Background of This Post
After spending some time examining and re-studying learning theories (let’s face it educators, we will never stop hearing about Vygotsky, Skinner, Piaget, etc. – has “Bloom” become a verb yet? I feel like it is quite understandable to “Bloom” that question or “Bloom” that lesson.), I have been asked (in CEP 811) to consider the synthesis of “Making” and learning theories in the context of a classroom activity. In simpler terms, this post is intended to outline the use of a maker kit in a classroom activity and defend the activity with a discussion on learning theories.
The Activity
I have not spent a great deal of time “making” myself, yet. I don’t quite enjoy the acting out of the process as much as I do the thinking part of the process. Considering the possible applications and implications is much more my interest than actually trying them. I am a theoriest and idealist by nature and practice, but I am trying to break out.
My activity idea, as outlined in greater detail below, is an extension of a previous idea I began to consider. The essence of my thinking can be summed up in a guiding question which I will use to better focus my intentions.
How can the process of “making” best enhance the demonstration of content knowledge?
The activity designed based on this question would be simple when performed in isolation but can also be used in a greater context within a unit or lesson or project. For the purpose of this post, I will title the activity “Making Proof.”
MAKING PROOF
Purpose: in this activity, students will demonstrate their knowledge of a particular topic through the use of the Squishy Circuits maker kit.
Description: While studying a unit in Aviation History, students will be asked to create a model using the maker kit that depicts some aspect of a topic learned about in that unit. The activity will involve three primary steps, outlined below: (1) creation of the model, (2) peer guessing and feedback activity, and (3) brief written description and reflection.
STEP 1: Create a Model
– In the first step, students must select a topic about which to create a model using the squishy circuits maker kit. The topic must be relevant to that unit.
– Students, once selecting a topic, will create a model using as much or as little of the maker kit as desired to demonstrate in as much detail as necessary the topic of choice.
– Students will be alotted no more than 1 class period to create the model.
STEP 2: Peer Sharing
– Once the model is made, students will switch with a partner and perform a “guessing” game of sorts.
– The goal is to guess what topic the model is demonstrating without being told by its creator (this can be done in only one round or in multiple rounds within a group, each group member noting his/her guess on a form or paper).
– When the guesses have all been submitted, the students will then reveal the correct topic and provide an explanation of how and why that model demonstrates the topic.
– At this time, classmates will be given an opportunity to provide feedback (noting something positive about the model and the topic THEN something constructive about how the maker could have better demonstrated that topic).
STEP 3: Reflection
– For a final step, each student will compose a reflection on the process of making the model and the peer sharing activity. This reflection should focus on whether the model accurately demonstrated the desired topic and how the maker could have improved the depiction.
– Along with the reflection, students will include a written description including (1) the topic demonstrated, (2) a brieft explanation about how the model demosntrates the topic, and (3) a list of which topic(s) the classmate(s) guessed during STEP 2.
Additional Items: This activity can be expanded in many ways, but one essential component is being able to model for the students how a good model might clearly depict a topic. This could be done with past examples of student work OR (if first time) the teacher could model the process, including the self talk involved in the making process (recommendation: video capturing the whole thing, perhaps with a time lapse).
Learning Theories and Activity Reflection
This activity clearly demonstrates an abstact method of “demonstrating knowledge” in a classroom. While mastery is often assessed through common, canned tests, creative, abstract assessments certainly have an important place in the classroom. Further still, the creative, constructive process accomplished in such an activity is imperative.
(This section below will be referencing ideas and information provided in this visual summary of learning theories.)
From its outset, such an activity clearly demonstrates principles expounded upon by Gardner’s studies of multiple intelligences. Understood by educators everywhere is the idea that students learn indifferent ways and should, therefore, be provided opportunities to express knowledge in different ways. The activity above provides a very different experience of presenting knowledge not accomplished by the standard assessment items common to secondary education.
Additionally, Bloom‘s research denotes the fundamental necessity for higher thinking. This can be more clearly envisioned in Bloom’s Taxonomy. The upper levels of thinking involve demonstrating knowledge and teaching others, both among the dynamics involved in this activity.
