SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The other thing is that in order to learn, children need to have fun. But they have fun by really being pushed to explore and create and make new things that are personally meaningful. So you need open-ended environments that allow children to explore and express themselves.
(This Inventor Is Molding Tomorrow's Inventors, IEEE Spectrum)
IEEE Spectrum has a (short) sit-down with Marina Umaschi Bers, co-creator of the ScratchJr programming language and the KIBO robotics kits. Both tools are aimed at teaching kids to code and develop STEAM skills from a very young age. Other examples of such tools are the mTiny robot toy and the Micro:bit computer.
Being able to code is a new literacy, remarks Professor Bers, and like with reading and writing, we need to adapt our learning tools to children's developmental ages. One idea here is that of a "coding playground" where it's not about following step-by-step plans, but about inventing games, pretend play and creating anything children can imagine. She is currently working on a project to bring such a playground outside: integrating motors, sensors and other devices in physical playgrounds, "to bolster computational thinking through play".
Given how fast complicated toys are being thrown aside by young children, in contrast to a simple ball -- or a meccano set, for the engineering types -- I have my doubts.
At least one of the tools mentioned above is aimed at toddlers. So put aside your model steam locomotive, oh fellow 'lentil, and advice me: from what age do you think we should try to steer kids into "coding" or "developing", and which tools should or could be used for this?
Feel free to wax nostalgic about toys of days past, of course, in this, one of your favorite playgrounds: the soylentnews comment editor.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by canopic jug on Thursday October 31 2024, @05:04PM (3 children)
Wanna get kids hooked on programming? Give them bricks. Simple tools they can combine and do interesting things with. They'll figure out the rest without your help.
The confound to that approach is that recent generations of Lego have too many specialist shapes which fit together in almost exactly one way and can't really be used outside their intended purposes rather than more generalized forms which fit together in a variety of ways. It was those generic shapes which gave Lego its free form, abstract nature and which contribute to internalizing the idea of combining and recombining components. That ability to combine and recombine is a core of programming.
On a somewhat tangentaI anecdote, I played with Lego a lot for a few years starting at age 3. As an adult I coached someone on an aptitude test regarding mentally doing 3D rotation of objects represented in 2D drawings. I had always thought those tests were merely a formality for the most part or maybe a speed test, but nope. There are people that actually cannot do such rotations in their heads. The first thing I thought of was Lego and then I realized that the age cohort I was dealing with had no experience with Lego or any other similar kinds of models. There are other factors too however my main guess is that the generic, non-specialized Lego kits really build a lot of capabilities for visualization.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Thursday October 31 2024, @05:04PM
s/3/4/;
It was a while back...
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Thursday October 31 2024, @05:17PM
Yes I heard that. That's too bad: the whole point of Lego is generic things you can do whatever you want with.
Agreed. For a few years, I worked as a technical drawer, modeling mechanical parts, and I credit playing with Lego for my perfect ability to visualize things in 3D in my head.
And I too have met people who can't seem to be able to do that. Though I read somewhere that it's more genetic than acquired - although I read that many years ago, possibly decades ago: I recall the article claiming women have a harder time at spatial visualization, and it sounds like something a modern science article wouldn't dare printing :)
(Score: 5, Informative) by Snospar on Thursday October 31 2024, @05:18PM
The thing about those LEGO specialist pieces is that now they are used across a lot of different themes and brands within LEGO. You might think "Oh they've build a special part for this spaceship" but that exact same part turns up (maybe in a different colour) as part of a Flower, or connecting something in a castle or just in a boat somewhere. The number of distinct LEGO elements has decreased since the 1980's. Article on brickfanatics [brickfanatics.com] is one that confirms this but I've seen it stated many times by LEGO staff.
Huge thanks to all the Soylent volunteers without whom this community (and this post) would not be possible.