[OLPC library] Introduction to Sugar page

[Rob Mason]

A few thoughts from the Introduction to Sugar page (
http://en.flossmanuals.net/bin/view/Sugar/Introduction).

First:

Sugar is a learning platform that reinvents how computers are used for
education. Collaboration, reflection, and discovery are integrated directly
into the user interface. Sugar promotes *"studio thinking"* and *"reflective
practice".* Through Sugar's clarity of design, children and their teachers
have the opportunity to use computers on their own terms. Students can
reshape, reinvent, and reapply both software and content into powerful
learning activities.  Sugar's focus on sharing, criticism, and exploration
are grounded in the culture of free and open-source software (FOSS).

Emphasis mine. "Studio thinking" and "reflective practice" are not defined
here--the intro would be an ideal place to clearly define these terms.

Second:

Information is about nouns.  Learning is about verbs. *The Sugar user
interface differs from traditional user interfaces.* Sugar creates a user
interface that is based on both cognitive and social constructivism. We
believe that learners should engage in exploration and collaboration. The
Sugar platform is based on three defining human principles. These are the
pillars of user experience for learning:

Emphasis mine. The bolded sentence ("The Sugar user interface differs . . .
. " ) seems not to contribute anything to the paragraph--it neither explains
how nor why it differs, only that it does; the next sentence could survive
just fine without it. I wasn't sure if it should be deleted or if it should
be expanded to explain the connection better. Thoughts?

Also, towards the end:

*Sugar is written in Python, an interpreted language. *This allows the
direct appropriation of ideas in whatever realm the learner is exploring;
music, browsing, reading, writing, programming, or graphics. The student can
go further. They are not going to hit a wall. They can, at every level,
engage with and affect the very tools they are using for their personal
expression.

Again, emphasis mine. Though I'm given to understand this is internally
consistent, but it doesn't explain 'interpreted language,' a concept which I
think is important to understanding the rest of the paragraph (by allowing
the reader to understand *why* it "allows the direct appropriation . . ."
etc.). It looks like it would be a good place for someone to insert a brief
paragraph defining the term. (Or, if it's completely insignificant I
recommend removing it.)

RM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/library/attachments/20080903/9978deed/attachment.htm