Similarly, Designing, Developing, and Implementing a Course on LEGO Robotics for Technology Teacher Education exposes Paperts constructivist environment to instruct teachers on the uses of robotics in education. This article provides research on Mindtools, or tools that support higher-level thinking and learning processes. The tool of use in this article is also LEGO’s RoboLab. RoboLab was specifically developed for teachers with little or no computer programming and uses a windows -based graphical user interface to program the robots. Instruction revolved around learning programming language and building and programming a robot to solve a common task. Results of instruction are presented as positive for each participant. The most “intense” learning revolved around the creation, programming, and many test trials of the robots. Students in the course reported use of higher order thinking skills and connection to personal curriculum objectives. However, cost, space, and time were reasons a teacher may not implement the program.
After reading these articles I can see the power of giving students materials and freedom to create in instruction. The products students create reflect connections they make in their mind. I was amazed at the machines created by students in the Maine classroom. The products students create are not just reflections of connections, but can be used as a conversation piece from an instructor’s point of view to allow dialogue that guides students to make even more connections. It seems giving students chances to create something out of nothing lends itself to more natural forms of the learning process. I was thinking that most things we do of meaning in life are found in the creation paradigm. Many occupations and relationships are founded on building something out of nothing. If students can create Lego Robots they can use this success to provide motivation to help them create other objects, concepts, or ideas for example art for the community, knowledge in a work place, or even an idea that will change the world.
I believe I can take this idea of the importance of creation in education and use it to design and implement instruction that involves the creation of objects in my science class. I have been thinking about finding ways to use the knowledge of the Lego Robots in my classroom. The main things that limit this type of instruction are state mandated teaching/testing of standards and budgets. After reading the articles I think two things are very important to implementation of a constructionist lesson: 1.) obtaining the right amount of materials/equipment that allow for free construction and 2.) an instructor with good background knowledge on how to create with the constructionist tool and also good background knowledge to provide proper guidance of learning. I would not implement a program like the one in Maine unless I felt I was able to acquire both of these things. Compared to other forms of instruction, the cost of materials and training in this type of instruction seem to be high.
This brings me to another thing I have been considering this week: the state of the current public school system in relation to constructivist learning. In the discussion boards our leader directed our conversation to think about how constructivism fits into our current school system, which for me is a public school in Pennsylvania. I am thankful for the freedom my administrators give to our teaching staff, however, our instruction is still very much dictated by high-stakes testing and school budgetary concerns. I believe both of these factors (test scores and money) drive much of the constructs under which I work. I also believe these two things are in opposition to constructivist learning. This week I have been talking to my wife, who whether she likes it or not has become a recipient of knowledge from EDTECH 504 this summer. I gave her my thoughts on the public school and it’s obsession with normative evaluative testing. I also explained to her at one point how much I was looking forward to finishing my reading tests for the class so I could write my paper (a personal goal of mine). My wife, a former grad student herself, told me she would much rather take tests than write papers. She said she liked knowing what to study and the safety of providing the answer the teacher wanted to get a good grade. This made me think that some of my students must think the same way when I introduce another project or item they are expected to create in my class. From a teachers standpoint I do not like testing. Grading tests is obviously not a party and testing lacks the ability to inform me of key skills, habits, and higher order thinking my students are demonstrating. So which is better instruction driven by objectives and testing, or instruction driven by discovery and creation? My conclusion at this point is this: educational technology is about bringing instruction to students that is both effective AND efficient. While constructivist lessons, properly designed can be extremely effective, testing provides one of the most efficient ways to demonstrate learning of facts and concepts. This leads to believe that a balance is needed in the design of instruction.
One final anecdote relating to all of this: Inspired by all of my reading on constructionism I brought home some K-nex building supplies from my classroom this week and my almost 3-year-old son was THIRLLED to help me build a crane for him. I was surprised by his almost immediate and sustained enthusiasm during the project. It reminded me of something that seems inherent (but metacognitivly unknown) in kids even from a very early age, the excitement to create.
No comments:
Post a Comment