[This is a reblog of a post I wrote at scratchmathland.com]
The BBC micro:bit contains various sensors for measuring temperature, light intensity, direction, movement, and so on. These sensors might be valuable in a project in which measurement data collected by one micro:bit (the sensor) can be communicated to another micro:bit (the receiver) and displayed on the LEDs. However, there are methods by which this sensor data can be collected and saved in a data file.
The micro:bit does not have the capability to open and write directly to a file but it does have the capability to write to your computer’s serial port (via the USB connection – remember – USB stands for Universal Serial Bus). A terminal emulation program can be used to display the data in real time. Additionally, that data can be easily saved to a text file.
This post describes this process with an example project that I coded and tested on a Mac running macOS High Sierra (ver 10.13.6) and on a Chromebook running ChromeOS (ver 71.0.3578.127).
Click to jump to a section:
- Programming the sensor micro:bit
- Programming the receiver micro:bit
- Capturing the serial data on your computer…
- …Using macOS
- …Using a Chromebook
Programming the sensor micro:bit
This code simply sends data through the radio so that another micro:bit can receive the data. The sensor will measure and transmit six readings: temperature, light level, compass heading, acceleration strength, rotation pitch, and rotation roll. You can access this code here: https://makecode.microbit.org/_4ds5jqKbWAWA This project sends sensor data to the receiver about once per second via the radio; depending on your experiment, you might need to adjust the “pause (ms)” blocks to collect sensor readings more or less frequently.
Because the “radio send string” block has a limit of 19 characters, I have coded the sensor information to be sent in two separate strings. In order to keep the data organized, the letter “A” or the letter “B” is the first character of the string transmitted by the radio. This will become the method by which the receiver micro:bit can correctly identify what information it is receiving.
Note that the “join” code within the “radio send string” in the code below could easily be modified to create comma separated values (CSV) so that the output from the receiver micro:bit could be quickly imported into a spreadsheet and analyzed / graphed.
Programming the receiver micro:bit
This code takes action when it receives data via the radio. The variable CheckTag looks at the first character in the string received and takes one of three actions as indicated in the code below. If CheckTag is A, then Data1 will be assigned the first set of three sensor readings (see code above). If CheckTag is B, then Data2 will be assigned the second set of three sensor readings (see code above). If CheckTag is C, then Data1 and Data2 will be joined and sent to the serial port. Some extra code was included (button A press) so that a new header could be sent to the serial port in case the data is being view in real time and needs to be identified. Access to this code is available here: https://makecode.microbit.org/_AP7LLd4wU1U3
Capturing the serial data on your computer…
How does this project work using the serial port? The “serial write line” block (or any of the other serial write blocks) sends text data to the serial port via the USB connector on your micro:bit. Your computer can read this incoming data by using a terminal program. These kinds of applications have been around for decades and were commonly used in communication between two computers on a network starting in the 1970s. Perhaps the most common terminal was DEC VT100 (pictured). Today, there are apps you can download to your computer that “emulate” these terminals. In the past, they were actual devices that looked much like an old style desktop computer but they could not perform actual computing tasks on their own (sometimes they were called dumb terminals).
For this project, I used used a free macOS application called SerialTools as my terminal instead of using a built-in terminal emulator. The serial reference information on the makecode site suggests opening the built-in Terminal program on a Mac (or analogous one on a PC or in Linux) and then using a command like:
sudo screen /dev/cu.usbmodem1422 115200. There are command line suggestions for Linux and Windows 10 as well… but I found that using a terminal emulator app, like SerialTools, worked better.
Once both of your micro:bits have been flashed with the HEX files, and both are running, make sure the receiver micro:bit is plugged into your computer via the USB connector.
Then, in my case, I started SerialTools on my Mac. Look for something like “usbmodem1422” in the serial port list (the ‘1422’ might be a different number on your computer):
Then, click on the “Connect” button to start displaying the data coming into the serial port from the micro:bit:
To observe how the sensor data changes in real time, pick up the sensor micro:bit and move it around; bring it close to a bright light source, or place your thumb onto the CPU chip to see the temperature rise.
Once you have the data you want, highlight that data in the terminal window and right click to copy. Then, open TextEditor on a Mac and paste in the values:
As I noted above, I separated the sensor values in this project with a space character for but you can easily change that to a comma in the sensor code so that you could produce a CSV file of the sensor data. CSV files are easily imported into your favourite spreadsheet for further analysis or graphing.
…Using a Chromebook
Similar to adding the SerialTools app on macOS above, on your Chromebook you also need to add an app. Head over to the Chrome Web Store and look for Beagle Term (there are other ChromeOS terminal emulators but I used this one successfully). Once the app has been added to Chrome, make sure both of your micro:bits have been flashed with the HEX files, and both are running. Make sure the receiver micro:bit is plugged into your computer via the USB connector.
