Anyone who knows me (or who has been in my home) knows I have a little bit of an obsession with Lego. So when the opportunity came up to learn about some Lego resources that can be used in the classroom, one could easily imagine that I would literally jump at the opportunity. This morning I made the drive down to Te Matauranga School and was immediately transported back to my childhood dreams when I saw the sheer volume of Lego that was present at the school. It was amazing!
And it only got better from there. We spent most of the day working on some hands on activities, all to do with Lego WeDO 2.0 as well as with EV3 robots. Our amazing facilitators (who came across the ditch from Australia) made sure we had a lot of things to do.
The first thing we played with, was the WeDo 2.0. I had seen this in previous years (I'm sure if you go back in my twitter feed, you'll see it) and in the interim had never really gotten a chance to learn more. We did a few activities with this. The first was to take 10 pieces from the set and make any animal. We had two minutes to do this (with the wonderful advice of start with your hands and let your brain catch up) and as you can see in the picture below, not one of us made the same as another. It's a great way to get started when you're working with Lego (or anything else for that matter) to show that everyone has great ideas and they can be very different from each other.
We then used the app to make a windmill (or a fan) and then have a bit of a play with the coding. It is very easy to use, and has a lot of different functions. Our last challenge was to make a music machine. I spent a good bit of time of this, iterating and making new versions, adding features as I got inspiration. It was all good fun. Here's a tweet & video of what I made with my partner:
After a break for morning tea, we spent the remainder of the day with the EV3 robots. While the WeDo is for younger children, the EV3 has more capabilities and is more suited for older learners. We first learned how to make a quick build (not Lego Certified) to do some testing on getting the robot to move an exact distance. We started with 15cm, then 40cm and finally we tested our calculations on 2m exactly. We did this, however, with a minifigure called Daredevil Dan. Due to some inaccuracies at the 40cm level, our calculations were out quite a bit. Though eventually we managed to get it close (though, I guess it didn't work if we just nicked him at the end). Our trials are reversed here:
The last challenge of the day was to make a robot that moved WITHOUT wheels. Again, I spent a good amount of time iterating and improving our robot. On carpet, our robot moved quite quickly, but on the lino, it was not so fast. It was still quite menacing and I think I may have a future in some sort of robot wars type competition.
Another thing that we discussed was the First Lego League. Every year Lego sets out challenges for both Juniors (using WeDo) and Seniors (using EV3). You can register, get a pack of pieces and then join local competitions which can lead on to national and international competitions. Lego First New Zealand seems to be growing rather quickly, so it's probably a good time for schools to get in on it. The national competition here is on December 1st, I believe. All you need is an EV3 or WeDo and to sign up on the site to get the materials (which do have a cost, but it's worth it, I'd say). Even though I can't do it this year (my school has no learners until next year) it's definitely something I'll be looking into for next year.
Yesterday was a busy day for me. After my guest spot on The Suite Talk, I attended an event put on by the Sir Paul Callaghan Science Academy. In 2015 (before I started this blog, that's actually a bit hard to believe, to be honest) I attended the Academy in Havelock North, and it was an amazing 4 day course where I learned a lot about teaching science and how interesting and relevant we can make it (because making slime and putting mentos in coke does not constitute a science program - sorry for those of you who think it does). This year they are offering half day workshops for alumni so I decided to sign up.
It was definitely worth the time and effort to get there for the two topics that we covered: Models and Causal Thinking/CERR (Claim, Evidence, Reasoning, Rebuttal).
Models
Models are a great way to help make any concept clear to a learner - not just in science. Often we forget that as adults we have had lots of experiences which leads to a lot of ways our brains can visualize complex ideas. Children don't necessarily have those experiences so as educators we can help foster better understanding by providing models. Models can come in a variety of forms. We discussed at length a question of whether or not a van or a car would tip over. We used the below cars, some cardboard and a protractor to see which would tip over. We discussed the pros and cons of using the models. It's a hands on activity that can be repeated quickly (fast feedback loop) and helps give a visual of what's happening, but it doesn't necessarily reflect what would happen with a real car or truck.
As part of our discussion, I suggested that we could do some modelling on CoSpacesEdu, so in a few minutes I whipped up the simulation below. CoSpaces has a physics feature which can allow you to simulate many different things. It's not super precise (I didn't have many options for angles, but maybe I just missed that), but it does help give a visual.
We looked at a variety of other models, including drawings, models of the solar system (during which we discussed how no one model of it completely shows what it's like, but they all have some value in our understanding), Lego (a personal favourite), making similies and metaphors, among others. This certainly made me think more about models and modelling (which connects to what Jo Boaler says about Math learning) and will make me more conscious about putting models at the forefront of learning (not just Science learning). I also want to put a shout out to Google Expeditions which has many, many examples of AR models that can be used in the classroom to help further understanding.
