs would much compensate for lack of formal curriculum or teacher skills (so unless there is a clear matching of content to local needs - something that looks more like lessons for most kids - i can't see the educational transformation via the simple provision of the computer.. ).. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>cheers ..noble vision...reaching kids </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>rob </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>-- </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000><FONT size=2>Kathy Pusztavari </FONT><A href="http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep"><FONT size=2>kathy at kathyandcalvin.com</FONT></A><FONT size=2> wrote: </FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000><FONT size=2>I'm of the direct instruction camp.  If skills and concepts are not build<BR>upon each other correctly, you will get kids that either learn a concept<BR>wrong (then they have to unlearn it) or fail and then feel like they are<BR>stupid.  Having a kid with autism, I've seen both.  Unfortunately, I've seen<BR>both with typical kids or even smart ones under poor teaching practices.<BR>This is especially true for teaching reading - Project Follow Through showed<BR>that direct instruction was by far the most effective in teaching period.<BR> <BR>What I'm suggesting is taking effective practices and putting them in a<BR>computer model.  Using short videos or whatever (flash like animation) to<BR>teach concepts.  I'd love to see students answer questions from the computer<BR>and use open source audio to text to ensure the student is following along<BR>and can at least properly use mathematical (or whatever subject) vocabulary.<BR>Verbal feedback also ensures the student is engaged and not just along for<BR>the ride.  All this can be fun, and be presented in a systematic and<BR>sequencial way so as not to lose the student. <BR> <BR>By just throwing some skills at the student, that is not called teaching.<BR>You have to design a program or set of programs that can actually teach many<BR>skills and concepts.  In other words, maybe have it to where the teacher<BR>actually adds in the curriculum with their sequence into a flat file or<BR>database but the program will take care of presentation due to its<BR>modularity.  I'm thinking Typing Turtle, here.  With Typing Turtle I can put<BR>in a sequence of teaching keys.  I have 30 lessons but have only taught 5<BR>keys.  This is broken down for my son.  Another kid could learn those 5 keys<BR>in maybe 10 lessons.  Right now I would have to re-write the lessons for the<BR>other kid but you see where I am going with this - an amazing and stupendous<BR>program would adjust automatically for each kid - probably via analyzing<BR>thousands of kids.<BR> <BR>The books I listed are the "bible" of teaching.  No kidding.  They can be<BR>used by just about anyone to sequence teaching to ensure you don't skip<BR>steps and lose kids.  It should help nerds (what I loving call you guys)<BR>when they program modules.  How do you teach a skill or concept when you are<BR>not sure the student has prerequisite skills or knowledge?<BR> <BR>-Kathy<BR></FONT></DIV></FONT><p></p><p><b>Important - </b>This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening or using attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any loss, damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files our liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender, and not necessarily those of the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.</p> </BODY></HTML>