Now, start up Beagle Term. You will be asked to configure but just go with the defaults:
(Note: if you do not see a device listed beside “port” then the microbit either isn’t plugged in or the Chromebook has not detected it yet. Notice also that on the Chromebooks, my micro:bit connection to the serial port is identified as
/dev/ttyACM0 which is very different to the device name my macOS gave:
usbmodem1422– just interesting to note.)
Now, click on “Connect.”
Once connected, the app will display the data being sent by the serial write line blocks from the receiving micro:bit. Once all of the measurements have been collected, you will need to copy and paste all of the data from the terminal window to a Google Doc or Sheet:
- Double click at the start of the text that you want to select in the Terminal window.
- Scroll the window to the end of the text you want select.
- Shift + click the end of your selection.
- All text between your first click and your last Shift + click is now selected.
- Ctrl + C to copy your selection.
- Open the Docs file where you wish to paste the data.
- Click Ctrl + V to paste your selection.
As noted above, I separated the sensor values in this project with a space character for but you can easily change that to a comma in the sensor code so that you can ultimately produce a CSV file of the sensor data. CSV files are easily imported into your favourite spreadsheet for further analysis or graphing.
Let me know in the comments below how you have captured data from the micro:bit in your projects!
At long last, the new version of Scratch is now live at scratch.mit.edu. It launched officially on January 2, 2019. Scratch 3 is a complete redesign of not only the editor but also the code ‘under the hood’ that runs Scratch. The advantage is that Scratch 3 now works on virtually any device that is connected to the internet and runs a modern browser. The experience is not identical across all devices but it is close. If you are used to Scratch 2 but want to get quickly oriented to Scratch 3, then this article is for you.
It is quite important to note right away that the core of what Scratch is, and what it can do for children seeking to have fun being creative and exploratory, has not changed. Unlike some other popular coding tools, Scratch has always been about being wide open in terms of having a multitude of options for children to be creative, express their ideas, and follow their own interests and passions (wide walls). Also, the new Scratch continues to not only support beginning programmers with very simple, quickly constructed projects but also support programmers who are progressing and using more sophisticated programming (low floor, high ceiling). Scratch 3 dovetails beautifully with a positive, nurturing approach to learning based on child-centered Scratch projects (rather than assignments or puzzles) where they can playfully and collaboratively create, design, share, remix their ideas.
Improvements and Enhancements
No coding blocks were removed in Scratch 3; Scratch 2 projects work seamlessly in the new Scratch 3 environment. Some blocks might look a little different in Scratch 3 because of a new colour. 12 blocks are either new or have been tweaked in the lastest Scratch:
Scratch 3 also contains a host of improvements and enhancements:
- Code blocks are larger to facilitate dragging and dropping on mobile screens
- New left to right flow in the editor, stage is moved to the right-side
- New sounds, costumes and backdrops added in the libraries
- Some blocks have moved to the extension library such as those for pen, music and video sensing
- Built-in editors for costumes (paint) and music have been dramatically improved and enhanced
- The Scratch 2 show/hide tips window on the right hand side is gone but it has been replaced by a tutorials library
You can take a look at the Scratch FAQ and the Scratch 3.0 entry in scratch-wiki for more detailed information about these changes. If you are looking for even more, why not check out the Spring 2019 edition of Hello World magazine (free to download) which includes five articles about Scratch 3 (the first one starts on page 14).
Key improvement – Extension Library
I’m very enthused about the way the extensions library works. I think it makes it easier to understand how the core Scratch tool works and how it can be extended to do new things. From what I remember from the sessions at Scratch@MIT 2018, the developers mentioned that the new Extensions Library in Scratch 3 makes adding new capabilities and functionality with existing and future peripherals much easier.
A great example is the BBC micro:bit extension. The ten blocks included in the extension provide basic access to certain functions of the micro:bit. In order to use this extension with your micro:bit, you need to do three things first (more details on the Scratch microbit help page):
- Install “Scratch Link” on your device (currently, only available for Windows and macos)
- Upload the Scratch micro:bit HEX file to your micro:bit
- Add the micro:bit extension library to your Scratch project and connect your micro:bit
What is actually happening is the Scratch HEX file uploaded in step 2 controls bluetooth communication between the Scratch device (your Windows or macos computer) and the BBC micro:bit. The code on the micro:bit never actually changes as it does with other micro:bit coding environments (such as the popular Microsoft Makecode editor for micro:bit). This makes the experience a little more intuitive because continuous uploads of new HEX files for each change to the project are not needed.
Here is an example of a project (called micro:bit Maze Game) where the micro:bit is used to control the player in a multi-level maze game:
In terms of a wish list, I think it would be great to have a generic Scratch extension library that included blocks to sense and control things like voltages and data flowing through USB connections which might make possible some open ended projects that connect Scratch to any ad hoc electronic project. It might also be interesting to have a touchscreen extension library with block that handle sensing events based on a touchscreen. This would facilitate project interfaces that allow a user to touch sprites (acting as icons) to control events such as games or drawing programs. Finally, I would love to see an extension to provides an interface to either a local or network (like Google Drive) folder so that data could read from, or written into, a file.
