In case you missed it, a recent "peer-reviewed" article about Sugar:
Lindgren, C and Brooks K (2015). Responding to the Coding Crisis: From Code Year to Computational Literacy. In Strategic Discourse: The Politics of the (New) Literacy Crises. http://ccdigitalpress.org/strategic/ enjoy. -walter On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Sean DALY <[email protected]> wrote: > Dan, > > I am pleased my comments were useful, however I must say I don't understand > some of your points. > > I'm not aware of any transparency issues with Sugar Labs. Nearly all of SL's > discussions are open and public. The Oversight Board has regular meetings > and the minutes are posted, you will find what financial information there > is in there (we are an all-volunteer nonprofit). I can't speak for OLPC > since I am a volunteer with Sugar Labs, you'd have to ask them. > > I have often heard disparaging remarks about OLPC's "failure" to deploy the > 10-20 million units planned. However, any serious study of OLPC must include > an analysis of how the for-profit IT educational market providers did their > level best to sabotage the project. In the end, OLPC jumpstarted the netbook > revolution which immediately preceded tablets. As to the actual numbers, > which remain very impressive, OLPC publishes a map > (http://one.laptop.org/map) - to obtain figures I suggest you write to the > ministry of education in each country. > > I would welcome a peer-reviewed paper about Sugar, but the absence of one > doesn't prove anything one way or the other. Sugar's constructionist > orientation though has very well-researched foundations as mentioned on our > website. > > Here are two papers for you from 1972 and 1975: > http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED072258.pdf > http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197504_brudner.pdf > > These are about American Institute for Research/Westinghouse's PLAN (Program > for Learning in Accordance with Needs) program, begun in 1967 and deployed > from 1969 to about 1976. The idea was to allow grade school students to > learn at their own pace (slower or faster than the existing curriculum). > There was extensive use of computer tech: learning module documents were > stored in computers and adjusted/updated as needed, testing was automated, > progress reporting of each student or by learning module was available to > teachers and faculty. I cite this program because as a 9 and 10-year-old, I > was in one of the PLAN schools cited in the article. It turned out that > there was a weakness in PLAN - the teacher's role was reduced to mere class > administrator and tutor for students in difficulty; so I learned by myself, > with both the advantages and disadvantages of the self-taught. At every > school, one or two students like me would race through the most interesting > modules (I remember doing 36 biology modules one of those years), but dawdle > in the boring modules (English, where I spent a couple of months on a single > module while reading Jules Verne and accounts of the First World War). PLAN > was abandoned in part because of the high costs of upgrading the computer > infrastructure, but also because educators were concerned about both > underperforming and overperforming students slipping through the cracks. So > did I lose two years? Well, I graduated grade school with college reading > level, later went to a specialized high school for math and science, and > became a National Merit Scholar. However, that's only haf the story. My two > years in PLAN taught me to be skeptical of authority, that there are > multiple sources of information and it's your own self who must seek them > out, that everyone must find their own path, that thinking outside the box > leads to discoveries. I left university - where I was bored - to play music, > and to earn a living, I taught myself programming and built a career out of > it. I tell this story because I am convinced that Sugar offers many of the > benefits I had to today's children. > > Sean. > > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:28 PM, Dan Tenason <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The recent posts on the Future of Sugar have been insightful. Mr Daly's >> comments on marketing have been particularly poignant. Both OLPC and Sugar >> Labs have been calling for more money, more developers, more time to solve >> their problems. Both organizations have suffered due to a lack of >> transparency about how that money and time is converted into useful results. >> >> The limited number of peer reviewed papers on Sugar raises red flags. >> Unreviewed papers are the equivalent of taking medical advice from the >> Marlboro Man. They are interesting to read. One should still consult their >> doctor before taking the decision to start smoking. >> >> A second issue is user numbers. Dr. Negroponte's imagery of dropping >> laptops from helicopters combined with the lack of data from OLPC, Sugar >> Labs, or most of the deployments about usage numbers leaves us to assume >> that this project is not preforming as well as promised. We often see the >> number 2.5 million laptops sold. We seldom see how many are usable or in >> active use. Interviewing a few deployments about their repair and spare >> parts statistics, it is more likely that 0.5 million are in a usable >> condition with less than half of that in active use. >> >> Until Sugar Labs clarifies these issues, any efforts Mr. Daly puts into >> marketing will feel like Sisyphus pushing his rock up the hill. >> >> -- >> Dan Tenason >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
