New Project: Maker Learners

In this article I introduce my new pet project: Maker Learners. A drive for a community of teachers, parents and hobbyists focused on maker centered learning.

I’ve been somewhat absent from this blog for some time. I wanted to finally share a project that’s been taking up a lot of my free time for a while.. To understand it’s intention, purpose and logic I think I should cycle back a number of years.

For the majority of my teaching career, I’ve had some kind of educational blog. From mrcopeland.science to mracopeland.com, I never quite knew what to call my ‘digital soapbox’. I always struggled to create a clear identity for the space and I think that’s been the case until recently.

My first educational blog was a Frankenstein’s monster of poor digital art and terrible formatting. There was no clear purpose for the blog but I’m grateful for the lessons in writing and working with WordPress that came with creating it.

I’ve spent some time thinking about the problems and topics that I really want to give my free time towards. For the first time I feel that there’s a clear connection between my personal and my professional identity, and that connection is the ‘maker movement’.

Maker Ed

I first encountered the maker movement when my school put me on the Harvard Education course ‘Thinking and Learning in the Maker Centred Classroom’. The timing couldn’t have been better, as I’d also recently discovered the Shenzhen Electronics Market which was a short journey from my school. What ensued was a period of profound discovery of the breadth and depth of the maker community as both a hobbyist and an educator. 

I still identify as little more than a beginner but given the aforementioned breadth and depth, I wonder if it is possible to ever feel that you are an expert at all things ‘Maker’. I hope not, as this is a large part of the appeal to this serial hobbyist. 

I have been fortunate to spend the last three years working within one of Hong Kong’s exemplar school-based maker spaces. This has exposed me to a huge variety of technologies and tools but it has also made me privy to the mindsets and philosophies of brilliant colleagues and a wider learning network of some of the most talented ‘Maker Educators’ across Hong Kong and beyond. Makers like Ringo Dingrando who first introduced me to the Arduino ecosystem and Paul Marriott who’s constantly sharing new projects, Malc Summerton who walked me through building my first 3D Printer and Jason Prohaska who showed me that the maker mindset is a valuable attitude for teaching but such a great attitude to share with your own children too.

My first ever Arduino build was completed during a workshop held by Ringo Dingrando. The ‘Trump Bot’ was given an extended ‘splint arm’ so that he could ignite a bonfire to signal the end of the training.

In time I have grown convinced that every student should have access to a maker space or a ‘Maker Centered Classroom’. In trying to achieve this I have run into the perpetual problem that plagues all educators: Time (or better put, lack of it). Whilst unstructured tinker time is an ideal for many schools, for most it is seen as an unrealistic transaction of valuable contact time with our students. Now, I am not here to argue the merits of inquiry over directed learning, or structured vs unstructured time. Instead I want to propose a framework for meeting in the middle, the topic of this article, Maker Learners.

Introducing “Maker Learners”

I decided that I wanted to create ‘Maker Learners’ a long time ago, and its creation has been a slow process. From creating a WordPress website and attaching a personal domain to it, to creating custom fields and forms so that community posts are possible, to working with vector graphics to create a logo and an ‘identity’ for the space, I think it’s fair to say that the Maker Learners project has been my most ambitious ‘Maker project’ to date. 

I’m still learning something new every time I interact with this project. I finally have the website ‘community ready’ – you can create an account and this will allow you to create your own profile and to post projects as an author. Projects will need to be moderated by me and hopefully eventually, other moderators.

My hope is that Maker Learners will become a space of curated projects that are designed to connect ‘Maker projects’ to academic learning in a way that they can be easily picked up by teachers or parents wishing to encourage maker education in their students and children, or even beginner makers like myself to discover not only new maker technologies, but the underlying academic connections that can be discovered through their design and application. I feel that this might be a little confusing to someone that hasn’t obsessed over the idea for a couple of years, so I’m going to share a couple of my favorite examples of ‘Maker learning’…

Wave Science and Piezo Buzzers

When showing students one way for programming a piezo buzzer to sound at a particular pitch, we found ourselves writing code that would place a potential across the piezoelectric material at a frequency equal to that of the desired pitch. This lead to conversations about sound waves, pitch and frequency, and the time period of oscillation.