Scratch 2 executed Scratch projects using Adobe Flash which meant that projects would not run on non-Flash capable devices such as iPads (which are one the most popular mobile devices used in homes and schools). This limitation is no longer an issue with Scratch 3. This is a significant change and will positively impact iPad-rich schools allowing students to access their Scratch projects via a (modern) browser app.
One of the interesting new design challenges of this improvement will be that students can explore authentically the development of projects that run on a wide variety of both hardware and software environments, an issue in computer programming called cross-platform software development. A given Scratch 3 project does not necessarily appear or work identically across different platforms. The experience is close but not identical. The ask and wait block is an example. The look and feel of the video sensing blocks is also variable with hardware you are using.
Cross-platform development is nothing new. Almost every web site has straightforward code that checks to see what device / browser is being used. It then makes adjustments on the fly so that the user experience is optimal for that device / browser. Scratch 3 does not have these kind of detection blocks built in but different versions of projects could be developed for different devices / browsers so that a project runs optimally. I wonder if a device detection reporter block could be in works?
Key improvement – Drawing and Sound Editing
There have been big improvements in the both built-in editors for bitmap and vector painting and for sound editing. These improve the quality and speed of editing so that users can focus more on the creative aspects of the images and sounds they want.
Some of the things I like the best about the new paint editor is that vector is now the default mode. Also, I am enjoying the new colour picker – I feel I now have a far greater command of colours. For a detailed overview of the new paint editor, take a look at its entry in the Scratch wiki.
The sound editor is so much smoother and so much more fun than before. The filters really make it fun for children to experiment with audio and give them the power to create the sounds they want for their project. Recording and trimming are also more intuitive. For a detailed overview of the new sound editor, take a look at its entry in the Scratch wiki.
I have been using Scratch 3 (now and in beta) with students for a while; there are a few things on my wish list:
- Right-click block help – In Scratch 2 there was a very handy and built-in reference that explained the function and use of any block, including parameters, and a code example. A simple right click on any block would bring up this option. Students used that quite a bit for reference.
- Retractable Code/Costumes/Sounds window – There are many times when it would be great to have more screen real estate to look at more code at once. Zooming in and out on code is easy in Scratch 3 but I would also love to see a button that would retract the Code/Costumes/Sounds tab on the left side to reveal more of the space for scripts. One might ask, why do you need that – are you not always needing code blocks? No. Not when walking through code or remixing and trying to understand someone else’s code. And no, not when reorganizing and optimizing my own code. In my experience, there are clearly times when I would like more space.
- Real time x,y coordinate position of mouse arrow – One thing I do miss from the editor in Scratch 2 was the indicator, in real time, of the x,y position of the mouse arrow on the stage. I often used that as a quick estimate of where I wanted a sprite to be placed and then I fine tune it later. It’s not a big deal… one can get the same effect in by moving a sprite to a position on the stage and then look at the x,y indicator… Nevertheless, it was often quite handy to be able to see a live x,y coordinate read out of the arrow tip’s position.
Resources about Coding in Education
Articles (using coding as a tool to think with)
- Finding the Math in Student Programs (Medium, September 7, 2017)
- Modeling an Analogue Clock in Scratch (TVO, February 2, 2018)
- Scratch is the Right Place for Coding (Medium, May 30, 2017)
- “Coding to Learn” Outcomes (MakeLearn, June 2017)
- 5 ways to turn the ‘hour of code’ into the ‘year of learning’ (Medium, November 26, 2017)
- Learning Design by Making Games (Medium, October 21, 2017)
- Mathland Reflections – Game Design (MakeLearn, December 10, 2016)
Resources (using coding as a learning/thinking tool)
- Coding to Learn: Children, technology & powerful ideas (Prezi, May 2018)
- Mathland Projects Studio on Scratch
- ScratchEd – Resources main page
- Creative Computing Guide (Scratch 2.0 version) from ScratchEd
- Creative Computing Guide (draft Scratch 3.0 version) from ScratchEd
- Scratch-based Connected Coding Challenge by Drew Wheeler
Videos (for professional learning)
- Kid’s creative thinking
- Rethinking Learning in a digital age
- Coding as a new literacy
- LOGO From 1972
- LOGO From 1983
- Papert on “Mathland”
- Seymour Papert — Inventor of everything good in education
- An quick intro to Scratch
Books (coding to learn, creative learning, design thinking)
- Lifelong Kindergarten by Mitch Resnick (August, 2017)
- Invent to Learn: Making, Tinkering, and Engineering in the Classroom by Sylvia Libow Martinez & Gary Stager
- Mindstorms by Seymour Papert (full text of this book provided at no cost by Seymour Papert’s family)
- The Gears of my Childhood by Seymour Papert
- Launch by A. J. Juliani and John Spencer
Don’t get me wrong. In the summer, I think it is essential for teachers to relax, unplug, take a break, spend tons of time with family and/or friends, and enjoy some sunny summer weather. The summer break makes us fresher in the fall and reconnects us to other parts of our lives, friends, family and personal interests that may need some attention.
