The Mind Lab: Tinkercad (3D modelling and 3D printing)

A rainy Saturday afternoon playing with Tinkercad in preparation for this weeks face to face session. Tinkercad is used to make 3D models, which can printed using a 3D printer!

You can turn your models into build-able lego brick designs (how cool if you don't have access to a 3D printer but want to make your models) or as a part of the Mine-craft world! 

Tinkercad is accessible through any browser (Safari, Chrome and so on), it is free just requires you make a log on so that you can save your models. It does require a mouse, without one I think you'd find it very frustrating! It is most suited to upper primary and high school aged kids. 

“Research indicates that strong spatial thinking, a skill necessary for creating three dimensional objects, is directly linked to success in science, technology, engineering and mathematics...spatial thinking can be taught and improved through practice." (Karon, 2015). 

Karon, P. (2015). Teaching 3D Modeling to Children. CG Cookie. Retrieved from https://cgcookie.com/2015/05/29/teaching-3d-modeling-children/

Digital Passport by The Mind Lab

Growth Mindset

The focus of our Leadership learning this week was 'growth mindset'. As flipped preparation we were asked to look for a quote to possibly use in our Leadership #1 assessment. 

The quote that I have selected is from the guru of growth mindset herself, Carol Dewek. Derek researched the impact of growth/fixed mindset on the achievement of student across socio-economic levels. She found hat having a growth mindset has a positive impact on learning, that impact is a more important indicator of academic success for students from lower income families.  

Dewek (2015) writes, "Our research shows that, at every socioeconomic level, those who hold more of a growth mindset consistently outperform those who do not—even after holding constant a panoply of socioeconomic and attitudinal factors. The relationship between mindset and achievement holds true across all of Chile’s schools and across all levels of family income." 

Dewek (2015) goes on to write that, "The observation that mindset is a more important predictor of success for low-income students than for their high-income peers is novel, although it is consistent with prior research, which has found that a fixed mindset is more debilitating (and a growth mindset is more protective) when individuals must overcome significant barriers to succeed (13, 14)."

In class this week we watched the video, 'The Backwards Brain Bicycle' - it was amazes me how kids learn and make new connections in their brains so much faster than us adults...

The quote that stood out to me when watching this video was...

"Truth is truth, no matter how you look at it!"

Our Leadership #1 assessment is asking us to analyse the leadership of a change initiative we have lead or been a part of in the past.

Our mindset,  will have an impact on the change initiative we are leading or taking part in.
I don't think, anyone walks around with a 'growth mindset' 100% of the time. When seeing the world with the glasses of a growth mindset, it is so important that see still see that 'truth is truth, no matter how you look at it'. It is definitely a choice and a lifelong journey that we have to take to become our best selves. Interestingly, Carol Dewek has recently completed a piece of research based around the impact of teachers having a 'false growth mindset'.

Claro, S. , Dewek, C., & Panunesku, D. (2015). Growth mindset tempers the effects on poverty on academic achievement. Retrieved from: http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/113/31/8664.full.pdf

Computational Thinking

Coding is a language (many languages!) that will change in the future, but the same skill set remains. Computational thinking in a primary school looks like kids writing a set of instructions (using digital technology or on paper) and 'debugging' them by solving any problems.

In our flipped preparation for week 5 we were asked to listen to a TED talk by the author of 'Hello, Ruby', Linda Lukas.

She defines computational thinking as,

" Thinking about problems in a way that allows computers to solve them. Computational thinking is something people do, not computers. It includes logical thinking and the ability to recognise patterns, think with algorithms, decompose a problem, and abstract a problem."

She says that computational thinking is, 

"Things to think with not think about!"

I think that teaching children to code isn't because in the future they will all grow up to be coders, because that just isn't how it will be. BUT to believe it is important for kids to not only be consumers of digital technology but be able to CREATE using digital technology. When kids are fluent users of digital technology they are able to express their ideas, be creative and playful.

She writes in her book that in the future we will have two different kinds of people (when thinking about digital technology),

"People who do and build, and people who are stuck!"

I think we can be hesitant or scared about the 'glowing boxes' (our computers, smart phones, iPads and so on) because they developed so fast they we don't really understand how they work. Digital technology isn't magic or difficult, it is about algorithms. Computers are really good at following millions of simple instructions at the same time.