3D Printing and Measurement/Uncertainty

3D printers can make all sorts of things, but what about measuring instruments? What is the accuracy of a 3D printed ruler? Challenging students to create unique measuring instruments that measure lengths, area’s or volumes in graduations that become their own units is a brilliant way to lead students towards thinking conceptually about measurement and uncertainty and the requirement for standards.

Python Code and Probability

I believe that all students should have access to computational thinking and computer science in middle school. However, I also believe that all science high school students should have access to computational science for simulating and testing predicted models. One of the core understandings of using computation to test models is how to add randomness and run the model a couple of hundred or thousand times. (A project that began in Maker Learners but is growing legs of its own is Python Physics)

Of course, my examples are all drawn from my professional experience as a physics teacher. I am sure there are plenty of excellent connections between making and learning that teachers from other disciplines are able to create, and that’s why it will be so crucial that this space eventually becomes a community, not a soapbox. 

I began this article explaining that I never knew what the right ‘Identity’ for my blog should be. Well as you’ll have seen by now, I’ve identified what I want my energy to go towards and it isn’t something to be mine alone so ‘AnthonyCopeland.com’ is never going to work. I’ll still post the odd thing here – a reflection on something I’ve done, seen or read and maybe the odd resource or material that doesn’t really apply to Maker Learners. Primarily this page will act as a digital portfolio for me to share things like my experience, education and to share projects I’ve completed. The most useful of these I will probably share in long form via Medium.

Do keep stopping here if you’re interested in hearing about what I’m up to but more importantly if you or anyone you know might be a Maker Learner at heart – please do reach out to me and we’ll see what we can make together!

You can contact me directly at makerlearners@gmail.com

Thanks for taking the time to read this update. If you want to reach out to me about any of the topics I write about, please don’t hesitate to use the ‘Contact Me’ form or if that’s not working (I just deleted a plugin thinking “Why the heck is this installed” and well… it turns out it was powering the “Contact Me” page – D’oh!) email me directly at acopeland.ed@gmail.com


Key notes on a Keynote

A reflection on a mini-keynote I delivered for a two day, whole school technology focused CPD event.

Today marked the second day of our whole school CPD event focusing on learning technologies. To kick off the day, my fellow coaches and I were given two slides and a few minutes to address the whole school with what we felt would be pertinent. This is a short post on the key  topics I touched  upon  during  this  micro-keynote.

We are very fortunate at RCHK to work within such a technology enhanced learning environment. We have access to handycams, professional microphones (Clip on, shotgun and handheld) and a green screen recording studio. We have dozens of makeblock robots, Micro:Bits, Arduino’s and enough Lego Mindstorms for 2:1 use across an entire year group. We have Macbooks and iPads available on loan and Adobe products to download and use… But I’m just labelling STUFF.

These are just things, and when we focus too much on the things the conversation starts to turn towards technology implementation. People ask questions like “What can I have?” before they have figured out what they need.

Instead, I urge colleagues to draw out the concepts that the new technology represents. The new ways of thinking or enhancements to their teaching and learning. When we focus on the concepts, the conversation turns towards technology integration. We start asking questions like “How does it allow me to better connect with the pre-existing learning outcomes?” or “What new ways of thinking does it achieve that could not be achieved without it?”

So before our administrators, budget holders, teachers, support staff and technicians went forth to attend workshops designed to show off a myriad of wonderful shiny new technologies, I had one simple piece of advice:

Remember that it will be the successful integration of technology into our teaching and learning that drives successful implementation of technology into our learning spaces, not the other way around.

Later on in the day I was part of an evaluation meeting for our CIS accreditation self study when the following “Essential Question” from the evaluation rubric was shared with us:

“How is the school’s approach to teaching and learning influenced by digital resources and technology?”

Sensing the long road ahead I sighed and patiently uncapped my pen to put the horse back before the cart…

“How is the school’s approach to teaching and learning digital resources and technology influenced by digital resources and technology? teaching and learning?

Instructional Technology Coaching: A Framework for Curriculum Planning and Development

This is undoubtedly the most important series of posts in this section. Here I am attempting to create a framework for coaching across a secondary IB school.

