When I taught 3rd grade in Korea, we used MakeBlock mBots and their respective app on the iPad for teaching geometry (angles, turns, and geometric shapes), and it was an awesome experience. The students were excited not only about the curriculum content for math, but additionally programming and coding skills. For one activity, they were divided into in small groups and worked collaboratively to program their bots to create shapes in the path that their bots took.
This experience taught me that the ability to integrate technology amplified their understanding beyond just maths content. We could have used flash cards, or done an infinite amount of worksheets to name shapes and angles, but the ability to embed (pardon the pun) and use coding in their lessons helped create invaluable ties between their math lessons and their procedural writing in literacy (which we were focusing on at the time). The connection was seamless and relevant, and helped us all think in terms of our ‘central idea’ (unifying topic), as opposed to sectioning the curriculum into subjects.
I was working at a very ‘well-to-do’ and affluential school, which allowed us the privilege of using whatever toys we wanted with respect to technology integration. This begs the question for me: what about less affluent schools? What about access to these tools that clearly transform the learning experience, that not all can afford?
Hi Amanda!
I was so excited to read your post! Part of my role in my district us to support coding and robotics in our schools. I have to say that mBot is near and dear to my heart! How many bots did you have in your class to work with? This is my favorite bot and has made such a difference with the students I have worked with. I love their philosophy of “one robot per child” giving way for affordable, open source, interactive learning for everyone at an affordable price. Prior to exploring mBots, the primary robots that could be found in our school environments were Lego NXT/EV3. At a staggering $400 per bot I was shocked! Either schools had the money or they didn’t. What was frustrating is that our affluent schools with active parent councils owned more that $30,000 of these robots, while our inner city schools who were trying to pay for breakfast and lunch couldn’t even begin to purchase this. I got three simple little robots for an inner city special needs program I was teaching at the time and there was an immediate transformation in engagement and learning. We coded music, re-enacted stories, played math games and more. I really appreciated what you said about being concerned for our schools that do not have access to the funds for these kinds of tools. Our students who are at risk especially need opportunities to help them break out of a cycle of poverty and education is one of those defining factors, especially in the areas of computer science. I applaud companies like Make Block who have considered affordable STEM education opportunities, but also wonder what do we do when $100 is still too much. The benefit clearly outweighs the cost, but transformative educational opportunities like this shouldn’t have to rely upon fundraising or grant applications.
Trish
Hey Trish!
Thanks for your post. To answer your question: we had 6 bots, and my class was comprised of 18 students, so there were only 3 kids in a group to play around with them. We shared them with two other 3rd grade classes, but when it was our time to use
them, we had them to ourselves. Like I said, it was a crazy-privileged environment.
I absolutely agree with all of what you’ve posted above- even $100 can be too much when comparing the cost with breakfast and lunch programs for schools. It’s tough to rely on benefactors and outside initiatives too. But their benefit to students is a no-brainer. So then, how does a school board mandate or implement them as a program, if it means that a newer version or better form of this technology might be available and make them outdated before the program has a chance to really get off the ground?
Hi
Do you think it is fair for public schools with strong supportive PAC to be able to raise $$ for their schools and other schools with less supportive PACs who cannot raise much-needed funds? If not, what is the solution?
Christopher
Hi Christopher,
Thanks for your thought-provoking questions! Privilege and wealth play a massive role in access to technology tools, and obviously greatly affect the learning environment. Personally, I don’t think it’s fair, however it seems to me the lesser of two evils.
Why should students who can potentially access these tools with help hold themselves back? Why should inaccessibility be the common denominator? The question I’d ask in that case would be “why isn’t access to these resources a priority for the school boards?”, so that schools don’t have to rely on fundraising initiatives to change their situation?
In a bit of a [non] answer to your question, I really don’t know what a potential solution would look like, but it would be entirely naive to believe that the system is without faults, and to not acknowledge that technology resources mean money and massive commitments to implement.
Thanks again for your interesting questions!