
Project Bloks: Making code physical for kids - runesoerensen
https://research.googleblog.com/2016/06/project-bloks-making-code-physical-for.html
======
edtechdev
There are some more kid-friendly programmable robots/hardware and coding tools
listed here:
[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1r1b2CM1uTdST47IbWa7zlZYm...](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1r1b2CM1uTdST47IbWa7zlZYmbfoqrgYSeym2inUvnFo/edit?usp=sharing)

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.

~~~
hamstersoup
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!

------
natevw
At first glance, seems a lot like
[http://littlebits.cc/](http://littlebits.cc/) only not shipping yet. Might
have a bit more emphasis on programming though when it's released?

Their own list of "prior art"
[https://projectbloks.withgoogle.com/research](https://projectbloks.withgoogle.com/research)
shows some even older "block-based" electronics kit projects.

~~~
Michie
I agree. I thought it was another version of
[http://littlebits.cc/](http://littlebits.cc/)

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.

Interesting move by Google on this.

------
IIAOPSW
When I was a kid we had "logiblocs".

But I guess I was an odd kid and no one else had that experience so Google
gets to invent it again and pretend to innovate.

[http://www.logiblocs.com/](http://www.logiblocs.com/)

~~~
packetslave
This seems unnecessarily harsh ("pretend to innovate"). The team called out a
bunch of prior art and inspiration here:
[https://projectbloks.withgoogle.com/research](https://projectbloks.withgoogle.com/research)
and seem perfectly happy to acknowledge they're not the first to play in this
space.

------
Impossible
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?

------
nikolay
Please, don't use misspelled words in kids' products!

------
spike021
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.

------
Devodevo2002
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.

~~~
xyience
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 '==='.

~~~
zeta0134
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.

------
hoodoof
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.

~~~
vanderZwan
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.

------
dominotw
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.

~~~
infectoid
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.

------
blowski
Reminded me of:
[https://www.primotoys.com/buy/](https://www.primotoys.com/buy/)

------
HIlthere
It reminds bug shaped toy learning code.

