One of the advantages of using “maker” techniques in the classroom is that when children make things, it helps make their thinking visible to a mindful observer. This is true authentic assessment.
But some teachers may wonder exactly what they can do to make this happen. An initiative called “Visible Thinking”, from Project Zero offers guidelines to help teachers create the culture and climate in classrooms so that visible thinking is a normal part of the learning process.
Good thinking is not only a matter of skills, but also a matter of dispositions.
The development of thinking is a social endeavor.
Fostering thinking requires making thinking visible.
Classroom culture sets the tone for learning and shapes what is learned.
Schools must be cultures of thinking for teachers.
This short article contains ideas and suggestions for teachers who wonder about what to do to make sure that “making” in the classroom results in real learning for students. For more in depth resources, including routines and structures for different types of learning situations, check the Visible Thinking website.
The next revolution in education will be made, not televised.
Here is what happens when you ask two Tech & Learning advisors to trade notes on one of the fastest-moving phenomena in education technology. Sylvia Martinez (SM) recently co-authored InventTo Learn: Making, Tinkering, and Engineering in the Classroom. Dr. Gary A. Carnow (GC) is Chief Propellerhead of Prolific Thinkers and the former CTO of Pasadena Unified School District. He is also the co-author of multiple edtech books. Both are excited about the Maker Movement. Read why you should be, too:
GC: I shudder when I hear that my local school is now reinventing itself as a STEM or STEAM school. STEM or STEAM is an interesting label, but it limits what is happening across the world outside of traditional educational institutions. A growing army of empowered parents and creative teachers are banding together in Maker Faires. What is this Maker Movement and why does every reader of Tech & Learning need to know about it?
Sylvia Martinez
SM: A number of reasons. First, it’s a global technological and creative revolution. Some very smart people are predicting that the tools and technology of the Maker Movement will revolutionize the way we produce, market, and sell goods and services worldwide. Want a new watch? Don’t ship it across the world, just print it out! Better yet, design it yourself and then print it out. Something this epic should be on every educator’s radar.
Next, the Maker Movement advocates a “Do It Yourself” or DIY attitude towards the world and problems that need solving. Learning to use what you’ve got and “give it a go” are valuable mindsets for young learners.
Plus it’s cool! Makers worldwide are developing amazing new tools, materials, and skills and inviting the whole world to join in the fun. Using gee-whiz technology to make, repair, or customize the things we need brings engineering, design, and computer science to life.
Finally, the Maker Movement overlaps with the natural inclinations of children and the power of learning by doing. For educators, I believe that being open to the lessons of the Maker Movement holds the key to reanimating the best, but oft-forgotten learner-centered teaching practices.
Global Maker Faires and a growing library of literature inspire learners of all ages and experience levels to become inventors and seize control of their world. Online communities serve as the hub of a global learning commons, allowing people to share not just ideas, but the actual codes and designs for what they invent. This ease of sharing lowers the barriers to entry, as newcomers can easily use someone else’s codes or designs as building blocks for their own creations.
However, at the Maker Faires I’ve been to, I’ve met countless parents who say to me (as they watch their child happily soldering, building with LEGO, or programming robots) “School is killing my kid.” And unfortunately, I know what they mean. We can and must do better, not just for the empowered parents who can take their child to a Maker Faire, but for all children.
Dr. Gary Carnow
GC: The Maker Movement, according to Wikipedia, stresses “new and unique applications of technologies, and encourages invention and prototyping. There is a strong focus on using and learning practical skills and applying them creatively.” What does that mean for classrooms today?
SM: The new Next Generation Science Standards makes explicit calls for meaningful assessment, interdisciplinary knowledge, creativity, inquiry, and engineering. Specifically, we must change how schools approach science and math.
In too many cases, science and math have been stripped of practical applications because of a false premise that practical math is only for students who don’t go to college. This is a recipe for disaster and I think we see the results in students who gradually lose interest in STEM subjects over the years. We cannot and must not continue to pretend that success in STEM subjects means memorizing the textbook.
Making is a way of bringing creativity, authentic design thinking, and engineering to learners. Tinkering is the process of design, the way real scientists and engineers invent new things. Such concrete experiences provide a meaningful context for understanding abstract science and math concepts while often incorporating esthetic components. Creating opportunities for students to solve real problems, combined with imaginative new materials and technology, makes learning come alive and cements understandings that are difficult when only studied in the abstract.