‘Instructional Technology Coach’ is a nice title because it puts the instruction before the technology, so we’re on the right foot immediately. You see, I would like to start by addressing the misconception that LT Coaches are primarily teachers of technology or worse, as it removes us from teaching completely, IT support. If a school is sufficiently technologically enhanced then IT support should be available elsewhere within the school.

Continue reading “Instructional Technology Coaching: A Framework for Curriculum Planning and Development”

Festive Turtle Art

A Christmas tree drawn with Python Turtle

This month I have been working with one of our technology superstars in the mathematics department to see if we could enhance a preexisting unit on angles by introducing the students to the Turtle library in Python. Each lesson would begin with a structured introduction to the math, followed by either an introduction to new Turtle commands or a deconstruction of an existing Turtle program and finally a challenge that required students to draw a word, shape or pattern.  For building the challenges we are using Repl.It

The students took to the code a lot faster than we expected, which I think is a credit to the work being done in our primary school. The students already have three years of block based coding experience under their belt and my general impression from time spent within classes was that the students were very well prepared for transitioning to typed code.

To celebrate our students successes and the approach of the winter holidays, we challenged students to create some festive art using the knowledge and skills they have learned throughout the unit so far. The code for the christmas tree drawing shown above was shared with the students and deconstructed to introduce the functions in Python Turtle and to revisit the idea of a loop. 

The tree could be broken down into the following four parts, each of which allowed us to discuss a little math, and a little syntax in Python Turtle:

  • The tree trunk – This was a simple square drawn once; it allowed us to remind students of the use of loops in Python Turtle.
  • The green triangle – This was defined as a function and called three times. It was the most complex block of code as it involved writing a function that called a loop and used the correct exterior angles for an equilateral triangle (See code below)
  • The star – This was an interesting block of code because it involved looping five times and again turning the value of an exterior angle for a five point star. I was happy to be teaching alongside a mathematics teacher when introducing this shape!
  • The baubles – These were a single function to draw and fill a circle, that was called at random locations around the tree.

Using Arduino and Prototype Electronics in MYP Science

Figure 1: A recent workshop I delivered on using Arduino and prototype electronics for within a Year 8 science unit on electricity

Last week I ran a workshop for our Year 8 science teachers to prepare them for a Year 8  unit on electricity which has undergone significant rewriting to incorporate the use of Arduino microcontrollers and prototype electronics. By the end of the unit, students complete a Criteria D assessment which challenges students to;

  • Prototype a circuit designed to solve a problem and journal this process (Formative assessment and skill building)
  • Write a report that;
    • Describe how they have applied their scientific knowledge and understanding to address a specific problem or issue
    • Discuss and analyse the the various implications of using this technology and its application in solving a specific problem or issue
    • Apply scientific language effectively
    • Document the work of others and sources of information used.

The idea here is to create a Criteria D assessment that is more project focused and creative. By teaching students the skills necessary to use raw electronic components as a medium for creative problem solving we are opening up a traditionally theoretical and prescriptive unit into one that has space for student agency and inquiry. What I like even more about the unit, is that is goes a long way to demystify technology. Students come to like when they realize that many of the functions of the toys and machines around them rely on neither magic or overly complicated technology.

One thing that has proven to be invaluable in extending the unit this year has been the introduction of electronics block based coding and simulation to TinkerCad studio. This has allowed me to easily create a ‘Cheat Sheet’ so that teachers can reference both the correct physical wiring and the correct sequence of block based code for challenges that are set for students during the unit.  

Figure 2: A copy of the challenge cards given to teachers to show the code process flow diagram, the expected block code and a diagram of a setup that will work.

To achieve the necessary frontloading for this unit, we required just under a full day for teachers to become familiar with the many components that students will have access to and the platforms they will be using to prototype and to code their machines. I have copied a rough overview of the agenda I set for teachers below for anyone with the know-how to replicate. For those that don’t, feel free to contact me for advice on where to start.

