hmm, sure..., sorry What does it mean? 90% of the children get 100%?
Is there a sliding scale / bell curve? what is "fluency", anyway?
fluency in what?
On 11/02/2010 05:08 PM, Alan Kay wrote:
I didn't say "90% fluency", I said to "get 90% of the children to the
level of fluency".
Cheers,
Alan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Yamandu Ploskonka <[email protected]>
*To:* Caryl Bigenho <[email protected]>
*Cc:* Alan Kay <[email protected]>; IAEP SugarLabs
<[email protected]>; [email protected]
*Sent:* Tue, November 2, 2010 12:38:17 PM
*Subject:* Re: [IAEP] 90% fluency Re: Granny Cloud
For the record, I actually did agree with the guy, and when given a
chance to present to that same group one week later, used this very
concept together with a picture I took in Nepal of an old gentleman,
as part of my talk (and I used Prezi, which was quite impressive... :-)
OTOH, agreeing with such way of handling data has seriously messed up
with my compass for valid, evidence-based scientific data, which is
why my request to understand better what Alan meant by 90% fluency...
On 11/02/2010 03:30 PM, Caryl Bigenho wrote:
Hi All...
A bit of family history to shed light on my opinion on this...
My Irish great-grandmother was unable to read and write when her
first children were born, back in the 1860's (she was born at the
start of the Potato Famine). She signed their birth certificates
with an "X." Within a couple of years of that (probable
embarrassment) she was able to sign her name. By 1904, when the only
photo I have seen of her was taken (just before she died), she posed
with a book... a la Whistler's Mother. And I have a copy of a letter
she wrote in the late 1890's. Being able to sign her name was the
first step on her road to literacy. It can be the same for the folks
in Bolivia, or anywhere else... regardless of their age.
Caryl
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 15:12:36 -0500
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [IAEP] 90% fluency Re: Granny Cloud
When I was in Bolivia recently I happened to be present at a rather
high-level meeting where the matter of the literacy rate of Ecuador
was being discussed, and criticism of those critisizing it got
criticized - apparently UNICEF or one other such agency had disputed
a 1% gain claimed by the government, who then had to retract its figures.
The main point had to do with "the breach". Apparently or so we were
told, you can and should be able to count success in literacy even in
cases that all you have been able to achieve with that 70-year-old
peasant was to get him to recognize his name, or write it when
prompted, and people who don't count that as a gain in absolute
literacy figures for the country are plain evil imperialist
capitalistic goons or their equivalent.
In this context it surprises me less that many projects simply are
not interested in cause-effect research, based in objective data,
regarding OLPC or any of such. Qualitative research is in, as valid
and acceptable, and so is perception-based data and interviews rather
than actual event/fact observation, and technicalities are used to
debunk data-based reports (this later actually might be fair, if they
play by the rules).
Because we do not have suitably globally agreed-on scales and
answers, answers that are consistent at the same time with
evidence-based research, political correctness, and respect for the
downtrodden, we are a bit stuck when it comes to say if we are -
where? - somewhere...
As to myself, I will not dispute the claims by our President, Evo
Morales, and his government, that we have, in Bolivia, achieved 100%
literacy. There are, so I've been told by some of the very people
who have arrived to that number, solid reasons and evidence that
shows such an excellent goal and need has been met.
Now, y'all at PARC, do you have some definitions that clarify what it
is they meant by 90% fluency?
They are crucial, no doubt... is that like 10% less than 100%?
As to drop making technology available for the top quartiles just
because the low quartile is not getting any benefit, I have no words.
It is very nice to want to close the breach, to want to help the
least, but if the only way to more equality is by setting up a lower
ceiling for those who actually could benefit at the least cost, then
we are totally messed up, it certainly is NOT unimportant.
A colleague in the Sur list was mentioning "residual cognitive
benefits" in the form of new brain circuits. When I think on how
much more expensive it is to get a good education to a kid with low
socioeconomics than it is to a better-off one, besides the whole
issue of context I worry on how we do not realize the consequences,
importance and additional cost to go that extra mile - and in doing
so, refrain from discriminating against those who do not need all of
that effort, those whose 2-parent households get hit by taxes and
their own expenses as they do some of the push. I know it gets silly
very fast, but in real world terms, let us not pretend we are
surprised by the higher XO breakage rates among urban poor kids in
Uruguay, or the low breakage amongst the even poorer in Nepal, when
we know that one of those pretends that equality happens by saying
so, and the other carefully builds and together with the interested
parties prepares for difficult scenarios.
Alas,
Yama
On 11/02/2010 10:51 AM, Alan Kay wrote:
To me, this is the main point.
Years ago (at PARC) we decided that in any meaningful world, we
needed to help 90% of the learners achieve real fluency (or judge
our methods to be not good enough). Both the "90%" and "real
fluency" are crucial (the latter is often abandoned when the
former is held to be important).
Cheers,
Alan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* K. K. Subramaniam <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Tue, November 2, 2010 7:45:47 AM
*Subject:* Re: [IAEP] Granny Cloud
On Tuesday 02 Nov 2010 8:17:34 am Caryl Bigenho wrote:
> Hi All...
> Here is a concise article that summarizes Sugata Mitra's work
with the
> "Granny Cloud." Note he says a 1 to 1 model doesn't work. He
uses 4 to 1.
> http://dnc.digitalunite.com/2010/07/29/granny-cloud-to-teach-children-via-
> the-internet/
I would be wary of reaching any specific conclusion from such
experiments. This
is not to discourage new experiments but to highlight the fact
the need of the
hours are interventions that ensures that the number of students
who are *not
learning* should provably *decrease* during a three year window.
When we throw technology X or method Y at the education problem
and make the
top two quartiles learn better but leave the bottom quartile out
cold, then
such a tech/method is a nice but unimportant development for
tacking education
issues we face today.
Subbu
_______________________________________________
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
_______________________________________________
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An
Education Project (not a laptop project!) [email protected]
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
_______________________________________________
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
[email protected]
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
_______________________________________________
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
[email protected]
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
