skip to main content
10.1145/3137065.3137083acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswipsceConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Teaching with physical computing devices: the BBC micro:bit initiative

Published:08 November 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

There is a growing interest in small programmable devices that can be used in schools and in extra-curricular contexts to teach computer science. The BBC micro:bit is one such device; through a collaborative venture, micro:bits were recently distributed to every 11-12 year old in the UK. Although the technology itself is often of primary interest, a focus on how teachers can use the technology in the classroom to help students learn is increasingly being drawn out in the literature: this paper adds to that body of work Having interviewed 15 teachers and 54 students about their use and experience of the micro:bit, we present an analysis of the varied ways in which teachers are using the BBC micro:bit, and note a range of instructional styles. We classify different approaches to teaching with physical computing, identifying teachers who we describe as either inspirers, providers or consumers. Finally we make recommendations for more teacher professional learning opportunities around physical computing. The results of this qualitative study will be useful to teachers and teacher educators wishing to work more effectively with physical computing in the classroom.

References

  1. Thomas Ball, Jonathan Protzenko, Judith Bishop, MichałMoskal, Jonathan de Halleux, Michael Braun, Steve Hodges, and Clare Riley. 2016. Microsoft Touch Develop and the BBC Micro:Bit. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion (ICSE '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 637--640. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Henry J Becker and Jason Ravitz. 1999. The influence of computer and Internet use on teachers' pedagogical practices and perceptions. Journal of research on computing in education 31, 4 (1999), 356--384.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Mordechai Ben-Ari. 1998. Constructivism in computer science education. ACM, 274308, 257--261. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Marina Bers. 2010. The TangibleK Robotics program: Applied computational thinking for young children. Early Childhood Research & Practice 12, 2 (2010), n2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Marina Umaschi Bers, Louise Flannery, Elizabeth R. Kazakoff, and Amanda Sullivan. 2014. Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education 72 (March 2014), 145--157.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Paulo Blikstein. 2013. Gears of Our Childhood: Constructionist Toolkits, Robotics, and Physical Computing, Past and Future. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 173--182. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Neil Brown, Sue Sentance, Tom Crick, and Simon Humphreys. 2014. Restart: The Resurgence of Computer Science in UK Schools. ACM Transactions of Computing Education 14, 2 (June 2014). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Department for Education. 2013. National Curriculum for England: Computing programme of study. Technical Report. Department for Education. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-computing-programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england-computing-programmes-of-studyGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Kayla DesPortes, Aditya Anupam, Neeti Pathak, and Betsy DiSalvo. 2016. Bit-Blox: A Redesign of the Breadboard. In Proceedings of the The 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. ACM, 255--261. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Stuart Dredge. 2015. BBC to give away 1m Micro:bit computers to schoolchildren. The Guardian (July 2015). https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/07/bbc-give-away-1m-microbit-computers-schoolchildrenGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Ursula Fuller, Colin G.Johnson, Tuukka Ahoniemi, Diana Cukierman, Isidoro Hernán-Losada, Jana Jackova, Essi Lahtinen, Tracy L. Lewis, Donna McGee Thompson, Charles Riedesel, and Errol Thompson. 2007. Developing a Computer Science-specific Learning Taxonomy. SIGCSE Bull. 39, 4 (Dec. 2007), 152--170. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. S Grover and R Pea. 2016. Designing a Blended, Middle School Computer Science Course for Deeper Learning: A design based research approach. In Conference of Learning Sciences.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Alexandra Hansen, E Hansen, H Dwyer, D Harlow, and D Franklin. 2016. Differentiating for Diversity: Using Universal Design for Learning in Elementary Computer Science Education. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education. ACM, 376--381. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Karen H.Jin, Kathleen Haynie, and Gavin Kearns. 2016. Teaching Elementary Students Programming in a Physical Computing Classroom. ACM Press, 85--90. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Yasmin B Kafai, Eunkyoung Lee, Kristin Searle, Deborah Fields, Eliot Kaplan, and Debora Lui. 2014. A crafts-oriented approach to computing in high school: Introducing computational concepts, practices, and perspectives with electronic textiles. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 14, 1 (2014), 1. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Yasmin B. Kafai, Eunkyoung Lee, Kristin Searle, Deborah Fields, Eliot Kaplan, and Debora Lui. 2014. A Crafts-Oriented Approach to Computing in High School: Introducing Computational Concepts, Practices, and Perspectives with Electronic Textiles. Trans. Comput. Educ. 14, 1, Article 1 (March 2014), 20 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Fatima Kaloti-Hallak, Michal Armoni, and Mordechai Moti Ben-Ari. 2015. Students' attitudes and motivation during robotics activities. In Proceedings of the Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education. ACM, 102--110. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Udo Kuckartz. 2014. Qualitative text analysis: A guide to methods, practice and using software. Sage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Irene Lee, Fred Martin, Jill Denner, Bob Coulter, Walter Allan, Jeri Erickson, Joyce Malyn-Smith, and Linda Werner. 2011. Computational Thinking for Youth in Practice. ACM Inroads 2, 1 (Feb. 2011), 32--37. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Sylvia Libow Martinez and Gary Stager. 2013. Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom. Constructing modern knowledge press Torrance, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Philip Mayring. 2000. Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum of Qualitative Social Research 1, 2 (Jun 2000).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Susan McDonald and Jennifer Howell. 2012. Watching, creating and achieving: Creative technologies as a conduit for learning in the early years. British Journal of Educational Technology 43, 4 (July 2012), 641--651.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Orni Meerbaum-Salant, Michal Armoni, and Mordechai Ben-Ari. 2013. Learning computer science concepts with Scratch. Computer Science Education 23, 3 (2013), 239--264.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. M Przybylla and R Romeike. 2012. My Interactive Garden--A Constructionist Approach to Creative Learning with Interactive Installations in Computing Education. Constructionism: Theory, Practice and Impact. Proceedings of Constructionism 2012 (2012), 395--404.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Mareen Przybylla and Ralf Romeike. 2015. Key Competences with Physical Computing. KEYCIT 2014: key competencies in informatics and ICT 7 (2015), 351.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Mitchel Resnick and Eric Rosenbaum. 2013. Designing for tinkerability. Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (2013), 163--181.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Sandra Schulz and Niels Pinkwart. 2016. Towards Supporting Scientific Inquiry in Computer Science Education. In Proceedings of the 11th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education. ACM, 45--53. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Sue Sentance, Simon Humphreys, and Mark Dorling. 2014. The Network of Teaching Excellence in Computer Science and Master Teachers. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education. ACM, 80--88. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Sue Sentance and Scarlet Schwiderski-Grosche. 2012. Challenge and creativity: using .NET gadgeteer in schools. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education. ACM, 90--100. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2481473 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Sue Sentance, Jane Waite, Steve Hodges, Emily MacLeod, and Lucy Yeomans. 2017. "Creating Cool Stuff": Pupils' Experience of the BBC Micro:Bit. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 531--536. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Evelyn Stiller. 2009. Teaching programming using bricolage. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 24, 6 (2009), 35--42. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1530004 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Claude Levi Strauss. 1962. Savage mind. University of Chicago.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. The Royal Society. 2012. Shut Down or Restart? The way forward for Computing in UK Schools. Technical Report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Sherry Turkle and Seymour Papert. 1990. Epistemological pluralism: Styles and voices within the computer culture. Signs: Journal of women in culture and society 16, 1 (1990), 128--157.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Jeroen JG Van Merrienboer and John Sweller. 2005. Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational psychology review 17, 2 (2005), 147--177.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Lori Wozney, Vivek Venkatesh, and Philip C Abrami. 2006. Implementing computer technologies: Teachers' perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and teacher education 14, 1 (2006), 173.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Teaching with physical computing devices: the BBC micro:bit initiative

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        WiPSCE '17: Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Primary and Secondary Computing Education
        November 2017
        128 pages
        ISBN:9781450354288
        DOI:10.1145/3137065

        Copyright © 2017 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 8 November 2017

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        WiPSCE '17 Paper Acceptance Rate16of37submissions,43%Overall Acceptance Rate104of279submissions,37%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader