The following video is my critical analysis of the Osmo. It outlines the stage of development of their business, product concept including hardware and software, and the research supporting it. My analysis is delivered as a video conference call sharing my perspective as an EVA with a School District that is unsure about the pedagogical implications of investing in this product.
Video Transcript:
Good afternoon, and thank you for joining me on this call
As you know, we have completed our study of the OSMO and are ready to share the results
While already established with a small user base, and some exclusive partnerships with Apple’s retail stores, this company is still an excellent investment opportunity.
In terms of age, it is marketed at learners K-12 or ages 5-16
Their website claims that “Coding is a modern superpower”
They quote Steve Jobs as saying “Everyone should learn how to program a computer, because it teachers you how to think.”
It has the capacity for two learners to use it at once, which they refer to as “Collaboration built-in.”.
They won TIME’s award for best invention in 2014, and were a Scholastic Teacher’s Pick in 2015.
They have a team of 12 primary staff with a breadth of training and experience in both technology and education.
Upon request, the OSMO team has provided links to some of the original research that lead to its development.
In an article published to the TIDAL blog hosted by Northwester University, a team of four researchers describe their experiences with introducing young children to coding concepts through several iterations of a game based learning app called Strawbies. It is designed for children ages 5 to 10, and to be inexpensive while also engaging and portable. The researchers sought to allow open-ended exploration through an open world environment. This foundation was supported by unique features like a randomly generated landscape and tangible objects being central to game play.
As their project evolved, they ensured that they were creating activities that support the development of cognitive, perceptual motor and social skills and could be tied directly to pedagogical theory. They added features to keep students motivated, such as a game within a game to maintain a garden while also going out to explore and find more fruit. They explain how this combination “became a place for lively and quick paced spontaneity, in a game of thoughtful strategy. Most play testers wanted to play more when told their time was up.”
They go on to explain how player phrases could demonstrate understanding, collaboration and social negotiation. The play pieces on the table create an open platform for students to join in and contribute towards a common goal. In the trials, the children’s discussion revealed wide-ranging differences in their strategies.
All of this modern experimentation is based on decades of research originally performed at MIT. Scientists studying computers and physical interfaces helped shape modern electronic toys which can help children develop complex ways of thinking through free form play. These research projects eventually culminated in the development of the Tangible Programming Bricks system.
Their system uses real world objects that create a microworld to help children understand the logic of digital devices and explore scientific thinking. Many of the early consumer iterations of such projects were manufactured by LEGO Group, known for their brick based toys that can be used creatively and collaboratively.
MIT had other projects underway on campus. Papert and his AI lab students created the Logo programming language and the Logo turtle, a dome shaped robot that moved based on commands which did not require the syntactic tools which proved confusing for younger children. It became known as the floor turtle, and students began placing sheets of paper under it and programming it to draw basic shapes and letters.
Papert developed this into turtle geometry, and new pedagogical approach for geometry lessons for children. He encouraged teachers to demonstrate body-centered geometry, for example a teacher or student “walking the square” before attempting to program it.
Through these studies, Radia Perlmann came to the conclusion that the major impediments to children learning to code were language syntax and user interface. Subsequent researchers adapted their approach and designed systems that were more flexible and customizable.
Systems like Curlybot, the Slot Machine, Mindstorm Robotics Invention System were adapted to make them more appealing for kids to play with and effective in teaching them scientific thinking. The commercial options often added personality through verbal responses such as jokes and stories.
The list goes on. The Lego MyBot system released in 2000 added unique code bricks to create personality. Even young children would quickly create associations with familiar concepts from their everyday world and use their existing knowledge to solve problems.
In his seminal research, Papert introduces the microworld as a deliberately simplified coding space designed for students to explore ideas and test their knowledge. It can also be used to demonstrate mechanics such as gravity on other planets or fictional universes. In many ways, this is how platforms like MineCraft have broken into education. Papert argues that when a student creates the environment themselves, they become invested in it and have a more personal and effective learning experience.