Causal Thinking and CERR
Causal Thinking
We talked a lot about the difference between causation and correlation (and though it wasn't actually mentioned: coincidence) and how that distinction is becoming so important to make, especially with ideas that are being floated throughout social media and by some world leaders (cough, cough). Some of the examples we looked at were the relationship between a full moon and either births or strange behaviour as well as people getting a 6 months to live diagnosis but then having their cancer go into remission. These events actually have little to no evidence to support a causal relationship, but yet some people take small sample sizes that suggest no link between two events and try to convince others of it. A real example of causation, which many have probably seen was this:
I think it's imperative to get children (and adults) talking about cause and effect. Like models, this is something that carries over to all areas (hey, there's a theme! Maybe it's not about the subjects but how we THINK about the subjects...). We should always be examining what the causes are and trying to determine if what we assume to be the reasons for something happening are truly the reasons. As educators, we can also provide learning opportunities for learners to examine this relationship.
CERR (Claim, Evidence, Reasoning, Rebuttal)
This idea was shared as a method for reporting science investigations, which makes sense and helps build reasoning skills within children. Normally when we investigate something, we start with a question. We then perform a fair test which helps us gather evidence. Sometimes this is where investigations end. Those who continue on often use reasoning to make a claim about the original question and then share the results. Rarely do we think about the alternative case and provide a reason for why it isn't true (that would be a rebuttal). When we're sharing, however, we should start with our claim, follow with our evidence, our reasoning and then with an explanation of why the (an) alternate case is not true.
For example, my group was looking at the following question: Given their seeds are so similar are pine trees (picture on right) closely related to sycamore trees (picture on left)?
Our claim was that they were not similar to each other because when we looked closely at the seeds there were many differences. The sycamore seeds are spherical while the pine tree ones are flat and elongated. The sycamore seeds also have a main vein on one side which branches off like a wing or a leaf. Lines on the pine tree seed go vertically and don't really branch off. The pine tree seed is also very waxy and thin compared the the rougher and thicker sycamore leaf. We also reasoned that since the trees look actually quite different (Pine Trees are evergreen and Sycamores are deciduous) that the alternative (that they are closely related) is not likely to be possible.
It was a great way to spend an afternoon, all told. The presenter was amazing and we had some good conversations about the topics we learned. I would recommend anyone interested in becoming a better educator of science to try to find one of the free workshops put on by the academy (see the link at the top). They're amazing!
I'm super far behind on my blogging. I've actually already had the third Science Unleashed lesson, but I've not written about the second.
After the first night, I was very excited to get back to the North Shore (without the wrong turns this time!) and see what Chris had in store for us. When I walked in, there were a variety of some really cool things on the table: motors, cardboard, propellers, battery packs. This was clearly going to be a fun evening.
We were again working in partners and our task was to make a vehicle that moved. We had a certain amount of time to build our first prototype and test it, with very little direction - except for the basic concept of the car and how we could potentially make it. My partner and I quickly discussed what we wanted to make and divided up the tasks. We made our vehicle quickly and when it didn't really go, we looked at the problems - the wheels were a bit sticky and not turning easily, the motor didn't have enough power - and decided how we would modify it. We made smoother wheels and added a second battery pack (some may say this was cheating, but I'm not among them).
Here's a video of how our test worked out at this point:
Afterwards we had the conference like we had the week before, but instead of just discussion what we could potentially test and change, we came up with a plan of who would investigate what. We ended up looking at whether or not weight made a difference or if more power made a difference. When we tested these as a group, ours went quicker than everyone else's - most likely because of the extra battery packs.
Again, we had a discussion on how we could improve our vehicles.
What was interesting today was not necessarily what we did, but how our scientific community evolved from week to week. We learned from our mayhem the week before and became more organized in our methods, which led to us being more successful in coming to a consensus in the end. I'm going to give Chris the benefit of the doubt and say that this was his plan - get us to create our own community. I look forward to the last two sessions (spoiler - the next one was pretty good too!).
Last night I went to the first of four Science Unleashed workshops with Chris Clay and Ally Bull. I was quite excited because since I met him at the MindLab I've enjoyed everything that Chris has shared with me PLUS I have a science background and enjoy doing fun sciencey stuff with children.
After getting lost not once, not twice, but three times on my way there, I finally found the room at AUT North Shore and settled in. We had a brief introduction but it was straight into a fun, exploratory, playing activity. We were given rocket powder (not actually rocket powder), and rocket liquid fuel (also, not actually rocket liquid fuel, as well as a variety of other materials to make our rockets. Chris did a "shoddy demonstration" (his words, not mine, and on purpose) to give us some basic idea of what we needed to do, with the simple task of seeing if we could make our rocket go high.
All of the partnerships worked, trying different mixtures of the liquid (there were 3), different shapes for our fuel delivery system, as well as different amounts of liquid and powder. When we first started, the rockets didn't work really well (our first one didn't even explode!). But over time, it was clear that more and more of everyone's rockets were getting higher. It was at this point that Chris stopped us and brought us inside to conference. He had us discuss what we found out. Could we make any claims that were supported by evidence. We wrote our claims down and discussed what had happened. There was some consensus on what was certain (one of the fuels was useless) but there was also some disagreement.
Then we went back outside and had another go at it. This time a few groups spoke with each other and discussed which variables we would test. Angela and I decided on changing the amount of liquid. We found that a little bit of liquid worked better than a lot. Have a look at one of our tests. Unfortunately it shot up so quickly we couldn't see the whole thing. But you can tell that there was a lot of upward force propelling it.
