in part this is a discussion about what works in the educational marketplace and what is cutting edge and pushes education forward, the latter will usually be a minority and difficult or nearly impossible to implement position
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” — George Bernard Shaw, Maxims for Revolutionists (quoted by Ian Piumarta in a paper<http://www.vpri.org/pdf/rn2006001a_colaswp.pdf>advocating widespread unreasonable behaviour) given that the initial plan of selling millions of xos direct to governments did not eventuate - and that the xo spawned commercial netbooks - then the marketplace pressures are impossible to avoid, idealism meets capitalist reality - a hard problem to solve On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Costello, Rob R < [email protected]> wrote: > i think Kathy is really on to something here ..taps some things i've been > turning over and thinking of sending to the list > > my day job is now working for company that designs educational maths > software > > 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 > > most teachers that i know want to know that any 'innovation' 'addresses the > curriculum' > > 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 > > 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) > > 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, .... > > but this won't overturn the inertia in traditional curriculum content > > 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) > > 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 > > Bryan Berry in his comments from Nepal also talks about this - the need for > content that clearly addresses the curriculum ... 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' sections for > lesson plans, assessment etc) > > 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) > > I would have suggested just going down the scratch / etoys / logo / > gamemaker sort of line if i'd been advising at the time > (and maybe pippy but I couldn't get it to run and the code samples look a > bit complex for beginners) ...- > > 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 > > 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 > > 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 > > 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 > > 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) > > ie i don't think the technical agenda in itself cannot lead that discussion > .. > > 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...) > > 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 > > [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 ] > > 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 > > 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 > > 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 > > 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 > > 20% can then be the more open ended constructionist approach > > 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 > > 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 > > Bryan says he would aim at 'content first' next time - i can now see the > logic of this > not just access to wikipedia ...but recognisable sequences of lesson > materials > > 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 > > 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 > > 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 .. > > {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.. ).. > > cheers ..noble vision...reaching kids > > rob > > -- > Kathy Pusztavari kathy at > kathyandcalvin.com<http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep> wrote: > > > I'm of the direct instruction camp. If skills and concepts are not build > upon each other correctly, you will get kids that either learn a concept > wrong (then they have to unlearn it) or fail and then feel like they are > stupid. Having a kid with autism, I've seen both. Unfortunately, I've > seen > both with typical kids or even smart ones under poor teaching practices. > This is especially true for teaching reading - Project Follow Through > showed > that direct instruction was by far the most effective in teaching period. > > What I'm suggesting is taking effective practices and putting them in a > computer model. Using short videos or whatever (flash like animation) to > teach concepts. I'd love to see students answer questions from the > computer > and use open source audio to text to ensure the student is following along > and can at least properly use mathematical (or whatever subject) > vocabulary. > Verbal feedback also ensures the student is engaged and not just along for > the ride. All this can be fun, and be presented in a systematic and > sequencial way so as not to lose the student. > > By just throwing some skills at the student, that is not called teaching. > You have to design a program or set of programs that can actually teach > many > skills and concepts. In other words, maybe have it to where the teacher > actually adds in the curriculum with their sequence into a flat file or > database but the program will take care of presentation due to its > modularity. I'm thinking Typing Turtle, here. With Typing Turtle I can > put > in a sequence of teaching keys. I have 30 lessons but have only taught 5 > keys. This is broken down for my son. Another kid could learn those 5 > keys > in maybe 10 lessons. Right now I would have to re-write the lessons for > the > other kid but you see where I am going with this - an amazing and > stupendous > program would adjust automatically for each kid - probably via analyzing > thousands of kids. > > The books I listed are the "bible" of teaching. No kidding. They can be > used by just about anyone to sequence teaching to ensure you don't skip > steps and lose kids. It should help nerds (what I loving call you guys) > when they program modules. How do you teach a skill or concept when you > are > not sure the student has prerequisite skills or knowledge? > > -Kathy > > *Important - *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. > > _______________________________________________ > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > [email protected] > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > -- Bill Kerr http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