But, at least for me, there’s a feeling that slowly grows in the summer where I’m restless and looking to plug back in and learn, read, create, tinker, and so on. A few teachers have asked me for some suggestions for summer learning so here are a few for when that feeling comes to you.
It’s not a brand new book but it was to me this spring. Learner Centered Innovation by Katie Martin is great. It really goes into detail with a critical lens on educational practices and provides a vision and examples what teachers can do to improve things for students by starting with them. Much of the language resonates with me because it echoes much of my own vision for education.
For Peel teachers, there are some conference opportunities both in PDSB and outside of it. If you are around later in August, the second annual Empowering Modern Learners Summer Conference is taking place at Central Peel Secondary School on August 23 and 24th. John Spencer is one of the keynote speakers! On July 5, MakerEdTO is taking place at the York School in Toronto. There is more information on their website.
But the idea I would really like to encourage is taking on a project that focuses on a passion or an interest you have. This is something I look forward to doing every summer. The idea is to intentionally outline a project you will take on over the summer that’s centred on an interest you have. Make as the goal achieving flow as Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi describes it. The professional learning comes as a result of the reflections you make about the experience and the learning that happened.
For example, a colleague of mine decided to try oil painting. He’s not an artist. He had never oil painted. He learned quite a bit about making and the creative process. At first he wondered: how does oil painting work? He bought a book about the paintings of Mark Rothko and looked at how he did it; he read about his process. Then, he learned about equipment on the internet. Rothko was the start of it for him. He studies a maker/artist and began experimenting with tints, blending, and so on. Coincidentally, I did almost the same thing one summer but using latex paint and reading this book by Mark Daniel Nelson!
Another colleague of mine wanted to do more with coding and computational thinking with her Grade 6 students in the fall but she wanted to know more and have some skills. She explored Scratch over the summer. She wanted to get comfortable and she made a goal for herself to create a fun game for her son to play. By the end of the summer, she had made a maze game that included two levels. It worked out pretty well and she used that experience and her game example when she introduced Scratch to her students that fall.
I’ve started to get a few ideas for some summer projects. Electronics and building an AM radio from scratch is an idea. I also want to explore CoSpaces. I have dabbled with it but there is so much potential there and I want to know it and create with it to learn more.
Please leave a comment below about what you are thinking about if you are thinking about a summer learning project. I would love to read about it.
This blog post is more of a curation project than a blog post. I have put in one place various statements, beliefs, arguments, for or against, the use of block-based programming/coding with students. Some are clearly pro ‘text-based,’ some pro ‘block-based,’ while others are mixed and point out pros and cons based on certain factors or contexts. This is exactly what I expected to find.
I think the bigger question is the ‘why’ question and the question of ‘coding to learn’ versus ‘learning to code.’ Most of these articles address the issue of an effective means by which students can ‘learn to code’ which is not really my focus with students (which doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen; it’s just not the focus) but, nevertheless, there are many interesting ideas.
Some of the articles below were very frustrating to read because of inaccuracies. One of them, for example, points to limitations in block-based coding that, in fact, do not exist and I wondered how much direct experience the author had in programming using that tool. Other articles were frustrating because they repeated prejudices concerning block-based programming environments such as they were ‘only for kids’ or that block-based code is merely the ‘first step towards real coding’ with text-based languages.
Some of the articles were very exciting to read! One of the best finds was an article called Scratch has a Marketing Problem by Steve Krouse. He writes about challenging his prejudice about block-coding as he explores the potential of Scratch for his students. Another great find was this short video called Why top universities teach drag and drop programming. Dan Garcia from UC Berkley talks about why block-based programming was chosen for students over text-based programming (at his university as well as many across the United States).
Note: I intend to add to this post as I find new articles and resources. Please comment below any URLs to articles, videos, podcasts, or other resources that might merit inclusion in this list.
Pro text-based coding for students
Pro block-based coding for students
Balanced / It depends / It might not matter
Ultimately, for me, it comes down to a single key issue: In the limited time we have with children each day in school, what is the best use of that time for learning? How are we designing and/or supporting powerful and empowering learning experiences for our students? I suppose you could think of it as a question of ROI – with any given student investment of time and effort, what is the return in terms of powerful, high quality learning?