We must bravely reintegrate actual labs and design into science. We must be able to answer a math student who asks, “Why do I need to know this?” (And the answer should never be, you’ll need this next year.) We must reinvent classrooms as places where students ARE inventors, designers, scientists, and mathematicians TODAY. Making is the avenue to this reimagination of 21st century education.
GC: Your background is engineering. I began my career as a teacher of gifted children. We both subscribe to MAKE Magazine. Where do teachers, parents, students, and administrators, or for that matter anyone who is interested in providing meaningful experiences for students, begin?
SM: In his 2005 book, Fab: The Coming Revolution on Your Desktop—from Personal Computers to Personal Fabrication, MIT Professor Neil Gershenfeld described the next technological revolution as one in which people would make anything they need to solve their own problems. Gershenfeld predicted that for the cost of your school’s first computer, you would have a Fabrication Lab or fab lab—a mini high-tech factory—capable of making things designed on a computer. This prediction is now reality.
In our new book, we identify three aspects of the making revolution that are game-changers for schools. All of these are accessible and affordable today. Any of these are great places to begin:
Computer controlled fabrication devices: Over the past few years, devices that fabricate three-dimensional objects have become an affordable reality. These 3D printers can take a design file and output a physical object. Plastic filament is melted and deposited in intricate patterns that build layer by layer, much like a 2D printer prints lines of dots that, line by line, create a printed page. With 3D design and printing, the ability for students to design and create their own objects combines math, science, engineering, and craft.
Physical computing: New open source microcontrollers, sensors, and interfaces connect the physical world to the digital world in ways never before possible. Many schools are familiar with robotics, one aspect of physical computing, but whole new worlds are opening up, such as wearable computing. Wearable computing, soft circuits, and e-textiles use conductive thread and tiny mobile microprocessors to make smart textiles and clothing. Other kinds of new microprocessors, like Arduinos, combine with plug-and-play devices that connect to the Internet, to each other, or to any number of sensors. This means that low-cost, easy-to-make computational devices can test, monitor, beautify, and explore the world.
Programming: There is a new call for programming in schools, from the Next Generation Science Standards to the White House. Programming is the key to controlling this new world of computational devices and the range of programming languages has never been greater. Today’s modern languages are designed for every purpose and every age.
The common thread here is computation. The computational potential of these technologies, tools, and materials elevates the learning potential beyond craft projects. Of course there are things to be learned from building with cardboard or Popsicle sticks and in our book we discuss ALL kinds of making and makerspaces for learning. But computation is the game-changer that should make educators sit up and take notice.
All of these experiences and the materials that enable them are consistent with the imaginations of children and with the types of learning experiences society has long valued. Making is a stance that puts the learner at the center of the educational process and creates opportunities that students may never have encountered themselves. Makers are confident, competent, curious citizens in a new world of possibility.
GC: What matters most about learning to me is not the product but the process. What I love about the Maker Movement is that makers rarely work in isolation. Making is a social activity. The Maker Movement embraces failure and believes that everyone can make. When I look back on my traditional schooling, what I remember is that I had gifted teachers who knew the power of project-based learning. I remember the projects and the process and have little memory of whatever facts I had to cram for the dreaded “pop quiz.” What brought you to the Maker Movement? Is this just the next big thing or is this the real deal?
SM: Gary, you pack a lot into your questions! What brought me to the Maker Movement is that it deeply connects with my personal reasons for becoming an engineer. I wanted to know how to solve problems—real problems in the real world, not textbook problems. I think all kids want to change the world, and the Maker Movement and Maker ethos teaches kids that they have the power to make the world a better place, NOW. They don’t have to wait for a book or a teacher to tell them what to do, because there is a whole world out there of people all trying things and sharing the results. Somebody somewhere is asking the same questions as you and by sharing the journey, we all can learn more.
I realize the attraction of always searching for the “new new thing”, the magic wand that will fix all problems. I don’t believe that the Maker Movement is a magic wand. I hope it doesn’t get turned into a buzzword. Maybe we can talk more about how to make sure the hype doesn’t overwhelm the promise of the Maker Movement in schools. However, it is my strong belief that educators who look deeply at the Maker Movement will find a wealth of new ideas and inspiration to revitalize their classrooms and give children the opportunity to touch the future.
I had the privilege of joining a conversation with the great Howard Rheingold last week in a HOMAGO Google hangout. HOMAGO stands for “Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out” which was the theme (and title) of Mimi Ito’s amazing book about digital youth learning culture. Our scheduled topic was “Arduino for Educators” but we really didn’t stick to one topic!