Finally, among the many principles and learning theories studied, those that will tend to also stand out include those ideas that focus on the learner’s creative and constructive role in education. Some of the core epithets of constructivism (Vygotsky, Dewey, Montessori, etc.) involve the need for students to learn by building knowledge upon pre-existing knowledge. This is done best by increasing the depth of thinking as demonstrated by Bloom’s Taxonomy. Thus, the activity is designed to give students opportunities to not only create, but also to explain and defend their creations. This is only possible through a deeper understanding of the topic and the model’s relationship to the topic.
To conclude, I am only yet learning the potential of “making” in the classroom. It has become clearer to me over time that the role of such creative construction is exceptionally beneficial, but I have yet to be conviced that the maker kits have as wide of an applicability as alleged. More than anything, it is hard to envision the routine potential for something this abstract. I will keep my mind open, though, and report my next idea soon.
Sources
HoTEL. “Learning Theories v5.” Image. Retrieved on March 30, 2014 from http://cmapspublic3.ihmc.us/rid=1LGVGJY66-CCD5CZ-12G3/Learning%20Theory.cmap
Defending Learning 
Hi Zach,
I really enjoyed reading your blog post about Making Proof! You had some really great, thought out ideas and it is clear that you have a great understanding of a lot of different learning theories.
What you wrote about for your Aviation History unit lesson using the Squishy Circuits really got me thinking about the different learning theories and the uses of the different maker kits and about how I could apply them in my own classroom when I go back to teaching, which I hope is soon.
I have been struggling with figuring out how to really use my LittleBits maker kit in a Spanish classroom effectively so that it supports learning the language and isn’t just part of a project, which is where I believe I hit my ceiling this week. I really liked how you took it a step further by having the guessing round and reflection piece after you had your students build their models–something like this is what really allows incorporating the kits to support the curriculum and apply the different learning theories that you mentioned above.
The guessing round allows the teacher and the model-builder to receive real-time (almost real-time) feedback to see if they were successful with their goal and why or why not. I think it’s a smart choice that you specify that students will provide positive feedback first before providing something constructive. The sandwiching method always works best for me!
The reflection allows the builder to decide if ultimately they thought they were successful in making their model accurately reflect the topic and what they could have done to make it better–re-examining the use of the maker kits and the building process (the technology) along with re-examining their topic (the content). Without even realizing it, I think that it’s awesome that you’re getting your students to begin to think about the TPACK theory!
I also really liked what you added at the end under “Additional Items” when you mentioned modeling the activity for the students. It was one of the very first things I thought of when I first started reading the steps because it was a little hard to follow at first. So great idea! A couple of questions that I have would be: the process of building the model is only one class period you mentioned but what about the entire process of building it, the peer guessing, and then the reflection/written piece? I would just wonder how long you would allow for the peer guessing–would they have 3 different partners? 4? 2? Also, is this an activity that is done individually or in groups? I only ask this based on the fact that you talked about the idea of multiple intelligences and that people should and do learn in different ways. Because people learn in different ways, would you always let your students pick their topic for projects like this or would you assign them topics for certain projects? I struggle with this myself at times and find that sometimes it is just dependent upon the group of students that I have because they do learn so differently and they handle things very differently as well.
Thanks for allowing me to read your post, Zach! I enjoyed it and look forward to seeing what your future Maker experiments bring to light!
Lindsay
Thanks for all the feedback! To answer some of your questions, I do feel that I left some details vague, partly on purpose because I did not want to commit to all of the specifics. I think the project could be done in either groups or individual, but I envision it being most effective individually. I could see a number of different partner sets depending on how much time is available for the activity. Also, regarding topic choice, I tend to structure these kinds of things according to the student. Some students are given complete autonomy, and others are given more directives, depending on individual need. What I do firmly believe, however, is that those students who struggle most with autonomy and choice are those students who need the most practice and reinforcement in that area. Instead of choosing for students, I believe it to be more effective to help them choose for themselves (in a very metacognitive process, always trying to guide students toward greater independence).
Once again, thank you for your thoughtful feedback!
Pingback: Maker Experiment 2: UDL Framework | Defending Learning