I should mention that those familiar with my work, blog or Twitter account will know that I am something of a Scratch enthusiast. Actually, I’m more of a passionate advocate, a champion of Scratch as a creative and thinking tool. Despite this bias, ultimately, I think we can all agree that we are looking for tools, environments and learning models that really work well with our students in terms of high quality, meaningful, useful learning.
I have a love-hate relationship with Swift Playgrounds. I think probably anyone who is as passionate about learning as they are about computer programming would probably feel the same way. Maybe that’s just me? I just think Scratch has more to offer because it focuses far more on creative learning than Swift Playgrounds does (or could) as it stands now. More on that later…
There’s lots to love
Swift Playgrounds is a beautiful looking environment to learn to code. It’s a nice, modern, object-oriented language and I can learn concepts and conventions and put them to work later in Xcode. Children can choose step-by-step lessons and puzzles to build their coding knowledge and skills. They can choose other playgrounds to play in and subscribe to third party ones, too. They can start with a blank project and try out coding ideas. They can save their projects. There are handy shortcut buttons so you don’t have to always type in commands or statements. The code editor is very helpful and automates many syntactic and structural formatting conventions. Kids can program various robots. There’s even a new, augmented reality coding kit so kids can start to explore AR.
There’s lots not to like
I considered writing a section about how Swift Playgrounds and Scratch are both free tools but that Scratch is supported by a non-profit called the Scratch Foundation and that Swift Playgrounds is supported by a for-profit called Apple, Inc. Suffice it to say, I think the motivations behind each tool are linked to the organizations that create and fund them.
Learning to code
It’s probably clear by now that Swift Playgrounds was not designed as a learning through coding environment; it was designed as a learning to code environment. I don’t think anyone at Apple would have ever said that it’s a coding to learn environment. Indeed, in 2016, Apple’s Director of Tools & Technologies Product Marketing Wiley Hodges said that Swift Playgrounds is “not about learning apps for platforms. It’s about learning good coding practices.” Yet, this turns my mind back to the single key issue at the beginning: In the limited time we have with children each day in school, what is the best use of that time for learning? How are we designing and/or supporting powerful and empowering learning experiences for our students?
What makes using Scratch powerful learning?
Scratch is a unique learning environment because every aspect of it was carefully researched, designed, tested and redesigned. The experiences children have in Scratch maximize the creative, social, personal, experimental, visual and design elements and minimize the technical, syntactic, textual, abstract, and rigid elements of many typed languages. A key design objective in Scratch was (is) to support self-directed learning through tinkering and the creation of personally relevant projects in collaboration with peers. These ideas are further refined and described in Lifelong Kindergarten by Mitch Resnick.
In terms of real students in real classrooms using Scratch, I regularly see students quickly think of interesting ideas they have for a Scratch project and proceed to start to code it in their first session. The use of the Scratch environment, along with a research-based and student tested learning model, can accelerate learning and competence using Scratch to express their ideas. When I observe children creating with Scratch, the best word I can think of to describe it is intuitive. The colour-coded blocks invite experimentation based on almost instantaneous conclusions students have about how the blocks might function with other blocks. The work and the learning come from the building of their code scripts into projects that work the way they want. Typed languages are generally not very intuitive. And with modern object-oriented programming, these languages are even more abstract.
It’s no accident that Scratch works so well with students. I regularly engage in detailed conversations about projects, designs, and problem solving. I’ve written previously about how Scratch is the right place for coding in schools. Probably the most important aspect of Scratch is that it was designed to support a very wide variety of potential projects that can be easily personalized; this leads to children who are highly invested emotionally in their projects. Many have said in passing how much they love working on their Scratch projects.
Papert and Mathland
The “powerful ideas” part of Seymour Papert’s 1980 book Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas talks about the potential of the computer and computer programming as a tool for thinking and building knowledge within a carefully designed learning environment. This powerful learning environment is the opposite of computer aided instruction (CAI) which is a profoundly important distinction. Instead of designing computer applications that act as a teacher for children, Papert envisioned computers as tools children could use in order to play with ideas and build knowledge. He saw coding as a way to control a mini world, a Mathland, and developed LOGO and various mathematical learning environments. From his perspective, the children are controlling the technology, not the other way around.
Papert’s philosophy was always about how children could use coding to learn, and learning about things that are interesting and fun. Powerful learning is exciting, personal, memorable, social and creative. Scratch was specifically designed (and continues to evolve in redesigns) to be exciting, personal, memorable, social and creative. Despite the seemingly endless coding tools now available through sites like code.org and various app stores, I still think Scratch is the right place for coding to learn.
It’s effortless to hop onto social media, whatever social media you interact with (for me it’s primarily Twitter, Medium, WordPress, and news sources), and read through stories and ideas created by other people. In fact, I ‘found’ myself the other day after work having spent about 90 minutes straight on social media. But many other days, it might be 30-40 minutes. I usually learn some things and make notes of resources to refer back to later. Browsing on social media often leads to some great finds.
