Thanks I did not realise that it was all self reported data, I assumed that there was Journal data too, my Spanish is not good enough
Tony > Thank you, Tony > > Unreliable? IMO most definitely, if the goal is to figure out *actual* use > Alas, you are probably correct in that there is no better data from > other deployments either > > The data displayed relies on opinions or hearsay. Thanks to this > document, we "know" that teachers or parents or kids say about this or > that, but, as with anything coming from surveys, we have no idea if what > they say is what actually is happening. > If we ask teachers, "are you doing your job", do you think they will > answer "yes"? or "no"? > Compare the charts page 7 and 8. they are supposed to report the same > data, use of XOs in class. They do not match at all, the teacher's view > is SO much higher. Page 19, makes no sense compared to page 7, except > when we understand these are content-free teacher-speak, "fully > integrated with the program" at 32% ??? > > One problem with teacher-speak is that no one knows what it actually > means. Notice lines 4-5 of page 20. Turns out that "Arts Areas" is the > one that has been the least "integrated". However, it turns out that > "draw or paint" is among the highest used activities, pages 11-12. What > about the TamTams? So, what is this Arts Area supposed to mean, that > TamaTam or Pain, Photo and Video and voice recording are not enough? > Page 10 gives still different and contradictory data with the others... > > Opinions are important, when you are a politician. I guess some > allowance needs exist for "perception" data. > > However, I am amazed that I could not find even the slightest attempt to > gather objective data, even when some would have been SO easy. Like, > look if actually teachers are doing what they say they are doing in the > main portal - page 17 - just look at the logs! As if these appointees > had no idea that facts and opinions are not the same thing... (have they > ever had a basic class in experimental method, or the basics of > reproducible science research? In many ways I feel sorry) > > > > IMHO, what we need is to actually have some sort of very simple built in > /something/ that will log to a server *what* activity got opened, > *when*. No need to log what machine it came out of. > Very easy to build valuable knowledge out of it. > What for? > 1) if something gets used a lot, great. Maybe improve it further, as it > really is a favorite > 2) something doesn't get used, let's figure out why, help it, or put it > out of its misery > > Maybe Sugar is a humongous success, the data will prove it. Let's give > it an *objective* proof and certofocate. > If, as I believe, it needs a serious, *deep* re-assessment in view of > making it *useful* some day, this data will tell us better where to > look. No fair to be navigating in fog, guided by surveys! > > > > > > On 01/08/2013 11:53 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >> do you think it were possible to somehow push into the server (and then > >> up to the Internet) suitably anonymous data that tells at least what > >> activities have been started (at least a count within a timeframe, say, > >> every week)? > >> As part of this "cloud" effort? > >> > >> Reason: After all these years, we have not yet much reliable data on > >> whether the XO or Sugar is used or not, or what it is used for, if at all. > > Hi Yama > > We do have data from Ceibal > > http://www.anep.edu.uy/anepdata/0000031610.pdf > > > > Is this data unreliable? I would expect a lot of this data to be similar > > across deployments. What extra data do you want to capture. > > > > Tony > > _____________________________________________________ > This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line > see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