If you haven’t seen the GoldieBlox commerical making the viral social media rounds, then you should check it out.
The commercial is for GoldieBlox, a company that wants to “…inspire the next generation of female engineers” with a series of building toys and storybooks. I’m struggling to present this in as neutral a light as possible, because I have hugely mixed feelings about both the toys and the commercial.
1. The toys. I saw Goldie Blox and The Spinning Machine debut at Maker Faire. The toy consists of a plastic plate that you can place spindles on, and loop a ribbon around the spindles. You can put the figurines on the spindles and when you pull the ribbon they spin around. The product website says, “GoldieBlox will nurture a generation of girls who are more confident, courageous and tech-savvy, giving them a real opportunity to contribute to the progress made by engineers in our society.”
Really? I guess I just don’t see it. What I do see is over-the-top hype that playing with a particular toy will change society — even if the toy has been designed after “… a year researching gender differences, talking with Harvard neuroscientists, and observing children’s play patterns.” It’s a toy, and not even one that looks like it has lasting play value. And you might say, kids will use their imagination to extend the play value, well then that’s fine. I agree kids might like it. But let’s not go crazy here – it’s a toy, not a cause.
2. The commercial. Honestly, who can be upset to see kids playing like they show in the video? It’s a lovely production. Of course those kids didn’t actually build that contraption, right? It’s as false an image as a photoshopped model selling “true beauty.” But it’s an effective message nonetheless, showing kids being creative in a way that I wish lots of kids could be. And yes, I would imagine that this would be a good kickoff to giving kids a modern idea of a Rube Goldberg machine, it’s fun, visual, great music, etc. It doesn’t give the impression that you MUST have this particular toy to make something cool, so it could easily be inspiring to someone who doesn’t have the toy. All to the good.
So now, what does this mean for education? I’ve seen educators raving about this as an example of “youth voice” and I think that’s simply not even close. Dean Shareski and Gary Stager reject this aspect of the reaction to the commercial and I agree with them both. This is not youth or student voice, it’s a message designed, created, and produced by adults. An effective message, yes, but not the voice of youth.
Should educators show this video to inspire classrooms to build and make? I’m not 100% enthusiastic. Part of this is the commerciality and use of kids as window-dressing rather than the actual makers. If you want a video that shows a Rube Goldberg type device that looks to me like a kid may have actually participated in the building, try this: Audri’s Rube Goldberg Monster Trap
The Girls Question: So I’ve been avoiding the “is it good for girls” question up to this point. I’m a girl. I’m an engineer. Shouldn’t I be cheering??
But I have mixed feelings about this too. Of course more girls should be encouraged and supported to become engineers, scientists, mathematicians, or Rube Goldberg machine inventors. Of course, of course, of course. But I don’t feel like handing the argument over to a sales presentation like this is the right answer. The girls in this video reject the message to buy “princess” products as they are simultaneously selling another product. Do I have to like this?
I always have a knee jerk reaction about things marketed as a “solution” to some social/cultural issue. In general, they play on folk myths about culture, and by communicating those myths (even as they refute them), perpetuate that myth. So the fuss over a video proclaiming how girls have the power to do this or that actually reinforces the fact that everyone knows that they don’t. Otherwise, the video would be seen as mundane. If it was true and widely accepted that girls had equal opportunity to become engineers, then the rebellious lyrics refuting that claim wouldn’t make sense. So in a weird way, saying “yes, girls CAN be engineers” only makes sense when we acknowledge the world thinks they can’t.
So I think that educators who show this in class need to do some additional work. I wonder if some of that can be found in the literature about how to reverse stereotype threat. This is the theory that if people are exposed to prevailing stereotypes that predict success or failure in a given task, they will actually fulfill the promise of that stereotype, good or bad.
The “antidote” to stereotype threat is thought to be talking to the people/kids about the stereotype and that they have to power to not live up (or down) to that stereotype. In a way, this is similar to growth mindset.
So using the video might be followed up at some point with a conversation (age appropriate, of course) of why some people see girls as being less capable, and how that’s not true.
But I’m not sure that loading the preparation of a making activity with a message about gender bias is valuable. What are the boys supposed to think – should they be guilty, or maybe wonder if it’s true that they actually ARE better than the girls? I’d rather let the making commence and deal with the issues of making sure that all students are having a valuable experience. If you need an inspirational video, how about finding one that shows actual kids making, not selling.
