[sugar] code contributions to Sugar (was Re: Sugar Clock)
Wed Oct 15 14:50:46 EDT 2008
The hierarchy of types of decisions you mention is quite interesting.
I am afraid that expediency ("can be done") might end up ruling things.
It is easier (or so I think) to reach consensus or at least an
I-can-live-with-that in technical matters.
The approach to the pedagogical view has so far been done by ukase from
Up High, and I guess to a certain extent by preferences by those who
actually code things.
The transition from paper-based to XO-based for homework is not
happening in the field, in large part because what we have is just not
user-friendly for the teacher. There has been much mention in its day
of Up High lack of concern for the comfort of teachers.
Is it because of policy of those who decide what is pedagogical sound
and what isn't?
In the currently enforced OLPC model, something like "tomorrow do
exercises 7 to 15, page 85" is deprecated, even though it still is the
procedure for teacher-kid interaction in most classrooms.
Some sort of a transition model is needed, but such a decision is way
heavy with policy and pedagogical baggage.
IMHO, adding meta-tags to Write, and making those visible to the teacher
would be technologically simple, or so I hope, and would go a long way
to make it simple for teachers to load XO-based work in their own
machines, and thus a technology solution would bypass a major war of
religion in the pedagogy and policy fields. Constructionists would keep
their Activities, while Transitionists could share the cake.
David Farning wrote:
> A good first towards solving this challenge is developing a project level self awareness of the different types of decisions we make.
> 1. Pedagogical
> 2. Technical
> 3. Political
> As a general rule we should strive to make decisions base on their pedagogical soundness, technical merit, and political expediency; In that order. I am not sure how to implement this. Maybe they should be stated project values?
More information about the Sugar-devel