Linda Luikas, brings storytelling and imagination to computers that I haven't come across before.  I just had to go to the library and get her book out to have a look for myself. I like the way that she sees the links between computational thinking and other learning areas, like poetry, mathematics, philosophy... as they all require us to think use patterns and use debugging skills.  Her books (and website) are full of hands on learning experiences for kids that bring coding to life.

Earlier this years the Ministry of Education brought of the "digital curriculum", which adds computational thinking to the technology learning area (in years 1-10). By 2020 all teachers in New Zealand will be required to be teaching the digital curriculum.

To support my teaching of computational thinking here are some resources I am looking at using; 

Scratch Jr (5-7)  - which is a iPad app 

Google 50 years of coding 

Extra learning about computational thinking:

The Mind Lab - Digital Passport
Google - Computational Thinking Course 

Research Informed Teaching

Week #4 at The Mind Lab was all about research informed teaching (and leadership). 

Being a research informed teacher (and leader) means being able to lead in your practice by having the knowledge and skills to use evidence and critical thinking to support innovation and lead others to change.

We created "memes" to share our understanding...here a a few of my favourites!

Collaboration, constructivism and constructionism.

 We had a play with the coding programme 'Scratch' and a 'Makey Makey' to create a magical music machine at The Mind Lab this week. After completing this task we were asked to reflect on what constructivism, constructionism and collaborative learning looked like in this task. 

Constructivism

Constructivism is learning by doing a task. The knowledge doesn’t come from the teacher, but knowledge is constructed as the task is worked on (Cashman et al, 2005). Constructivism fits with the theory of Vygotsky, he brought us "ZPD" (the zone of proximal development). He believed that a more knowledgeable other could support us in our learning. In the 21st century learning this 'more knowledgeable other' could be technology. 

We learnt by ourselves how to make a drum kit using Scratch and a Makey Makey.

We only got a simple brief of what we needed to achieve “A magical music machine”. 

None of us were experts in using Scratch or a Makey Makey but as we worked out through trial and error we shared our learning with each other as we went along. 

Constructionism

Papert & Harel (1991) state that constructionism is the idea of learning-by-making and that these activities display qualities of "learning-richness": 

During this activity we “constructed” a drum kit.

The drum kit was the product of the hands-on learning that we did around the Scratch coding program. 

Through having the goal of creating a “musical machine” we were able to figure out the different steps we, as a group, needed to take to create our drum kit. 

Collaboration and Cooperation

Dillenbourg (1999) identifies the difference between collaboration and cooperation as defined by a degree in the division of labour. In cooperation, partners split the work, solve sub-tasks individually and then assemble the partial results into the final output. In collaboration, partners do the work 'together' (Dillenbourg, 1999). 

During the task, we utilised both styles - although we ‘worked together’ in collaboration, we also ‘divided the labour’ during the process. 

For instance, one member of the group completed the coding task via Scratch, whilst the other two created the physical ‘Drum Kit’. 

These features were then combined at the end to create the finished product.

These educational theories will feed into my digital assignment #1. 

Cashman et al. (2005). Teachers Discovering Computers: Integrating Technology and Digital Media in the Classroom (4th Ed.) Cambridge: Course Technology.

Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.). Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches. Oxford: Elsevier

Papert, S. & Harel, I. (1991). Constructionism. Alex Publishing

Blended learning using flipped classrooms and in-class flipping!

Blended learning using flipped classrooms and in-class flipping!

A flipped classroom is something I have discovered at The Mind Lab. The idea of a flipped classroom is pretty new, it was dreamed up in 2007. Being able to study by learning the content through 'flipped preparation' and taking part in collaborative learning activities in class has helped to challenge my understanding of what I am learning. In the classroom, the content is covered outside the classroom (online) in short snappy (under 10 minute) videos, quizzes and online discussions. Leaving more time for hands on learning! 

Blended learning happens when students learn part of the time online. The kids have some agency over the time, place and pace of their learning journey. Some of the learning happens in the classroom and some learning outside of the classroom. 

In class flipping, the teacher can check that the students are really watching. It removes the home-related-issues (access to technology, wifi and so on). The learning is then rewindable in the classroom. I think this adds real value to learning. 

A flipped classroom in a school context challenges me as I think that our kids should be free at 3 o'clock to go climb trees, jump in puddles, play sport, learn an instrument, ride their bikes, read stories and chat to their families.

