Skip to content

Module 4 - Week 1

Assignments

  • [X] Task 1: Use MicroBit to sense the light in the class and produce some kind of response (audio, light, movement)
  • [X] Task 2: Answer the 3 reflection questions

Process

For Task 1, my goal was to measure the lighting conditions in the Makerspace room and programme a simple response system. I used :

  • MicroBit (V1) board
  • Tembusu integration board
  • Light sensor
  • LED light
  • Makecode platform (programming)

I began by connecting the light sensor to analog pin 0 on the Tembusu board and programmed the Micro:bit to display the light value readings. I wanted to first understand the environmental data before deciding on any conditional logic. Through testing, I observed that the reading was above 600 when the room was bright and below 200 when it was dark. This step helped me better understand how analog input values translate into real-world conditions.

– Connecting light sensor to tembusu board

– Programming in Makecode editor

Next, I connected an LED to digital pin 8 and wrote a conditional programme on MakeCode. I set the LED to turn on when the light value dropped below 300 and turn off when the value was above 300. After several rounds of testing and adjusting the threshold value, the system responded accurately to changes in lighting.

– Connecting LED light & light sensor

– Programming in Makecode editor

Although the final outcome was a simple light-triggered LED system, the process strengthened my understanding of sensor input, pin configuration, and conditional programming. More importantly, it reminded me of the importance of testing, observing data patterns, and iterating before arriving at a working solution — a mindset I hope to cultivate in my students as well.

Challenges and Solutions

Working with the Micro:bit system was both exciting and overwhelming for me. I quickly realised that my technical knowledge was limited, especially when it came to understanding how the Micro:bit works together with the Tembusu integration board. I found myself confused when connecting the various sensors and actuators to the correct pins, and I often doubted whether I was wiring them properly. On the MakeCode platform, I also struggled to identify and use the correct block codes. At times, I felt frustrated when the program did not behave as expected, and I became more aware of how complex physical computing can feel from a beginner’s perspective — which is exactly how many of my students might feel.

To overcome these challenges, I referred to the tutorials and guides provided through the Fab Learning resources. I tried to focus on understanding what each block of code was doing and how it related to the hardware connections. Through repeated testing and many iterations, I eventually managed to create a simple working program using the light sensor and LED actuator. Although the final outcome was modest, the learning process was significant. It reminded me that making is inherently iterative, and that persistence, rather than immediate success, builds both competence and confidence.

Reflection Question 1:

Did you bring several disciplines together in your own teaching? Do you collaborate with teachers in other disciplines? What are the opportunities and challenges?

For past 2 years, I led the school’s Tier-2 Applied Learning Programme (ALP) and co-teach with two Science teachers for a group of Primary 4 and 5 students. Through this programme, we brought together different disciplines such as science, sustainability, design thinking, collaboration, and prototyping.

The programme was guided by the Feel–Imagine–Do–Share (FIDS), a simplified design thinking framework for students. I have seen how this structure allows students to connect knowledge from different subjects instead of learning them separately. For example, they applied science concepts when building prototypes, used communication skills when presenting ideas, and reflected on sustainability values through their projects.

Working with teachers from another discipline has been a meaningful experience for me. We planned the lessons together and took turns conducting them. Each of us brought different strengths. The Science teachers provided strong content knowledge and were familiar with the students, while I focused more on guiding the design thinking process and supporting students in prototyping. Through this collaboration, I realised that interdisciplinary teaching requires trust, open communication, and a shared understanding of our goals.

There are clear opportunities in working across disciplines. Students benefitted from seeing how different knowledge areas connect in real life. They also experienced collaborative learning not just among themselves, but through observing us as teachers working together. However, there were also challenges. Planning took more time, and sometimes we need to align our teaching approaches and expectations. It required patience and flexibility.

Overall, this experience has helped me see that interdisciplinary teaching is not simply combining subjects. It is about designing meaningful learning experiences where knowledge, skills, and values come together in a real-world context. Through this process, I am learning that authentic maker education is less about perfect lesson design, and more about creating space for students (and teachers) to experiment, iterate, and grow together.

Reflection Question 2:

How do you envision a makerspace in your school? How does it look like? If you have one already, how would you modify it.

I envision the makerspace in my school as a multi-functional, student-centred learning environment that goes beyond a traditional “making room” and serves as a hub for creativity, collaboration, and interdisciplinary learning. The space is designed to support both digital and non-digital fabrication, allowing students to move seamlessly from ideation to prototyping and sharing.

Visually, the makerspace is colourful, vibrant, and highly interactive, with clearly defined zones such as a materials area, digital fabrication corner, collaborative worktables, and writable design walls. These features encourage students to externalise their thinking, test ideas, and learn through iteration. The space also includes student-created displays and ongoing project showcases, which foster a sense of ownership and pride.

As my school already has an existing makerspace (Tink!SV), my focus is on reimagining and enhancing its functionality and pedagogical impact. One key modification is to transform the space into a learning-centric environment that supports programmes across disciplines, rather than being used solely for maker activities. This includes integrating design thinking processes (FIDS), embedding sustainability practices, and aligning activities with MOE’s 21CC and Future of Learning initiatives.

Additionally, I aim to strengthen student agency by creating opportunities for students to lead activities (e.g., Maker Buddies) and contribute ideas through interactive spaces such as idea walls. The redesigned makerspace will also be more accessible and visible within the school, encouraging spontaneous participation during Maker Recess and fostering a culture of curiosity and innovation.

Ultimately, I envision the makerspace as a dynamic ecosystem for learning, where students are empowered to imagine, create, and make meaningful connections between their learning and the real world.

Reflection Question 3:

After the definiton of computational thinking, are you somehow using computational thinking in your teaching? How? Do you think you can take advantage of computational thinking? How?

Computational thinking is a problem-solving approach that involves breaking down complex problems into smaller parts, identifying patterns, developing step-by-step solutions, and refining them through testing and iteration. It supports logical and structured thinking when designing solutions.

In my makerspace programme, computational thinking is embedded through design thinking and hands-on prototyping. Students decompose problems, plan their ideas, test prototypes, and improve them through iteration. This is evident in activities such as micro:bit projects and the InnoSparks programme, where students follow the Feel–Imagine–Do–Share (FIDS) framework to identify real-world problems, generate ideas, build solutions, and refine them based on feedback.

I realise that I am already applying computational thinking in my teaching. When students debug their micro:bit codes or improve their prototypes, they are engaging in algorithmic thinking and iterative problem-solving.

Moving forward, I can further leverage computational thinking by making these processes more explicit. For example, I can guide students to describe their steps as “algorithms,” reflect on how they solved problems, and identify patterns across projects. This will help students develop deeper understanding and transfer these skills across different learning contexts.

Tools

  • MicroBit (V1) board
  • Tembusu integration board
  • Light sensor
  • LED light
  • Makecode platform (programming) : https://makecode.microbit.org/#

Reference and Tutorials:

  • Technical Guides and tutoring sessions from Fab Learning website