Yama, Great vision!
I break this down into two parts. 1. Software that assess students, track and displays results, quickly and efficiently without using up a lot of instructional time. 2. Software and a content library that analyzes these results and gives students the right learning objects/experiences for their current level and learning style. #1 is straightforward programming. #2 is a grand challenge! Both 1 and 2 already happen without technology, just substitute "teacher" for "software" and adjust the grammer. What is interesting is that for a teacher #1 is the difficult, time consuming, boring piece that is challenging to do well, especially in large classes and #2 is one of the interesting, creative parts of their job. On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Yamandu Ploskonka <[email protected]>wrote: > > On 04/21/2010 05:06 PM, Caryl Bigenho wrote: > > In essence, every child deserves an IEP (Individual Educational Plan) which > are expensive and time consuming to develop and thus are reserved for an > elite group: the special needs children. Every child has special needs. > Every child needs an IEP. But where will the funds, personnel, and > curriculum come from to provide it? > > Caryl > > > Haha! that was to be point number 2, that I somehow forgot and the message > went into drafts and I sent it later without checking.... Thanks Caryl, > good catch, that was missing > > so, > > 2) As per 1) (now below somewhere in the earlier messages), each child and > educator is unique. Just like Caryl mentions it, to do an IEP is > complicated, expensive, etc, but in essence it is about gathering data and > reactions to stimuli from an individual and following certain protocols to > interpret them and then act certain interventions that correspond to the > said individual. > > You know what? Computers are grrrreat! at handling data, interpreting it > by following algorithms, and then giving an output that corresponds to the > inputs entered. In slightly better English, a computer could present > certain activities to a child, and from the way the kid responds, determine > the course of action to help said kid to learn. And computers don't mind at > all to help Johnnie one way, and then help Sally a very different way, > keeping strict track of each one, and not just adapting the way things are > presented to each child's style of learning (uh, I believe the current > buzzword is neural cognition something). Of course this might have a chance > if the programmers are not one-size-fits-all lusrs. > > example: 310 - 220 > Right answer is 90, OK, next. > > but, among the "wrong" answers some do tell us some things. Like someone > answered 110. That is not a random error, but something that needs a * > specific* intervention, not just telling the kid he needs to "do more math > problems". Another telling error would be 190. Also, some exercises would > be presented in audio, others involving putting things in places, etc, > trying to figure out what style a kid is best at - then using that style as > a good road for learning new stuff, but also a chance to catch up some other > styles he is less strong in. > > Yes yes yes, this involves some AI, something sort of dead after the > dot.com bubble. But it could be done - some such computer-based > interactive tools already exist for some diagnoses, and also for some > therapies, interestingly enough some of the software in use is the same > version released in the late 90s... > > Now for the very best thing: > > Computers can be immensely patient. > > They can be immensely customisable. A computer doesn't care if it needs to > work slowly-like with Matt, doing good reinforcing with little pink dinosaur > dances to keep him interested, and they still are just the same old pile of > gray metal, just as good, even if they sit in front of Josh, who might just > beat Doogie Howser by graduating UCLA at 8. It just feeds him more stuff > faster, thus not just helping him learn, but keeping him out of boredom > trouble, and best of all, out of Mrs. Crabby's hair, does she *hate*show-offs. > > Is this just a > gedankenexperiment<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment> > ? > > It obviously hurts any chance of getting this to work that my people skills > and my grant-application skills are both extra low, because this would need > some money to put together a prototype. Unless this hits some wave of viral > networking, and this message gets passed on to someone who could fund it... > > > An IEP *and* made-to-size interventions, for every one, for every single > one of those very special, very uniquely created kids, whatever abilities, > skills, giftings, interests they have. And also, very important, to help > the teacher - not replacing him by any means, but taking away the routine, > the drudgery, the need to be a specific fit to every child, letting the > teacher focus in human relationship, behavior, communication, while the > detail and step by step work is helped by the machine. > > There. > > > ------------------------------ > From: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:00:22 -0400 > To: [email