I think I will apply in-class flipping to in my teaching by creating screencasts of my teaching so that learning becomes rewindable. A comment that stuck with me is that students like screencasts or video to be more "conversational". I think this shows how much kids value real connections and relationship. 

The tool I'd like to try out in the classroom is EdPuzzle. The limitation of this tool is that it only gives you 10 free lessons. The benefit is that you can add open ended and closed questions to your EdPuzzle to check the students understanding as they are watching.

S.A.M.R and T.P.A.C.K

SMAR makes learning more engaging and TPACK makes it more effective. It is important that TPACK and SMAR are a part of the same conversation. 

I've come across the SMAR model many times on my teaching journey. It is what challenges us (teachers) to make learning activities more engaging and exciting. I think sometimes us (teachers) see SMAR as a ladder to be climbed. That "great" teachers have to teach 'above the line' in order to be effective and engaging. I reckon some learning activities only need to be at a substitution level to be effective, while others need to be redefined. SAMR pushes us (teachers) to see what is possible with technology that was impossible without it. 

TPACK is what makes learning effective. TPACK gets us (teachers) to think about the content, our pedagogy to effectively integrate technology into our classrooms.  I think, if our pedagogy and content knowledge is weak then this will only be amplified by adding technology into our classrooms. TPACK brings our pedagogical beliefs and content knowledge into the conversation. The centre of the diagram is the 'sweet spot' where the technology, content and pedagogy all match up and effective learning takes place. 

TPACK and SMAR aren't exclusive they need each other. TPACK helps us (teachers) to focus on our pedagogy and content. While SMAR challenges us (teachers) to push the boundaries of what is possible if we redefine our learning activities using technology. 

Innovation = Adding value to what you do in the classroom!

Our flipped preparation for this weeks session was to read the article, 'Conditions for classroom technology innovations'. The article shares the findings of a 2002 study that looked into what makes a classroom innovation successful or a failure. My first thought was, what did they know about technology innovations in 2002? After reading I discovered that the technology they were writing about was outdated but the conditions for classroom technology innovations were just as true today, in 2018, as they were back in 2002. 

The article identifies three factors that impact the success or failure of classroom technology innovation, the innovator, and the context. 

"Factors associated with the innovator, the teacher - in our study appeared to play a more significant role than other domains. That is, when the teacher was strong, the projects seemed to have a better chance to succeed!"

The innovator is the teacher. 

Can the teacher use the technology?

Do they know what enables the technology to work? 

Does the technology match what they are trying to teach? 

Is the teacher reflective?

Do they know who to ask for help, support, money, resources and so on? 

How comfortable is the teacher with the classroom shifting from private (four walls) to public (online and shared with others)?

The innovation is the value that is being added to the classroom using technology. 

What is the distance of the innovation from the existing school culture, classroom practice and availability of technology? 

How far away is the innovation from the teacher's current practice?

How much does the innovation depend on other outside of the teacher authority?

The context is the school's networks and organisation.

Is the teacher socially savvy? Do they know who to talk to?

What technology is already available?

What "I.T." support is available in the school?

Does the teacher have the support of the school leadership?

All of these questions will be important to consider when deciding the on "innovation" (how am I going to add value to what I do in the classroom?) in assignment #1 for our digital course. 

Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S. & Byers, J. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482-515. Retrieved from https://www.rtsd.org/cms/lib/PA01000218/Centricity/Domain/96/Conditions%20for%20Classroom%20Tech.pdf

Playing with Google Cardboard VR!

Our flipped preparation for digital this week was to build our Google Cardboard VR and have a play! So here it is after watching a short YouTube tutorial it was easy enough to put together. 

After having a quick flick through the App store, I discovered Google Cardboard VR apps where you can explore the the lunar surface, fly a plane, go scuba diving, look up at the night sky or plan an expedition! 

A simple low cost piece of tech, BUT it does require a smart phone. 

The Mind Lab: Assignment #1 thoughts?

The 21st century skill I am thinking of focusing on for assignment #1 is collaboration. 

As a CRT/relieving teacher my time is spilt across many classrooms and year levels (0-8). Our school is a part of the Manaiakalani CoL so the kids have access to digital tools in the classroom (in year 3-4 they use iPads and years 5-8 chrome books). The Manaiakalani CoL pedagogy is "Learn, Create, Share". The kids use their devices to access their learning on class sites. Learning is rewindable as video/Google slides are embedded on the site that explain the concepts that are being taught. The kids show their understanding by creating DLO's (digital learning objects) that they share with the world on their individual blogs (or in the junior school through class dojo). 