The last step of our investigation was another debrief back in the classroom. We discussed ways in which we could improve our investigation. A few of us thought that it would be better if we decided as a group which variables we would test. Others discussed how we would make our measurements more accurate and what things we should measure (we thought that timing hang time would help determine which rockets when highest).
So what was the point of this? Well, there were a lot. The first one is that science and other fun, hands-on activities can be done on the cheap. Not all schools can afford lots of equipment, and Chris even said early on that having less materials and resources can actually be a good thing as it forces you to be innovative.
The whole process was one that was meant to promote the Nature of Science (NoS). Compared to a 'typical' science lesson, one like what we did pretty much gives opportunities to develop all four strands of NoS. For Understanding About Science, learners are given the chance to make their own explanations and understand how science works. They are clearly learning what Investigating in Science means because they are carrying out their own investigations. The whole time, learners are Communicating with their partners and with each other. The conferencing was a fantastic way of communicating this idea. There are also loads of possibilities to share their learning with others or digitally. Every single one of us was participating in actual science and we were all contributing the the scientific community that we had created amongst ourselves.
Though this is not the first time I've participated in Science PD that was similar to this, I have continued to get loads of ideas. As Chris said, he's not about giving us a recipe for a perfect science lesson. But he did give us some great ideas to provoke scientific thinking and investigating. And that's before you consider the inspiration that this night has provided me. I'm looking forward to next week!
Last night I went to the Te Atatu Penisula Community Center where they have an awesome makerspace to learn about Arduino. I heard about this through meetup. The idea was that anyone interested in Arduino could get a crash course in the basics, even if they didn't know anything about it.
Some of this may be too technical for some, but keep on reading for my thoughts on makerspaces in general.
I figured that since I want to get students making robots (at some point), I'd better learn myself. There were a good number of people there and I was given help in a small group of 4 people. We were taught how to just use the Arduino to light up an LED using both parallel and series circuits. Then we got the chance to experiment with coding some LEDs to blink and to fade. While not completely earth shattering stuff, it was a good first step with not only the physical setup of the Arduino and breadboards, but also with the coding for Arduino.
As I have been slowly sharing with people, one of the things I'm attempting to do at the moment is to actually organize the maker educators in New Zealand, so this visit was also a good way of networking with other people, outside of schools, who have knowledge. In an long discussion with some of the regulars afterwards I was able to get a good idea of what is out there in New Zealand at the moment (a growing number of makerspaces for adults, along with a network connecting them - but still a lack of organized network for school, something which I'm prepared to start - Maker Ed NZ, which is quickly or slowly becoming my pet project).
I'll be writing more about makerspaces and why I think they are important and necessary in schools later, but I did want to share what I did and what I learned. Here's a short video of the LED lights I was able to get to blink in an alternating manner.
I recently made the trip down to Christchurch (which incidentally was my first time on the South Island after living in New Zealand for 4+ years) for a Computer Science for Primary School course put on by some amazing educators from the University of Canterbury.
A major focus of the course was using Scratch to code. We talked about learning both coding and about using coding to teach other subjects. The things I learned in two days absolutely have blown my mind with respect to coding in the classroom, as well as the possible uses of Scratch.
We started off the two-day event by discussing (and completing) several unplugged activities to teach computational thinking (because that's what coding is about, NOT the computers). We learned about binary and how to represent numbers with only ones and zeroes. We did a massive activity which pretty much led us to writing codes with musical notes. We also discussed ways in which computers verify data (through ideas such as parity - see the Error Correction activity in the below link) and how data can be transferred through the Internet securely (hint: it travels through the web three times, instead of once). A lot of these activities can be found on http://csunplugged.org/.
Then came the chance to actually get programming with Scratch. Up until now, I've always looked at Scratch as a way to 1) make games and 2) tell stories. Though I have had some coding experience (FORTRAN in my first year of University, some JavaScript course on Khan Academy and lots of HTML coding), I never put 1 and 1 together. Well, I finally figured out what the 2 is. The following are some programs I made for activities we did this week as well as some programs that I might use in the near future (i.e. next week when I go back to class). Some of these came from direct problems - i.e. can you make a program that takes such and such info and tells you this and that result. Some of the challenges involved using only a small number of blocks. The programs are down in the order I made them, so you can see the evolution of what I've learned (keep in mind, this was over two days!).
Debugging is also an important skill that we discussed. The idea here is that no code will be perfect when first written, so we need to be able to go through our code in various ways to check that it does what we want it to do. There are many different ways to check. When using variables you can show them or you can have them said at certain parts of the way. All cases should be tested for to see if all cases work (boundary cases are specifically important). We got to do a quiz on this and I ended up winning some parity magnets for the efforts of my team.
These ideas will likely be the basis of the upcoming digital technologies curriculum in New Zealand, so this is a great way to get started. Computer Science doesn't need to be an add-on to our current curriculum, it can fit in nicely with everything we are already doing.
A side note: This was apparently the first Google-sponsored CS4PS in the world! It's definitely a great idea and should be repeated over and over for as many teachers as possible.