But at other times after you’ve got the making going, maybe as a wrap up activity, I think this video could be a really great discussion starter. Why does society think that girls should only play with dolls and boys with trucks? Why is pink a girl’s color? Why do we care if girls can or can’t be engineers. What if a boy wants to wear a dress or knit? Is it bad if a girl likes princesses? What kinds of things are girls supposed to do vs. what boys are supposed to do? Has this always been true? Is this true around the world?
The topics of gender imbalance, equality, equity, sexism, history and culture are accessible to even young children without pounding them in the head with “girls rule!!” messages designed mainly to sell them stuff.
This just in– a lawsuit has been filed by the Beastie Boys (who wrote the original song in the video ) suing GoldieBlox over using their intellectual property without permission. GoldieBlox has filed a complaint alleging that the commercial is parody (the lyrics were modified) and therefore permitted under “Fair Use”.
Since publishing Invent To Learn: Making, Tinkering, and Engineering in the Classroom, Gary and I have done many sessions, workshops, and webinars introducing teachers, students, and parents to the fabulous tools and technology of the Maker Movement and the powerful ideas about learning it embodies.
One question we get asked is, “What iPad/iPhone apps can I use for Maker classroom activities?” While there are certainly many apps that provide creativity options (with more being added every day), what people are asking for are apps that go deeper in supporting 3D printing, computational technology, physical computing, robotics, wearable computing, and programming.
Sad to say, the answer is, “not much”. For things like programming and interfacing with microcontrollers like Arduino, the best use for an iOS device is as a reference resource – playing videos and reading online manuals on how things work, while you work on the real thing in front of you. Or secondly, taking photos and videos to document the process. And I really don’t count apps that work as front ends for design or product databases, those to me are also just other forms of reference material.
Now, that’s not a slap at using the devices that way. It’s a huge advantage to have fast access to reference material and an easy-to-use device to document your progress! My iPad is an essential part of my personal maker-space to constantly look things up or watch videos while I’m working. But I’m pretty sure that’s not what people mean.
The lack of maker apps for iOS* is mostly because:
1. There is no USB connection on iOS devices, which is the typical way programs are downloaded to microcomputers (like Arduino or the Lilypad.)
2. Apple restricts iPad apps that have any kind of real programming capability. There are some apps that simulate programming, but nothing is allowed that is a real programming language, even ones as nice and wonderful as Turtle Art or Scratch, or even simple compilers like the Arduino Development Environment. (Scratch 2.0, which runs in the browser, still won’t run on iOS because iOS does not support Flash.)
That said, there are some companion apps that might be useful in some maker classrooms:
3D scanning/design apps – these use iPhones/iPads to scan 3D objects so that the objects can be recreated in CAD programs and potentially 3D printed or used in games such as Minecraft. There are also simple design apps that allow for 3D design. In both cases the objects need to be uploaded to a web database and then downloaded to your print control software on your computer. AutoDesk is one source. (It’s highly likely that this will change in the near future and there will be iOS apps that can do the design and then beam the design file directly to the printer. But not many school-accessible printers these days can do this.)
Circuit CAD programs – there are circuit design apps available. In many cases, these will be too complex for all but the most dedicated HS students.
Electronic circuit “helper” apps – For example, there are apps that read resistors and translates the color coded bands on them to resistance values. There are also Ohm’s Law calculator apps, reference apps for pinouts or other specifications of parts and circuitry, etc.
You could get an Ethernet or other wireless shield for the Arduino to extend its capabilities. Then there are apps designed to control the Arduino using the iPhone/iPad like a wireless remote. However, you still have to program the Arduino with a real computer.
*Note: I realize that “apps” also run on Android and Chromebooks, but that’s a whole different post! Very briefly, Chromebooks do have a USB port, but still only run programs through the browser. This would allow for Scratch 2.0, but not using Scratch to control physical computing devices. There is some discussion in the Arduino forum about programming Arduinos with Chromebooks, but the discussion is pretty technical, and honestly, if you can follow the discussion, you don’t need me to help answer this question! Also, yes, some Android phones have sort-of USB ports. But every project I read, even the “easy” ones, came with warnings about frying your phone. Not really something I can recommend!
This report has resources, links, and a summary of why educators should be aware of the Maker Movement. It also features a short list of projects for elementary, middle and high school with some of our favorite Maker activities and tools.
The K12online conference is a FREE, online conference organized by educators for educators around the world interested in integrating emerging technologies into classroom practice. A goal of the conference (among several) is to help educators make sense of and meet the needs of a continually changing learning landscape.