And, I do have a blog and a podcast and I do share ideas in other places online. But I am pretty hard on myself when it comes to sharing things I create which is contrary to this message from Derek Sivers (his video is partly why I started to blog in the first place).
And, there are also a handful of times when the consumption and creation are intertwined into real-time engagement or interaction with other people (primarily using Twitter chats or Twitter messages).
The problem: I am spending a greater and greater proportion of my ‘allotted time’ to consuming information… rather than creating and sharing it. Why?
Creation is hard. Consumption is easy. The tricky bit is that I do learn from doing both activities. I can’t be the only one thinking about this… And it bothers me. As educators, we expect students to balance their time between consumption and creation. I do think I learn much more by creating. And creating and sharing ideas is more concrete — that part of me that looks for evidence that I have been productive likes the concrete thing I’ve made. The results of consuming information are very intangible. But is it all as simple as that? Am I simply lazy?
Here are my publication stats for this blog:
25 (not 26 since you’re reading 26) times I started to write a blog post and 25 times I abandoned it for some reason. Sometimes I do go back. At least I’ve published more than not. I’m also writing a book but that’s even more difficult. And I am finding the limitations of a physical book to be annoying; ironically, books still seem to be the pinnacle of professional communication. (Incidentally, in the last week or so, I’ve pretty much decided to create a web site instead so that I can link to resources and embed media).
Another issue is that the more I consume information (and see how much is out there) the greater the feeling I get that everything has already been written, shared, and thought through. Just look at the re-discovery of ‘coding’ in education in recent years… Sometimes I think we are all caught up in an endless cycle of ideas that get discovered, shared, forgotten and re-discovered again.
Which brings me to this blog post. What possible purpose can it serve? Who am I writing it for? So what if someone else says, ‘yeah, I get that feeling, too.’ Maybe my own cynicism about sharing ideas also goes through a cycle. But it is rare to ever get direct feedback like that but it does happen and it is cool when it does (thanks, Kate):
So, that part of me that wants some concrete product is making a few resolutions:
- Spend more time reading blogs than tweets (the idea being to truly explore ideas more throughly rather than skim through multitudes)
- Comment and interact more with other bloggers (the idea being to respond and interact with the people who are sharing ideas & resources)
- Go through all my drafts and finish & share the ones that need to be (the idea being to reconnect with ideas and think through them again)
- Get to work on my shiny, new project: https://scratchmathland.com/ (I have the domain as of early May but have put 0% there so far…)
And, just for fun, here is that inspirational video by Derek Sivers which, combined with words from Dean Shareski, motivated me to start blogging:
No, I am not rethinking “empowerment” in the sense of is it a good or bad thing? But after reading a very thought provoking essay called Empowerwashing Education by Benjamin Doxtdator @doxtdatorb I am rethinking how I have used the term and what the term means and implies.
The first thing that jumped at me as I started reading was that if I am a teacher and I am thinking about that ways I empower my students, that still puts the starting point (i.e., the control) of the empowering with me. That is, there is still an oppressive or, at least, paternalistic tone to empowerment when considered in this way. So often educators think: I need to do things so that my students are “empowered.” I don’t like the idea that I am holding the keys to the empowerment of my students. I don’t like the idea they get empowered through me.
On the other hand, I do have power and privilege that was and is accorded to me at a very high cost to others historically, socially, and economically. I consider it a moral imperative to use that power and privilege I have to try to transform status quo conditions that disempower, discriminate and oppress others (in this context, my students). Isn’t it a good thing to want to and try to empower and help others?
My concern when reflecting on this is the question of who decides how my students are empowered? I confess that until I read this essay, I only considered it in one direction: to what extent do all the daily decisions I make as a teacher empower my students? If that is true, then isn’t that idea based on the assumption that empowerment is something done to other people? That sounds wrong to me now. He makes another point that is still resonating with me: he posits that the current use of the word empowerment in education is often meant more as “liberal” than “liberating.”
I think Benjamin makes it very clear that there is (and always was) a lot of context connected to the term empowerment but that current use of the term by educators (and by corporations) seems to have emphasized striving to support passions, innovation, design, voice and choice and deemphasized social justice, politics, activism and radicalism.
His essay ends with some sound advice and three questions to consider instead of using the term “empowerment” in a buzzword kind of way:
Be sure to take some time to read his essay: Empowerwashing Education
Why is it that the older children get, the less play seems to be connected with learning? Personally, I think the two concepts are nearly synonymous. Sometimes I read things that imply that play is great for young children but not so great for older, more serious students. Often, the notion is that all children need more formal instruction and they need to learn knowledge and skills contained in some syllabus or curriculum, something that mere play will not get them. The inference here is that play is informal (and less effective for learning) and instruction is formal (and more effective for learning). At least, that is the inference I make but I strongly disagree with thinking about play that way.