Electronics Training Agenda

  • An introduction to the Arduino, LED’s, hookup wire and breadboards
  • Using resistors to protect components.
  • Constructing series and parallel connections on a breadboard
  • An introduction to TincerCad studio
  • Running the Blink program
  • An overview of common errors that students encounter
  • An overview of switches and controls (Buttons, potentiometers and tilt switches)
    • An introduction to using the serial monitor to print data received by the arduino
  • An introduction to servo motors and the programming
  • An introduction to sensors (Thermistors, LDR’s and sound sensors)
  • A final reflection and discussion on the teaching and learning process for this unit and the level of support that will be required (See my coaching framework)

This is definitely too much content for mastery to be achieved in a day, but I encourage teachers to embrace the unit as inquirers themselves; there are a wealth of websites and blogs for electronics projects online and in my experience almost every coding error that can happen has happened, and it’s solution has been found and discussed at length online. In fact, some of my favorite moments in supporting this unit have come when classroom teachers and student groups have been working through a genuine puzzle together and have had to move together through a logical and methodical approach to identifying and solving the problem. It is at these moments that teachers are able to authentically model perseverance and critical thinking because they are forced to work within the learning process instead of outside of it.

Epistemological Inquiry – Preparing Students for the Theory of Knowledge course in the MYP Classroom – Part 1: Inquiry

Disclaimer: This article is a draft of thoughts that are still developing. A canvas for connections that are still being made. Your thoughts and feedback are welcome in the comments section.

In this article I compare elements of the MYP unit plan and the Theory of Knowledge (TOK) curriculum and reflect on how an MYP Sciences course might be structured to better prepare students for TOK. 

When I was asked to join the Theory of Knowledge department at my school, I was excited to explore a subject that was always a bit of a mystery to me. Now that I’ve spent some time teaching the course, I’m starting to reflect on what impact the experience might have on my capacity to better prepare my MYP students for their first encounter with the Theory of Knowledge course.

In TOK we spend a lot of time identifying knowledge claims and knowledge questions, which are absent from the MYP vocabulary. Whilst the usefulness of both first and second order knowledge claims are described in the TOK Guide, only second order knowledge questions are discussed. Their definitions and intended uses are;

First Order Knowledge Claimsclaims made within an area of knowledge about the world. These will feature in examples offered in the essay and presentation illustrating the manner in which areas of knowledge go about the business of producing knowledge.

Second Order Knowledge Claimsclaims made about knowledge itself within a subject. These form the core of any piece of TOK analysis.

Knowledge Questionssecond order questions about knowledge itself that are not rooted within a subject area. They form the core line of inquiry from which second order knowledge claims are drawn, and first order knowledge claims from areas of knowledge are identified and discussed.

On knowledge questions, the TOK guide has the following to say;

“…the first task in trying to answer a TOK question is to establish an
understanding of the key concepts involved. There may be a number of different ways of thinking about these concepts. Each might give rise to a different analysis and ultimately a different answer to the question.”

TOK Guide, IBO Publishing, 2015

This is where we find an explicit connection to the MYP framework. MYP teachers are taught to plan units by constructing a statement of inquiry that consists of key and related concepts and a global context. Whilst global contexts might be useful for preparing students for other areas of the IB Core, it is the key and related concepts that appear to give us a foothold for exploring first and second order knowledge claims within the MYP. The definitions of both from the MYP Guide are given below;

Key concepts – are broad, organizing, powerful ideas that have relevance within and across subjects and disciplines, providing connections that can transfer across time and culture.

Related concepts – grounded in specific disciplines, explore key concepts in greater detail, providing depth to the programme. They emerge from reflection on the nature of specific subjects and disciplines, providing a focus for inquiry into subject-specific content.

It is worth noting here that from their definitions, it is apparent why an understanding of key concepts is required for the successful answering of TOK questions; these are inherently interdisciplinary and more likely to address second order knowledge claims. Related concepts on the other hand are rooted in first order claims and are the basis of disciplinary education. Understanding this, we can now recognise the statement of inquiry as a second order concept that is being explored through the first order concepts within that discipline.

example 1: Scientists observe patterns and use them to construct systems that explain how the world works. (MYP Sciences Guide, 2014)

Students explore the second order concept of knowledge existing across a system using the scientific concepts that scientists use patterns of observation to construct models in science and that these models can be used to explain further observations.

example 2: Systems that are designed to meet an individual’s ergonomic requirements can increase their ability to function within the world. (MYP Design Guide, 2014)

This time students explore the second order concept that knowledge exists across a system using the design concepts of function and ergonomics.

example 3: Nations form alliances to protect their military, cultural and economic interests. (Individuals and Societies Guide, 2014)

In this final example, students explore the second order concept of systems using the individuals and societies concepts of conflict and cooperation.