Suffice to say, all of this research points to one thing: tangible objects that represent code allot students and teachers to learn the fundamentals of programming and scientific thinking through microworlds that allow for safe exploration and experimentation.
Good afternoon, and thank you for joining me on this call
As you know, we have completed our study of the OSMO and are ready to share the results
While already established with a small user base, and some exclusive partnerships with Apple’s retail stores, this company is still an excellent investment opportunity.
In terms of age, it is marketed at learners K-12 or ages 5-16
Their website claims that “Coding is a modern superpower”
They quote Steve Jobs as saying “Everyone should learn how to program a computer, because it teachers you how to think.”
It has the capacity for two learners to use it at once, which they refer to as “Collaboration built-in.”.
They won TIME’s award for best invention in 2014, and were a Scholastic Teacher’s Pick in 2015.
They have a team of 12 primary staff with a breadth of training and experience in both technology and education.
Upon request, the OSMO team has provided links to some of the original research that lead to its development.
In an article published to the TIDAL blog hosted by Northwester University, a team of four researchers describe their experiences with introducing young children to coding concepts through several iterations of a game based learning app called Strawbies. It is designed for children ages 5 to 10, and to be inexpensive while also engaging and portable. The researchers sought to allow open-ended exploration through an open world environment. This foundation was supported by unique features like a randomly generated landscape and tangible objects being central to game play.
As their project evolved, they ensured that they were creating activities that support the development of cognitive, perceptual motor and social skills and could be tied directly to pedagogical theory. They added features to keep students motivated, such as a game within a game to maintain a garden while also going out to explore and find more fruit. They explain how this combination “became a place for lively and quick paced spontaneity, in a game of thoughtful strategy. Most play testers wanted to play more when told their time was up.”
They go on to explain how player phrases could demonstrate understanding, collaboration and social negotiation. The play pieces on the table create an open platform for students to join in and contribute towards a common goal. In the trials, the children’s discussion revealed wide-ranging differences in their strategies.
All of this modern experimentation is based on decades of research originally performed at MIT. Scientists studying computers and physical interfaces helped shape modern electronic toys which can help children develop complex ways of thinking through free form play. These research projects eventually culminated in the development of the Tangible Programming Bricks system.
Their system uses real world objects that create a microworld to help children understand the logic of digital devices and explore scientific thinking. Many of the early consumer iterations of such projects were manufactured by LEGO Group, known for their brick based toys that can be used creatively and collaboratively.
MIT had other projects underway on campus. Papert and his AI lab students created the Logo programming language and the Logo turtle, a dome shaped robot that moved based on commands which did not require the syntactic tools which proved confusing for younger children. It became known as the floor turtle, and students began placing sheets of paper under it and programming it to draw basic shapes and letters.
Papert developed this into turtle geometry, and new pedagogical approach for geometry lessons for children. He encouraged teachers to demonstrate body-centered geometry, for example a teacher or student “walking the square” before attempting to program it.
Through these studies, Radia Perlmann came to the conclusion that the major impediments to children learning to code were language syntax and user interface. Subsequent researchers adapted their approach and designed systems that were more flexible and customizable.
Systems like Curlybot, the Slot Machine, Mindstorm Robotics Invention System were adapted to make them more appealing for kids to play with and effective in teaching them scientific thinking. The commercial options often added personality through verbal responses such as jokes and stories.
The list goes on. The Lego MyBot system released in 2000 added unique code bricks to create personality. Even young children would quickly create associations with familiar concepts from their everyday world and use their existing knowledge to solve problems.
In his seminal research, Papert introduces the microworld as a deliberately simplified coding space designed for students to explore ideas and test their knowledge. It can also be used to demonstrate mechanics such as gravity on other planets or fictional universes. In many ways, this is how platforms like MineCraft have broken into education. Papert argues that when a student creates the environment themselves, they become invested in it and have a more personal and effective learning experience.
Suffice to say, all of this research points to one thing: tangible objects that represent code allot students and teachers to learn the fundamentals of programming and scientific thinking through microworlds that allow for safe exploration and experimentation.