Nevertheless, I try to see the logic in this line of thinking that considers play a low level learning strategy. One needs only to consider any of the most serious professions that often involve life and death decisions, such as medicine and law enforcement or considering other activities where one wrong decision or oversight in planning might mean serious injury or death, such as rock climbing or scuba diving. All of these require the actors to learn knowledge and skills and execute them at a consistently high level of competence. I am guessing (I don’t really know for sure) that training in law enforcement or medicine probably involves highly detailed simulations in which the participants are playing the role they will later actually be in the real world. I would also guess that rock climbers and scuba divers don’t start out by climbing the most difficult faces or diving to record depths. They probably spent a great deal of time training and working up to higher and higher levels of difficulty and danger.
In all of these cases, I think there is a common factor in the training: a level of safety. Perhaps the condition that there is a level of safety could broaden the definition of play for people of every age? That is, that there is a built-in safety factor so that the player can explore and learn without fear of serious consequences. The play still has to have meaningful and real consequences in order for the player learn but maybe not injurious or lethal consequences. In everyday contexts, it is pretty well known that safety (physical and psychological) is a crucial condition for learning. In fact, it is also clear that children who are fearful or anxious experience great difficulty learning and chronic anxiety might impair future learning.
Most mammals play, especially when young. Think of any litter of cubs that you have seen. There are lots of theories as to why mammals play but, surprisingly, very few have been proven by careful observation and research. Two consequences of play in mammals that do seem to be confirmed by research are:
- development of social competence
- increased brain mass and neural connections (cognitive development)
In my experience as an educator, my students have taught me how making things equates with playing; creation and play are deeply connected. Further, I think that if people of any age are creating things they are exciting about, and sharing them with others, the experience is very meaningful and highly memorable. Experiences that are personal (but in a social context) and involve the creation of some kind of product are not merely experiences; they are extraordinary experiences.
I think we all learn something from every experience but I am curious about something: is there really such thing as a passive experience? Maybe all experience can be plotted on a continuum of extent of activation or something like that. If you can plot experiences in this way, I have another question: is there a direct relationship between extent of activation and potency of learning? I have written previously about Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of flow (1, 2) and I think it is worth mentioning again. To me, flow is a indicator, perhaps the best indicator, of the extent of activation of an experience.
I strongly believe that one can say:
Flow indicates powerful, joyful, natural learning.
just as accurately as one can say:
Powerful, joyful, natural learning induces flow.
Finally, a quote from Fred Rogers:
Children’s play is not just kids’ stuff. Children’s play is rather the stuff of most future inventions. Think how many people played about going to the moon before that was ever a reality. Let your imagination help you to know the truth about your identity.
Here is an excerpt from an interesting blog post called The Invented History of ‘The Factory Model of Education.’
Schools might feel like highly de-personalized institutions; they might routinely demand compliance and frequently squelch creativity. But they don’t really look like and they really don’t work like factories.
I disagree. I do agree that there was not as much intentionality, as some people have recently characterized it, to the initial design of both. I do think, however, the same sensibilities and values went into the early design of both factories and education systems. Many similarities continue to exist: siloed subject matter, grade levels, timed work and break periods (with bells to mark them), limited time to learn and to get work done, evaluation of work by superiors, sometimes there are uniforms, strict attendance and rules and consequences, transmission-delivery of knowledge (assembly line), and so on.
Whether the factory model of education is invented history or not, the parallels are there nevertheless.
Imagine you have a new job in a busy factory, on an assembly line where parts continuously come down the line that you need put together. They come really fast but you are new and can’t keep up. Just to reduce your anxiety and embarrassment, you quickly pile a large number of the parts into a big box beside you. Whew! Now, you can breathe. A few minutes later, a bell goes off and new parts are coming down the line. These parts need to be attached to the parts you got before. But those parts are all mixed up and piled up in a big box. There’s no time. And tomorrow, the factory is making something else. You’re getting really far behind but the speed of the assembly line does not slow down. So, in frustration, you quit.
After a bit of searching, you find a new job. This factory also makes things from parts but there is no assembly line. Instead, all the parts needed are organized on shelves in boxes around you. You are expected to start putting the parts together and eventually, you are told, you will get faster with more practice. The person who told you this is the person standing next to you who is doing the same job. You work next to this person, you can ask questions, and you can watch what they do. You like your new job and quite soon, you are very productive. But after a while, it’s repetitive, and ideas you had about doing it differently or creating new products fade away until you feel more like a machine than a person. So, in desperation, you quit.
Finding a new job this time takes much longer. Eventually, you do find one and the place looks nothing like the first two factories. It’s more like a workshop and the people there act more like a team. The workshop is not interested in conformity and standardization. They are interested in new ideas, new designs and new products. They are interested in looking at real problems and issues people face and trying to help people live better lives. They are also very interested in your dreams and passions. You take quite a while to acclimate to this new work environment because you had lost touch with those passions in yourself. Eventually, you realize you have a talent for seeing things in new ways and your ideas are valued and exciting to others. In this new job, you can be who you are not what someone else needs you to be.