Looking at these three examples together, we get a view of how students in the MYP should be prepared to discuss second order knowledge claims by the time that they reach the diploma programme. However, we must ask ourselves: Are we making these connections explicit enough to our students? Are we making these connections explicit enough to our teachers?

For many teachers new to the MYP, these concepts can seem a little abstract and their utility in teaching content knowledge and skills can feel a little vague. If this impression percists, these concepts fail to become more than a guide in the planning process and rarely enter class discourse in any meaningful way.

The MYP Guide does not treat key and related concepts so lightly, explicitly stating that;

  • Students need multiple opportunities to explore the concepts defined for each subject or discipline. Students should have meaningful inquiry into all of the key and related concepts for each relevant subject group at least once over the course of the MYP.
  • Over the course of the programme, students need to develop an understanding of the key and related concepts at increasing levels of sophistication and abstraction.
  • Summative assessments should offer students opportunities to reach the highest levels of achievement with regard to their conceptual knowledge and understanding.

How do we achieve “meaningful inquiry into all of the key and related concepts” in our classroom? For this, the MYP introduces inquiry questions…

Generating Conceptual Thinking and Inquiry in the MYP Classroom

To achieve meaningful inquiry (Beyond asking students to simply research a problem), the guide asks that we direct the teaching and learning that takes place using a framework of three types of inquiry questions

Factual Questions – Challenge students to remember and describe a narrow range of correct answers. Promote recall and comprehension.

Conceptual Questions – Challenge students to analyse broader ideas with many correct interpretations. Promote analysis and application.

Debatable Questions – Challenge students to evaluate perspectives that involve a value judgement.  Promote synthesis and evaluation.

[Do we need to address the already clear connections to Bloom’s cognitive domains here? Don’t want to move the conversation to cognitive domains, but it strengthens the argument that we should move through Factual -> Conceptual to a final Debatable stance where students synthesise or evaluate a problem or solution]

As we progress from factual to conceptual inquiry questions not only are we reaching higher levels of cognitive complexity (Bloom, 1956) but we are pulling students above the layer of content and into the realm of discussing key and related concepts. Here, we can prepare students for the TOK course by strengthening their vocabulary when discussing these concepts within your discipline.

Yet further still, when students are challenged with debatable questions they are challenged to develop and justify a value judgement in much the same way that the TOK course asks students to deal with knowledge claims (TheMYPTeacher). Further, Lenny Dutton has already create a wonderful array of concept driven questions and claims that can be used in various subject areas to allow students to practice developing and justifying conceptual understandings. (ExcitedEducator.com)

In a nutshell, this is it: MYP units best prepare students for TOK by progressing from factual questions about content to conceptual questions and claims about the key and related concepts that the unit is based on and then challenging students to develop and justify value judgements using their conceptual understanding.

The question now is how do we best achieve this and what might that look like?

  • A conscious and communicated effort to highlight the overarching concepts between disciplines will strengthen students ability to work with key concepts. For this to occur, departments need combined planning time to discuss overarching concepts to ensure that conceptual understandings are harmonious across the teaching body and are therefore harmonious across the teaching and learning that occurs.
  • Enhancement of the MYP vocabulary to strengthen connections between the programme and TOK.  For example, in the sciences a laboratory assessment would be understood as a vehicle for students to synthesise  and test knowledge claims using their observations and data. Essay tasks are seen as an opportunity for students to evaluate first order knowledge claims.
  • Further to an enhancement of the language, could opportunities for reflection on and/or assessment of conceptual understandings of second order claims that use key concepts be better built into the MYP unit planning process? Perhaps this is another utility for journaling/ePortfolios, or perhaps it is a further interpretation of the assessment criteria.
  • Interdisciplinary connections are powerful opportunities for students to realise the second order nature of key concepts. If interdisciplinary units were planned by not just subject teachers of the subjects involved, but experienced TOK teachers then perhaps this opportunity could be taken better advantage of.