Learning Through Making
Again, really reminds me of sports. You often learn through doing. It doesn't mean you can't student tapes and plays and information. But, we often grow as an athlete through getting out there and doing. I do believe it's the same with learning. I learn so much quicker when I see someone do something...typically in a few mins, I can do it too. Making is that same thing, you learn through doing it....
Failure is not a happy word in most educational circles,particularly when attached to schools, students, or initia-tives. Yet within the maker mindset, failure is celebrated
This is a great add on. Failure is really key in so many growth opportunities. I often wonder why it is left out of education and looked down on. Perhaps it comes with that notion that it is attained either from not doing the work (a lazy student), or not learning the material at all. Having such a big sports background myself, in teaching and coaching, I will say...in sports...you fail as much as you succeed. As the saying went, in Jerry Maguire. You take practice swings, over and over. I played tennis in high school and college and spent hours upon hours practicing serves...often failing in that practice. Same is true with, for instance, free throw shooting in basketball. A lot of failing before success...as students, however, failure often feels like not an option. I feel that way now, even as a 44 year old woman, having been a student more times than I can count. I still feel like I need to nail an assignment each time and often worry that I'm not. That element of failure often restricts me, I feel. But, more so as a student and less in other areas of my life. and I think it's really because our educational environment is one of succeeding....
Playful
Very connected learning focused. Interest/passion/fun driven :)
While educators tend to focus on ways in which digitaltools can support student projects and small-scale making,others see within the Maker Movement the beginning of amuch larger social and economic transformation. Anderson(2012) argues that shifts in computer-controlled, customizedmanufacturing tools, and the rise of participatory, open-sourcehardware designs (where companies open up their designprocess to their community of customers) have the potential todramatically shift the future of manufacturing
This hits on, a bit, the last comment I made in this article. There really is a shift in that tinkering, due to technology, which actually equates to a real shift in manufacturing.
Digital physical tools (also called rapid prototyping toolsor digital manufacturing tools) shape materials or materialobjects into new forms. With hand tools, a person guidesthe tool to cut away or deposit new material to create thedesired shape. With digital tools, a design file is loadedonto a computer which controls the moving parts of thetool.
Well and this digital tool expansion really expands not only what can be made, but how quickly it can be made AND shared. As it can often lessen tinkering (in its original form) do others think technology reshapes the maker movement in a very different direction?
One of the most readily apparent features of the MakerMovement is the celebration and use of new and newlyaffordable digital tools. As these tools provide new ways ofinteracting with physical materials, they also offer newopportunities for learning.
A real cornerstone for this course, as well as the program.
people who design andmake things on their own time because they find itintrinsically rewarding to make, tinker, problem-solve,discover, and share what they have learned’’
A very good definition here, makes sense!
What exactly ismaking? There is no set definition. Aspart of what they call ‘‘design-make-playlearning meth-odologies,’’ Honey and Kanter (2013) emphasize thepersonal, hands-on nature of making, saying that to makeis ‘‘to build or adapt objects by hand, for the simplepersonal pleasure of figuring out how things work’’
Interesting. In some ways, very similar to the art process. Who is to define exactly what art is...I know I've tried and I just can't. There are some forms of art that we all recognize but others that I see that seem real outside the box for me, but that doesn't make it NOT art...nor does it erase the process for the artist...including the creative learning experience. I'm sure the same can be true here.
The Maker Movement is a new phenomenon, but it isbuilt from familiar pieces, and its relevance to educationhas deep roots. It has long been argued that children andyouth can learn by playing and building with interestingtools and materials (Montessori, 1912). Making andbuilding can foster learning in a variety of ways that mesh
Exactly!!!!
While the Maker Movement has developed in out-of-school spaces and has mostly involved adult participants, there isgrowing interest among educators in bringingmakinginto K-12 education to enhance opportunities for students to engagein design and engineering practices, specifically, and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
I think it's a great idea. It's a way to engage students and certainly to allow interest/passion and fun to guide their experience and add to their learning environment.
The Maker Movement represents a growing movement of hobbyists, tinkerers, engineers, hackers, and artists committedto creatively designing and building material objects for both playful and useful ends.
I have many friends who have attended maker movement events, so I've been able to see pictures from these events and hear about them several time from some folks I know.
In the last few years, many schools and enterprising teachers have tried to infuse coding and computational thinking into a wide range of classes, including arts and humanities courses. What makes South Fayette unique is that computational thinking is now at the heart of everything they do — from students’ first day of kindergarten until they graduate from high school. Could it be a model for taking ed-tech full throttle?
Wow. It is wonderful to incorporate so early; I'm sure that pays dividends down the line. I often wonder why many concepts and activities are not introduced earlier, as young folks are really sponges and I believe are capable of learning many concepts we do not believe they can.
Diagrams of simple machines — a pulley, an inclined plane, a lever — appeared on the massive whiteboard of a school STEAM lab (STEM subjects plus Art) in South Fayette, a fast-growing suburb of Pittsburgh. Two dozen fifth graders, split into teams of four, busily sketched designs for “Rube Goldberg machines” that would turn on and off lights or feed the lab’s pet fish. No single child designed a complete machine. Instead, each team member spent a few minutes sketching out how one part — a marble run, say, or a Lego Robotics kicking foot — would operate within the machine. Then they switched papers and the next person added onto the design with another part.
That is a pretty cool activity. I love the element of collaboration, on building on the ideas of one another....and of course, it sounds fun for students!
In the left column, notice that all of the skills are CT skills or concepts. However, in the right column, those skills are being used in literature, economics, the culinary arts, and music.
This clarifies it a bit more, however, if the left column is simply concepts...in order to work through this concept, aren't steps still needed and taken? What am I missing here?