This year, Gary Stager and I were pleased to be invited to keynote the conference strand called “Building Learning.” The neat thing about K12online is that all the sessions are archived permanently online for easy viewing.
Iterative design is a skill review. Iterative design is a good way to find out if students actually learned skills that were taught on previous assignments.
Iterative design stages are fixed and if they skip one, students should go back do it again.
Iterative design means that teachers should specify how many “drafts” a student should complete, and have specific milestones for each draft or prototype.
The process and steps of iterative design should be taught before any design actually begins. Students should be able to name and use the correct vocabulary before being allowed to do any design or construction.
Teachers should require documentation from students that shows the steps and thinking they went through at each stage of a project.
Iterative design takes too much time, so a good way to shortcut it is to tell the students how each step should look and what the intermediate products should be.
Iterative design means that you can’t assess student work, so should be combined with “real” assessment, like a multiple choice test.
Iterative design is something to do only after students complete real classroom work on the topic.
Students will just goof off if I don’t tell them exactly what to do every minute.
Students will just beg me to tell them what to do next.
“I think Invent to Learn is the most important education book published this year, offering not just a vision of how “making” and “tinkering” could transform classrooms, but a practical guide for how to move school in a more constructionist direction – how to design better learning environments and projects, how to foster wonder and build capacity in children (and adults), and how to combat the drudgery of a standardized-test-obsessed school system.” – Audrey Watters
My jaw literally hit the floor when I read this. Well, maybe not literally, but I’m from California and that’s how we talk out here. I thought I was reading a review of Diane Ravitch’s new book, Reign of Error, but Audrey hijacks her own review of Reign of Error to talk about our book, Invent To Learn. After all, the post is called, “Technology, Progressive Education, and Diane Ravitch’s Reign of Error” – I didn’t expect to read about our book!
Most of the review is about the Ravitch book, which takes on “the hoax of the privatization movement” and dismantling the fear-inducing “schools are broken” narrative that is driving many so called reforms that deprive schools, teachers, and students of agency over learning. But as Audrey astutely points out, challenging the “schools are broken” mantra doesn’t mean that you are a defender of the status quo. There is another way forward.
That’s where Stager and Martinez’s book Invent to Learn comes in as a manual for educators (and parents and principals) – one that could help reignite the progressive education movement and shift school into the hands of modern learners. That makes the book incredibly political, mind you, but the transformation it calls for isn’t simply at the level of policy. The change is pedagogical; the change is technological.
People may not think of the Maker Movement or making in the classroom as a political stance, but they both are. Politics isn’t only about who gets elected, or the day to day “action” on Capitol Hill, it’s a negotiation of power in any relationship – who has it, who can use it, and over how many other people. The Maker Movement is about sharing ideas and access to solutions with the world, not for money or power, but to make the world a better place. It’s about trusting other people, people you don’t know, to use these ideas for good. Making in the classroom is also about power and trust, and perhaps in an even more important way, because it’s about transferring power to the learner, our students, who are the ones who will take over the world in the not too distant future. And in giving the learner agency and responsibility over their own learning, they gain trust, not just our trust, but trust in themselves as powerful problem-solvers and agents of change.
It is a political statement to work to empower people, just as it is a political statement to work to disempower people. That holds true for all people, not just young people. Being a helpless pawn in a game controlled by others is disempowering, whether you are a teacher, student, parent, or citizen of the world. Deciding that you trust another person enough to share power, or even more radical, give them agency over decisions, is indeed political.
Making is not only a stance towards taking that power back, as individuals and as a community, but also trusting ourselves and each other to share that power to create, learn, grow, and solve problems. Empowering students is an act of showing trust by transferring power and agency to the learner. Helping young people learn how to handle the responsibility that goes along with this power is the sensible way to do it. Inspiring them with modern tools and modern knowledge needed to solve real problems is part of this job. For education to change, it can’t just be tweaks to policy, or speeches, or buying the new new thing — teachers have to know how to empower learners every day in every classroom. There is no chance of having empowered students without empowered teachers — competent, professional, caring teachers who are supported in this goal by their community.
I’m glad Diane Ravitch’s book is getting the attention it deserves. We have to have a national conversation about what’s going on in education in the U.S. so perhaps this is the catalyst. I hope that if people pay attention we can turn the tide before too many years go by and learner-centered education is such a dim memory that it’s too late to revive. But what I see in so many schools committing themselves to new makerspaces and making in the classroom initiatives is that it’s not too late. There are so many of these hopeful signs. If our book is helping, then that’s a great satisfaction.
