by I love love love love love the BBC micro:bit. I adore the folks who developed it. The micro:bit makes computational making possible in ways we have only dreamt about for decades. Albeit imperfect, Microsoft MakeCode is one of the last programming environments being developed for kids. Publishing the glorious project-packed Invent to Learn Guide to the micro:bit remains one of my proudest achievements.
That said, I just saw an announcement for new functionality being added to MakeCode, allegedly to benefit teachers, that I fear will harm the greater enterprise.
For those of you lacking the patience to watch a 9-minute video (below), the MakeCode Evaluation Tool promises to machine grade student MakeCode programs, ostensibly to combat teacher workload. I give this idea two thumbs down.
“It’s not the customer’s job to know what they want”
Steve Jobs
This is why we can’t have nice things!
The micro:bit is a miracle and a creativity amplifier for children. It will NEVER become “Algebra II” and required of all children, nor should it be. It will never achieve dominant market penetration. Every attempt to pander to the system degrades the power of the micro:bit and computation for children. Save the unicorn!
I have a few thoughts.
1) How much time will teachers actually save if they have to create checklists for the software to evaluate student programs? That seems a lot more complicated than looking over a kid’s shoulder, saying, “nice work,” or providing timely contextual feedback.
1b) The fact that it may be cumbersome to create assessment checklists creates the inevitable opening for someone or a for-profit company to create official tasks and assessment checklists to expedite the process. Such commoditization robs children of all opportunities for joy, wonder, whimsy, creativity, ingenuity, originality, or fun. The last thing we need is a standardized micro:bit curriculum from Pearson.
2) The best way to solve the problem of grading too many student micro:bit projects is to stop grading student micro:bit projects!
3) Efforts at machine-based efficiency almost always diminish teacher expertise and dissuade educators from rolling up their sleeves and developing personal computational fluency.
4) There is undoubtedly false complexity associated with teachers creating assessment checklists for the software to follow, leading to predictable and unintended consequences.
This is largely a solution in search of a problem or the elevation of a problem that may be resolved instantly. I truly appreciate the impulse to be helpful and placate the bureaucrats who seek to quantify that which need not be measured.
Making it easier for teacher to homogenize student projects is a terrible idea. Pandering to the short-term objectives of teachers does little to benefit them or their students. Experience suggests, that it makes things worse. Sometimes, even the most well-meaning developers should resist the urge to “help” and leave well enough alone.
Veteran educator Gary Stager, Ph.D. is the author of Twenty Things to Do with a Computer – Forward 50, co-author of Invent To Learn — Making, Tinkering, and Engineering in the Classroom, publisher at Constructing Modern Knowledge Press, and the founder of the Constructing Modern Knowledge summer institute. He led professional development in the world’s first 1:1 laptop schools thirty years ago and designed one of the oldest online graduate school programs. Gary is also the curator of The Seymour Papert archives at DailyPapert.com. Learn more about Gary here.