On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Richard Holden wrote: > I think rapid failure is a good thing, but I think failure also needs to > be looked at closely to make sure we are not marking something a failure > because it doesn't work for a certain learning style and maybe missing > the one or two children that it would help in the long run.
Absolutely. One thing about this: I favor the idea of "the tool that does the job," rather than the "one-size-fits-all" tool. If a given tool fails to reach a certain set of kids, the lesson may not be "let us change this tool," but maybe "let us leave this tool, but fork it to create a similar tool that works better for another set of kids." > If we're not too old I'm sure our 4th grade teachers would love to see > us again, or if you have children of your own talk to the teachers at > their school, they may not have time to jump on the mailing list and be > a solid resource but most teachers would love to explain how they do > their job, especially when you're not trying to tell them they do it > wrong. The thing I'm looking for, specifically, is teachers who are willing to sit down with developers, share their ideas up front to give developers a direction to move towards, and then who will commit to playing with the resultant activities as they take shape. I think Caroline is right: aiming for small teams of, say, 4 developers and 2 teachers, meeting every few weeks, is a great model that we should look to enable. --g -- Got an XO that you're not using? Loan it to a needy developer! [[ http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XO_Exchange_Registry ]] _______________________________________________ FourthGradeMath mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/fourthgrademath