protected] > CC: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [IAEP] Data vs Critical Thinking - Can Sugar give schools > both? > > > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Yamandu Ploskonka <[email protected]>wrote: > > I highly respect you initiatives, Caroline, not just because they start as > a basically good idea, but then you do great follow-through that I wish I > will learn more from. And this is a great initiative, your email waiting a > long time in my inbox because it was so good I wasn't figuring out how to > contribute, though I felt I needed to at least share a couple thoughts. > > > Thank you for your kind words :) > > > Something sort of along these lines I have been pursuing pretty much since > forever, but in my case it has not passed from being a gedankenexperiment, > alas. > > My reflection goes along these ways > > 1) each child (and each teacher!) is unique in abilities, giftings, > potential and actual skills, learning styles... > > from this we can infer that "one-size-fits-all" education is not as good - > for the child - as education that fits each child's way. > > one-size-fits-all education is cheaper, > > > The interesting thing is that RTI is actually being implemented as a cost > savings measure in the US. In the US schools often identify up to 15% of > their students as needing "special education". They are then > generally segregated into separate classrooms or pulled out of class into > resource rooms where they receive instruction with highly qualified teachers > in small class sizes. Lots of money is spent on this but the outcomes for > the students are generally extremely poor. In addition, many students with > reading problems are not referred until they start failing, often around 3rd > or 4th grade. The referal process itself is expensive, involves tests and > lots of meetings. > > With RTI policy makers are hoping to teach more students in their normal > classroom and remediate learning problems early, reducing identification of > special ed students and reducing costs. Although the results of the studies > show that improves performance for all students, cost savings by reducing > special ed is a major driver in adoption. > > > > seems to work, is the way it is done everywhere... arguments hard to beat, > though for generations it was SOP, for those who could afford it, to have > tutors to work with their kids one-on-one, something obviously impractical > and impossible to scale-up to the needs and the rights we recognize now. > > enter differentiated instruction, which sadly has meant often some kind of > apartheit, where the "A" tier gets attention, funding, the best teachers... > > > Again an interesting cultural difference. In the > US differentiated instruction, when its being used to refer to a single > classroom, seems to usually mean more attention to the lower performing > students. > > We do definitely also have tracking where students who test high enough > go to separate classes and receive more of everything. But that is not what > the people here in the US usually call differentiated instruction. > > > It is now SOP that there are "better" schools parents fight to get their > kids in. Contrariwise, many classrooms are by design mixed-things and some > sort of forced integration has been a fashion for a while, and for a while > failing schools got more funding, a trend that took a while to turn around > since it was discovered that it encouraged failure. > > > > > Your proposal indicates "more intensive instruction" for the "students that > are struggling", which is nice, no doubt for those, but maybe unfair to the > others. It appears many more "scholar athletes" lately are getting > diagnosed for disorders that allow them to use chemicals that otherwise are > banned... I am concerned that if the way to get better schooling is to be > lower tier, there might be a rush for it. > > > Nod, I agree. I think there is a fundamental dilemma that society and > indeed every teacher faces around who gets instructional attention. My hope > working with technology is to raise the general level and the amount of > resources, I don't imagine that we will ever really eliminate this dilemma. > > Interestingly I worry about it on the other side in this case. In the > kindergarten class I observed the struggling students had an hour of small > group phonics lessons. The other students had shorter reading groups and in > the rest of the time they played with blocks, math games, used computer > software and read. I worry about the struggling students having enough time > for exploration and play. > > To me our goal needs to create technology that provide the best possible > experiences for students receiving the intensive instruction and those who > are left with more time for individual activities and I think Sugar can > absolutely support both. > > Personally I'm more impressed with the data collection and analysis part > of RTI. I the goal I'd like to see us work towards is to sue the data used > to give every student instruction right in their zone of proximal > development and to make it easy for teachers to find alternative