Break a problem into parts or steps Break a computational graph problem into 4 sections, each one to be completed by a different computer processor Recognize and find patterns or trends Visualize data comparing microchip material and computer speed to notice a trend Develop instructions to solve a problem or steps for a task Write a computer program to sort data Generalize patterns and trends into rules, principles, or insights Realize complex data structures require less code than complex programming
I must say, the information on both sides of this chart is way more similar to me, than it is different (from each other). How are others seeing it?
Decomposition: Breaking down data, processes, or problems into smaller, manageable parts Pattern Recognition: Observing patterns, trends, and regularities in data Abstraction: Identifying the general principles that generate these patterns Algorithm Design: Developing the step by step instructions for solving this and similar problems
This all seems reasonable and seems like a long standing approach. At least on the work side, this is an approach often taken, whether done so with the realization of the name attached to the approach.
This model shifts the teacher’s role considerably, as the outcome and how students will reach it, are unknown at the outset. In DT, gone are the days when teachers have a plan of how it should all go. In my opinion, this represents a great shift in pedagogy.
Have the students within the group utilized this DT approach? Has it been effective?
Using brainstorming and active investigation approaches, they imagine solutions to problems that adult brains may overlook.
This is a great sentence! I'm sure there are many! Brainstorming, in general, is a very good tool...in learning but also the work setting. I still use it a lot in my personal life, as well, believe it or not.
The modes are Discover, Empathize, Experiment, and Produce. Active learning is a part of the Discover phase where students immerse themselves in observing and asking questions. In Cantwell’s Empathize mode of DT, students begin trying to understand the user by gaining insight into their situation and needs. They collect their feelings, gain insight and a point of view about the areas being explored. The actual task of study is identified at end of the Empathize mode.
I appreciate the framework around this concept but wondering how it differs from experiences I know to already exist and have existed for awhile. What do others think? How much is this outside of the mode/norm in teaching these days? Do you think Design Thinking is not emphasized?
Design thinking asks students to become investigators in their world, attempt to solve problems, bridge gaps of knowledge independently, collaboratively, and resourcefully. These are skills that are highly relevant in today’s job market.
Hasn't this been happening for awhile now? Perhaps not with the same level of technology resources, but haven't students been involved in projects (on a variety of levels) that fall into the design thinking category?
must give people the understanding, skills and values they need to cooperate in resolving the interconnected challenges of the 21st Century” (UN, n.d., n.p.). ISTE believes that technology provides a forceful means to enable students to connect with others and empower them to collaboratively and individually tackle authentic problems.
It really seems to be the wave of the future, which makes sense because our world has become more global. We hear more and more global news and information. We interact with each other more and more, people travel more and more. And certainly, economies are so connected and businesses interact globally so often. So, it should be no different with our learning and learners.
students need to learn how to empathize with others outside their immediate sphere of experience
To me, this is one of the most important sentences...both for students, and I think for people in general. This is greatly lacking and likely always has been. But, with technology we have the ability to connect with so many people, globally. Hopefully we utilize that ability for positive and not negative.
Technology can truly connect us in meaningful, dynamic ways
It is amazing how technology can connect us; obviously in things like this course. But also, I've met so many people, who have gone on to be friends, through technology. And I've met many of them that have much different upbringings, culture, etc. So, it has really expanded the scope of people who have come into my life.
I have learned that if you give freedom and trust to students, they will find their own way to the learning that matters the most. Thinking about this course as a re-design has been a means of speculating about how things might be — to imagine possible futures. This kind of classroom experiment opens up space — the space for emergence. What emerged was the inherent knowledge within our own ranks, and the need to connect to a world outside in ways that matter.
I do agree with trusting students and giving some freedom, but I do feel that first students have to be in the space to really accept that trust and responsibility. I love this approach and in theory I dig it, but I do wonder if across the board all students are ready for such freedom.
In final self assessments for the class, students wrote extensively about how surprised they were at how much they learned from their own classmates. They wrote eloquently about their increased sense of empathy.
I love this! I find we have so much to learn from one another if we are just given the opportunity to do so in the right setting and format, and if we really embrace viewpoints and differences
Early on, they identified a collective goal of creating a “digital omnibus” — a website of resources that they would curate and aggregate in order to share their understanding online in the hopes it would help others.
That is a great result!
I let the students decide for themselves what they wanted to learn, and I gave them the space to figure out how to make their learning matter in the world beyond our four literal walls. The conversation began with certain questions. Their personalized answers brought forth diverse perspectives that revealed authentic forms of knowledge within our own ranks. (Knowledge rooted not necessarily in theoretical engagement, but knowledge direct from my student’s lives). Students were stressed, struck by the notion that they would have to step up and claim their own forms of learning. They were taken aback by the amount of control they were given to learn on their own terms.
this is pretty cool! I have taken a semi similar approach with many of my trainings, as I have core competencies but then also direct some training towards needs and interests and can deliver in a way that they most want to receive it.
As I considered new ways to design this class, I found I was seeking an experience of learning that would matter more to my students.
This really needs to be the focus when designing a class, or a course, whether with young students, or corporate employees. How do we get this material to matter to the learner?
The topic of technology can be confusing. Maybe the most confounding part is reaching a definition of "technology" that works to foster healthy discussion of the best ways that schools can use technology to enhance learning.
This intro says it all, imo. This is the challenge from schools to companies, and heck even when I'm trying to pull my parents into the 2000's. The technology is often intimidating, and it changes so frequently. I find that a bulk of the challenge is just in understanding terminology and the ease of accessibility. Once we are past those hurdles, the technology hill is easier to climb