<div dir="ltr">A few thoughts from the Introduction to Sugar page (<a href="http://en.flossmanuals.net/bin/view/Sugar/Introduction" target="_blank">http://en.flossmanuals.net/bin/view/Sugar/Introduction</a>).<br><br>First:<br>
<br><blockquote>
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 <b>"studio thinking"</b> and
<b>"reflective practice".</b> 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).
<br></blockquote>Emphasis mine. "Studio thinking" and "reflective
practice" are not defined here--the intro would be an ideal place to
clearly define these terms.<br><br>Second:<br><blockquote>Information is about nouns. Learning is about verbs. <b>The Sugar user
interface differs from traditional user interfaces.</b> 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:
<br></blockquote>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?<br>
<br>Also, towards the end:<br><br><blockquote><p><b>Sugar is written in Python, an interpreted language. </b>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.
</p></blockquote>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 <i>why</i>
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.)<br>
<br>RM</div>