teaching > approaches for students who don't respond to the first way something is > taught. > > I do think there is power in learning from research > backed pedagogical methods like RTI, especially when > they emphasize something like Data which is a good match for technology. > However, this is a good conversation because part of RTI is very based in > the US public school culture of spending more resources on special ed > students. So we need to dissect it and take the pieces that create better > learning for all students. > > Thanks! > Caroline > > > > > > On 04/20/2010 09:29 AM, Caroline Meeks wrote: > > Hi Subbu, > > Not off topic in my opinion. > > RTI consists of: > > 1. *Scientific, Research-Based Instruction- Delivered in Tiers, with > students who are struggling getting more intensive instruction.* > *2. Screening of all students.* > *3. Progress monitoring (about every 2 weeks) for the students getting the > more intensive instruction (the 'intervention').* > * > * > *US based discussions of RTI focus on how it effects the pipeline to > special education. But in many OLPC contexts I don't think there is a > special education to be referred to. I think if kids can't make it in the > general classroom they drop out. Thus a system that keeps more kids on > track is valuable.* > * > * > *Discussions of how to improve instruction is very on topic for RTI. In > RTI terms you could think about it in two ways. Are the materials part of a > Tier I (all students) instruction or are they for Tier II, for struggling > students. The great thing about technology, be it a laptop or a mp4 player, > is that it could be used in both ways. The whole class could use it, and we > could help teachers match up specific weakness in students with specific > learning objects for a Tier II like intervention.* > * > * > *I'm focusing a lot on the screening and progress monitoring pieces of RTI > because, thanks to huge, long, high stakes tests that teachers don't see > results back from for months, assessment has gotten a bad name. > RTI assessment is quick and results are immediate, specific and actionable. > * > * > * > *Yes, on the cell phones/hand helds for doing the assessments. In the US > palm pilots are used. I do think setting it up on a cell phone would be far > more economical.* > * > * > *Thanks for responding. :)* > * > * > *Caroline* > > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:36 AM, K. K. Subramaniam <[email protected]>wrote: > > On Tuesday 20 April 2010 06:01:33 am Caroline Meeks wrote: > > Why can't computers for children both give them the means for creation, > > independent learning, collaboration etc etc. and give their teacher > > detailed, nuanced, actionable data on what skills they have mastered and > > what they are still struggling with? > Computer-centric vocabulary is becoming obsolete today. Talking about > computers today is a bit-like talking about DC/Induction motors in our > homes. > We don't think of mixers, juicers, grinders, washing machines etc as motor > machines, do we? Kids don't think of mobile phones as computers. They > think > of them as phones, cameras, voice recorders, mp3/mp4 players etc. > > >Problem solvers, groundbreaking pioneers and visionary leaders need to > know > >their phonics and their basic math skills. We have the capability to > build > >tools that help teachers know and track which students are struggling with > >what skills, and provide the collaborative framework for them to collect > >data and share it to determine what works to teach those skills to all > >students. > Just a few weeks back, I had a discussion with village school teachers > about > using smart machines to enliven language lessons. The discussion veered > around > using mini-speakers with mp3 player in classrooms. The players, about 4" > cube > take in 2GB USB flash, SD card or micro-SD cards and play for 5 hours on a > single charge. They cost about $8-$10 here and 2GB card can easily hold > about > four-five years of language lessons. Neither teachers nor 6-9 year olds > think > of them as computers. > > We could also think of using portable mp4 players (for visual lessons) or > smartphones (for data collection). These machines don't exclude the use of > laptops for authoring lessons and give more options for children to learn > languages, math and science. > > [Apologies if this is OT on a RTI thread] > > Subbu > > > > > -- > Caroline Meeks > Solution Grove > [email protected] > > 617-500-3488 - Office > 505-213-3268 - Fax > > > _______________________________________________ > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > [email protected]http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > > > > > -- > Caroline Meeks > Solution Grove > [email protected] > > 617-500-3488 - Office > 505-213-3268 - Fax > > > _______________________________________________ > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop > project!)[email protected]http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > > -- Caroline Meeks Solution Grove [email protected] 617-500-3488 - Office 505-213-3268 - Fax
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