I have been teaching CRT/relieving across the school for over a year and it is my observation that the learning activities set for the kids are mostly independent activities. As our kids, especially in the years 5-8 classrooms are looking at a screen for the majority of the school day I believe they are missing out on the wealth of hands on learning that digital technology has to offer. Taking part in The Mind Lab has opened my eyes to different types of digital technologies (like Google's cardboard VR, Makey Makey, Scratch).

 As a CRT teacher I have 2 days a term with each class and a few other unexpected days thrown in the mix with this in mind I need to chose an innovation that can be trailed in one-off lessons.

My first thought is the use of a 'mini' Maker space or STEM learning activity. I think the kids will benefit from the exposure to different more hands on digital technologies and the experience of collaborating to create and problem solve. I think the kids at my school will need  a 'structured' Maker space time and explicit teaching around how to work collaboratively (and manage themselves). Class dojo has a really engaging video series about collaboration that I am thinking of using.

I am wondering if there is a online tool the students can used to provide feedback about the way their group collaborated (I am thinking, www.mentimeter.com or www.padlet.com).

I am interested to hear other ways in which I can foster the 21st century skill of 'collaboration' in my teaching practice.

Collaboration, real-world problem solving and resilience!

We were challenged at the Mind Lab this evening to identify 3 problems, challenges, frustrations or areas of concern that we have in our own practice.

As a CRT teacher my greatest barrier to doing the Mind Lab justice is that I am in front of a
different class of students everyday and don't have "control" over what I am teaching, as the lessons are planned out by the classroom teacher.

Collaboration is one area I believe my practice is lacking. After completing the 'Microsoft Learning Activity Rubric' I found that most of the learning activities I create reached only level 1 or 2 on the scale. Collaboration is a 21st century skill and is also found in the New Zealand Curriculum as 'participating and contributing'.

A concern I have is that the learning activities I plan focus only on “problems” where the kids are asked to show their understanding of a skill they have been taught. The learning activities I plan for my kids reached level 1-2 on the 'Microsoft Learning Activity Rubric'. I would like to expose my kids to real-world problem solving by providing learning activities that they do NOT already know the answer to and I do NOT provide all the information. Real-world problem solving teaches kids to be innovative. Their ideas or solutions must be put into practice in the real-world. Their ideas are shared outside the classroom and people other than the kids benefit from their hard ‘mahi’. This 21st century skill is show in the New Zealand Curriculum in all the key competencies.

A challenge that many of the kids I work with have is their lack of resilience (or as our school moto states 'perseverance'). An essential skill to being a real-world problem solver is having resilience. Problem solving is a 21st century skill. Resilience is reflected in the New Zealand Curriculum within the key competency of 'managing self'.

ITL Research. (2012). 21CLD Learning Activity Rubrics. Retrieved from https://education.microsoft.com/GetTrained/ITL-Research

20th and 21st Century Skills

How do 20th century and 21st century skills differ?

Simply, if kids are learning 20th century skills the teacher is in control of teaching of a set of basic skills and foundational knowledge. The skills are contained, controlled, predictable, measurable, scalable and repeatable.

If kids are learning 21st century skills they are learning how to think critically and solve problems. It looks like kids asking more questions than they are answering. The learning is creative, messy, dynamic and reflective. The teacher is a facilitator of learning, the kids have control of their learning journey.

Do we need both?

I think kids need to learn basic skills and foundational knowledge alongside critical thinking and problem solving.   

"Taking the time to think about the balance that between constant innovation and yet the strengths of of core traditions that make us strong."

I believe some children need to spend more time on learning basic skills than others. These basic skills can be taught in a 21st Century way, using online tools to accelerate learning, make learning rewindable and accessible inside and outside of the four walls of the classroom. 

This balancing act of 20th and 21st century skills can be simply put as one word, 'Dewey'. Dewey believed that great learning happened when teachers found a balance between the kids and the content. He believed the key to finding the perfect balance was innovation and giving the kids ownership of their learning journeys. Above is a quote by John Dewey (thought there is no evidence he actually said or wrote it!).