Hi Bill, I'm glad you followed up on this. I wanted to send an e-mail saying that there is great learning software and I agree with the ones you list.
It sounds like you are not convinced that its all great stuff but I can say that eToys, Scratch and Turtle Art are all very popular and well used in our deployments. I like your classification.. I would just add one general purpose tool to the first section: Browse. The hardest part for me is figuring out what is "learning". If we really knew what that means then I think choosing or building the right software would be relatively easy! Thanks, Greg S Bill Kerr wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Greg Dekoenigsberg writes: >>> On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Greg Smith wrote: >> I think that producing useful activities that are intended >>> solely for kids, with a strong pedagogical element, is still >>> a largely unsolved problem. >> It's worse than that. >> >> It's not a problem restricted to activities. It hits Windows >> and MacOS as well. It's not merely an unsolved problem, but >> a very poorly defined problem. >> >> Put aside the platform for the moment, and the implementation >> details. (note: "requires a strong AI" is not just a detail!) >> Simply try to imagine some purely educational software that >> wouldn't be dreadful. Got any ideas? > > > > I can't think of any educational software that is "intended solely for kids" > that is worthwhile. > > new slogan - improve the quality of your dog food so that you want to eat it > > > eg. Scratch or etoys or turtle art or logo is designed largely with kids in > mind (it is deliberately cut down in some way, not fully featured) but > nevertheless is still fun and offers new learning ideas for adults > > software that is "intended solely for kids" is phoney, eg. maths blaster > (lets make maths fun for kids by rewarding mundane arithmetic activity with > something totally unrelated to the task), aka dressing up the dog > > it might be useful to classify "educational software". Here is a very rough > first attempt which I'm sure could be improved on but might help get > discussion moving: > > *group one - extending reach* > most software fits under generalised groupings of extending the reach of > humans > > word processing - better than previous writing tools > spreadsheets - better than previous maths tools > image manipulation - better image tools > wikipedia - more accessible encyclopaedia > dr geo II - geometry is more accessible > simulators - x2o, inspired by the incredible machine > Moodle claims to have a social constructivist theory but I think it's really > just for incremental improvement on what schools already do (still looking > at moodle though for more information), social constructivist is a fairly > meaningless phrase anyway > etc > > *group two* *- great leap forward* > what bits of software have a specific educational focus based on a more or > less worked out theory, ie. software that can make a claim to being a big > leap forward in educational computing, more so than making something we can > already do more accessible (yes these claims are often dismissed as > grandiose) > > cmap - concept mapping, Novak > hypercard - ? (now defunct) > logo, turtle art - Papert, Piaget > etoys - Kay, Bruner > scratch - Resnick > some games (Gee's semiotic domains theory) > > *group three - simple training * > (necessary but not very interesting) > eg, typing tutors > > *group four - dressing up the dog * > - cute software that pretends to be interesting but isn't: > eg. maths blaster type > _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