Robinson points out that education should be customized for learners and the conditions for learning should be tended to, much like gardeners and farmers tend to their plots and fields, so that growth is not only supported but also flourishes. And individual talents and dreams are highly valued, they form the core of what each person starts with to build on and learn.
Give it a try. Google “how to learn.”
I was expecting to see various learning theories from psychology or philosophical discussions of ways that knowledge forms and develops in the mind. Surely something like assimilation or accommodation would be somewhere in the list…?
Google provided me with various links to online courses or articles promising to teach you tips and tricks of quickly memorizing information. There were also numerous tutorials and articles focusing on how to study. Lots of videos, too:
The focus of the video above, for example, is primarily improving your study skills or how to acquire new skills quickly. But there were also strategies to improve your ability to retain information.
My general take on Google search result rankings is that they are usually very pragmatic. I am guessing that that arises from the algorithms used to place them in the order they appear in the results, that is, they will be listed in order of usefulness, reasonableness and everydayness. So, let’s try the same search in Google Scholar and let’s use the ‘since 2016’ to get more recent results:
These results are more like what I was expecting the first time but they are still disappointing. I wonder if other’s experiences are similar to mine when I research. I find exciting, general titles applied to studies that actually look at highly specific affordances or phenomena. Take for example the link above Should we teach students how to learn? Interesting title. That encourages me to read the abstract. As it turns out, the abstract is as disappointing to me as the study. This is not to say the study is flawed or incorrect. The disappointment goes deeper than that.
There is a common assumption shared by most of the information found in my Google searches about “how to learn.” Most of the resources I found assume a transmission, delivery model of instruction. So some questions arise in my mind:
- If one assumes the transmission, delivery model of instruction, how does that influence one’s beliefs about learning?
- Are there objective facts about learning?
- What if we place learning quality on a continuum, how do we assess how powerful, useful or long lasting learning is?
It goes the other way, too. Lots of real, peer reviewed research (but not all) has much to say about learning within the assumption of the transmission, delivery model of instruction. Therefore, one might predict that the reader will infer what learning is and means due to the assumption.
When I reflect back on the most powerful, memorable, and exciting learning experiences I have had in my life, none involved me being a receptacle for knowledge being poured or ‘delivered’ into my mind. The most powerful learning experiences (in a formal education setting) involved me being active player in the learning; there was choice; there was designing or making; there was a project; there was time to work through different versions; there was reflection and discussion with others.
Will Richardson, in his 2015 TEDx talk The Surprising Truth About Learning in Schools, highlights the conditions that lead to powerful and memorable learning:
He mentioned in his talk that people identified these traits nearly every time when reflecting on the memorable, powerful learning experience in their lives.
But what does all of this have to do with how to learn? I am using all of this as a preamble to what I think is a profoundly insightful statement about how to learn:
What is fascinating about this idea is that all new learning happens in terms of learning that has already taken place. Assimilation and accommodation of new concepts are not new ideas, of course. A crucial condition in education is that in order for one to learn new things, one must be well aware of what was learned before and how it connects to new experiences. That is, learners are in a constant state of adaptation of their minds. I think it’s an active process and one that involves continuously testing one’s understandings or creating things (concrete or abstract). This is one of the primary reasons constructionism makes so much sense to me.
I think this constant state of mind adaptation is analogous to living in and maintaining your home. Your home is made up of some number of rooms, each has a purpose, or a set of related purposes. Within each room there are things you need for what you do in that room. Those things are organized and positioned in a practical way; they are useful. And, as those things are regularly used, you learn to use them better and better… but sometimes they break, sometimes they are replaced or redesigned, sometimes discarded. Sometimes you add or install new things into your rooms. Learning isn’t like building a library or a toolbox where books or tools are simply added and stored (it can be but those things will probably be forgotten quickly). Learning new ideas and skills must have a context. They need to be connected to a purpose or function. And they need to be personal… or personalized.
In my home analogy, I am thinking that the rooms are like large, overlapping (or interconnected) domains of knowledge and skills; the contents of each room are models and tools that we use to think, figure out, solve problems, be creative, and so on. Some home designs are open-concept which is the idea that rooms are larger due to fewer walls, and they are rich, diverse environments where many kinds of things happen at once in that space. Other homes are more cellular or subdivided; there is an array of smaller rooms that are more specific in function.
In education, I think a learning environment that is designed to be authentic, contextual and interdisciplinary will result in an open-concept structure in the minds of the learners that make and communicate there. If children are focused on understanding the connections between things that they see, make, and discuss, then I think their developing minds will be less claustrophobic and there will be fewer arbitrary divisions between what they learn in one instance and what they learn the next.