Project Bloks isn't out yet, but a similar one is littlebits. The ones I've used with elementary school aged kids though include Sphero, Edison, and Lego Wedo, along with software/sites like code.org, Lightbot, and Hopscotch.
My 4-year-old is really into The Foos app. In the beginning he was just messing around but after a month or two he's really getting it. I was wondering what to use next, thanks for the list!
At first glance, seems a lot like http://littlebits.cc/ only not shipping yet. Might have a bit more emphasis on programming though when it's released?
But upon exploring some works, it seems like writing code but with a tangible object. The User Interface are like the usual toy blocks kids play and they can write code with it.
This seems like the inverse of littlebits. On littlebits, the things you assemble are the output of your system. With bloks, the things you assemble are the code itself; this is more like a tactile visual programming system, not a way to make hardware easier to use.
This seems unnecessarily harsh ("pretend to innovate"). The team called out a bunch of prior art and inspiration here: https://projectbloks.withgoogle.com/research and seem perfectly happy to acknowledge they're not the first to play in this space.
This is really cool. I want to build a system like this that works on VR\AR platforms, to get around limitations of programming in VR like text input being a pain, hard to read text, etc. It's also possible to get around some of the limitations of actual physical hardware like costs, being able to code abstractions (a complex function can shrink to a single block, you could build custom interfaces and types without making new custom hardware, etc). Does anyone know of any other good tangible\physical programming resources out there?
I like to think that a classic Rube Goldberg machine or even just a Hot Wheels track is similar to the idea of a program. You have the main loop, which is the track or route of the car/ball, and then if certain factors come into play, they may change what happens to the car/ball or what happens to something else.
this is great and all because it will introduce more kids to programming but now that we've got a couple different things like this I think that we should start to focus on more syntax oriented learning where the kids can learn why that syntax makes that happen on the screen and what each individual part of the code does. For example, if we were using Javascript to check a variable and see if it is the same as another variable and then log "yes", we would use this:
var a = true;
var b = true;
if (a === b) {
console.log("yes");
}
now, this may seem obvious but to children or someone who doesn't program they might not under stand what console.log does or any other part, also we need to teach kids where they can find the resources they need to learn more if they are interested.
Kids need a motive. With a motive, they'll figure things out, you don't have to handhold them every step or create broken abstractions for them to play around in then get bored.
We already have "visual/physical programming" for kids, in the form of Minecraft. And for the kids who want to go the extra mile, well, they learn Java. Not enough Java they could work at BigCo, because they learn Java with the motive to do stuff in Minecraft, not to actually understand the semantics of Java -- but if they got bored with Minecraft, their retained Java knowledge would be enough that they could then teach themselves the more formal aspects, or even another language.
Kids don't want to know the difference between '=' and '==' and '==='.
The motivation is key here, and I could not possibly agree more.
Lots of people tried to get me interested in Programming when I was younger. I was given a very dry book on PASCAL, and had Visual Basic installed on my very first computer. Never did a darn thing with either of them, because I was more interested in games.
In the 7th grade though, I was given a TI-82 graphing calculator, with a built-in programming language (BASIC) and the ability to type in programs from the math book and let them run. On its own this was neat, but I barely understood what I was doing. Then I got curious one day, read the instruction manual, and arrived at the getkey function.
The TI-82 instruction manual has little to say about the getkey function, except that it "can be used to create Video Games." There is no more dangerous thing to tell a young student bored with Algebra homework. I had a working PONG clone later that same week.
This is precisely what the new BBC computer education project should have been.
Not the BBC microbit - a useless computer with blinking lights, but instead the BBC should have designed a standard for other companies to build interesting and interconnecting computer bits and pieces.
You're comparing Duplo to Meccano here: the projects targets completely different age categories.
The microbit has two built-in buttons, and accelerometer and magnetometer sensors, and Bluetooth. It's got everything required to connect it to your smartphone or tablet and make it a hackable wearable.
i get a feeling all these programs are doing more harm than good. anything taught in school becomes mundane, dry and boring at somepoint. did anyone ever become a history fan because history was taught in school.
When I was in high school in the early 90s I had the option of doing music or computing studies. I chose the latter.
While I agree that some of the material was boring and mundane, it really did play a major role in me becoming a software developer and enjoying it.
I had a teacher friend once tell me that she generally doesn't expect students to learn everything, she just expects them to recognise it when they see it again.
So a child learning the ABC's doesn't really understand what they represent but it's through recognition that they do the actual learning. At some point there is a brainfart and concept become linked and you have your first mindblow.
More recently I finished up some post-grad studies and one of the courses I did was HCI (Human Computer Interaction). This was very dry and boring for the most part. But it was the one that left the most impact on me. It didn't connect with me at the time but now I regularly think "Oh shit, that's what she meant! UX is so fucking important".
Again, this has shaped my relationships to users and the constant blame game I'd play when someone couldn't use what I had built. I very rarely, if ever, blame the user now.
TL;DR: So yeah, school can make things boring but don't underestimate how the subtle accumulation of knowledge can change your life.
p.s. Be humble. Never stop learning. Let your brain fart.
These don't have to have anything to do with school.
> anything taught in school becomes mundane, dry and boring at somepoint.
I disagree. My better English classes interested me in literature that I wouldn't have touched otherwise and got me in the habit of analyzing whatever I'm reading. History was amazing every time it illuminated why things are the way that they are now, or gave an insight into the ways that people used to live. Geometry was great: it introduced me to a lot of thought patterns that are similar to programming, and it was always a fun challenge to use rules to justify the claim made in the problem. School was also my first serious introduction to programming. That QBASIC programming class was the thing that made me decide that's it's what I wanted to do professionally.
> did anyone ever become a history fan because history was taught in school.
Yes, although mostly in contrast to how it's taught in most classes.
Project Bloks isn't out yet, but a similar one is littlebits. The ones I've used with elementary school aged kids though include Sphero, Edison, and Lego Wedo, along with software/sites like code.org, Lightbot, and Hopscotch.