maker – Learning Aloud

Maker Options

Reviewing content posted from ISTE 2015 got me thinking about maker options (again). So much of the focus seems to be on robots, 3-D printers, coding, and DIY computers. Are these the opportunities I would promote?

Without disputing the opportunities associated with the maker categories I have mentioned, I think there are a couple of areas that are typically overlooked by those associated with the maker movement. I think these opportunities are similar or better as authentic opportunities and fit very well with multiple aspects of the curriculum. While I coded as part of my own career, I think a broader perspective is needed.

My two recommended project areas would be a) gardening and b) solar energy. I would argue each tie in with priority, real world needs (energy, global warming, nutrition, health) and both offer diverse opportunities for curriculum integration (measurement, data collection and analysis, writing, online research, advocacy, science, politics, economics, social issues).

I try to explore personally in areas I recommend for educational application and I have tried to focus on new personal experiences that would be novel for many learners. Brief descriptions of my present projects follow.

Straw Bale Gardening

This is something we encountered a year or so ago and now I am giving it a try myself (with mixed results ). Straw bale gardening seems suited to small spaces (some place the bales on a deck or patio) and it would seem feasible to find space within a school yard. Smaller size can also be a way to keep the commitment to the project from getting out of hand. Straw bale gardening involves elements of hydroponics and composting which add unique elements even those students with home gardens probably have not experienced.

Solar Energy

I used to think all colleges and universities should have their own wind turbines both as a learning lab and a sign of commitment to energy issues. My more recent solar energy interest is much more practical. I realize there are small kits allowing experimentation with solar energy – light a light bulb with a small energy cell. I would propose something on a little larger scale. For $200-300 you can get everything you need to power devices you actually use. I operate the lights in my office (at the lake). I could easily charge my mobile devices (note it seems you want to do this through a battery rather than directly). I think teachers could identify classroom energy needs a solar panel could satisfy. I think global warming, the reliance on fossil fuels, growing energy needs are such important issues to address.

Best maker session at FETC

We are headed off to Florida for FETC (Florida Educational Technology Conference) this weekend. It will be a good break from the weather in North Dakota.

I am certain that “maker” sessions will be popular at FETC. My suggestion for the best session available to you will not be held at the convention center. If you have the time, visit EPCOT and pay the extra charge to participate in the “Behind the Seeds Tour”. The tour provides a behind the scenes look at the “Living with the land” exhibit. There are multiple greenhouses and on-going research programs.

I have long felt that school gardens and habitat projects have a great deal to contribute in terms of hands on learning. The tour provides a look at some of my favorite topics – hydroponics, small space gardening, drip irrigation, construction of growing containers. The guide we had explained how they repurpose PVC pipe and styrofoam containers to grow fruits and vegetables. I remember there being handouts and make sure to bring your camera. There is a charge but I remember it being quite reasonable for the duration of the experience.

Here are a couple photos from a past visit.

Should students be encouraged to control a turtle or grow radishes?

I struggle with the concept of a new “maker culture”? I really like the concept as suggesting new educational options, but I struggle with the assumption that makers are “technology-based”. There are lots of ways to make things that do not include programming or robots or a soldering gun. Nothing wrong with programming or construction of technology devices, but we learn by making other things as well. We make something when we write. Writing and programming share the use of a symbol system to create a product. Writing, which also benefits from the use of technology, is not among those processes included by those who claim to belong to the culture of makers. One concern that I have with the popularized version of being a maker is that the examples given will not be of interest to all students or all students. I would prefer all students have the opportunity to pursue a self-identified passion.

How educators are encouraged to apply technology is somewhat schizophrenic. Educators seem caught between two platitudes. On hand they are encouraged to recognize that “it is not about the technology, it is about the learning” (a common educator twitter admonition). Of course, makers seem to argue the opposite position. Are we back to teaching a version of computer literacy or the concern that we must program or be programmed?

Perhaps students should be offered options. I mean options beyond electives such as art, music and athletics. As I have encouraged expanding the allowable electives, I have proposed developing and studying school gardens or habitats. Many may be surprised that there are such things as school gardens, but these activities are more common than many might think and have a very similar literature. One of the realities of involving all students in any supplemental activity is that students seldom accomplish more (note the plural students) than develop an awareness of the content area. I do not think this is what is intended. It makes more sense to me to find ways to allow those students with a real passion for such topics to explore in depth rather than provide all a superficial exposure.

I would encourage close reading of the following two reviews (the first is an analysis of logo programming and the second of school garden projects). These are reasonable reviews of the benefits of teaching programming (logo) and gardening. Just what kind of transfer has resulted from such learning experiences?

Salomon, G. & Perkins, D. (1989). Rocky road to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 113-142.

Williams, D.R. & Dixon, P. S. (2013). Impact of a garden-based learning on academic outcomes in schools: Synthesis of research between 1990 and 2010. Review of Educational Research, 83, 211-235.