Connect with Dr. Jennifer Miller-Ray

About Dr. Miller-Ray

Tag: Science

  • Round as a Tortilla Makerspace STEAM Literacy Event

    Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez (2011) describes the importance of education programs leveraging a child’s fund of knowledge through connecting with families and involving a holistic approach toward learning activities and learning environments. Makerspaces can serve as a quality environment to facilitate activities to incorporate balanced literacy approaches to meet the needs of diverse learners. Range & Schmidt (2014) suggests “successful makerspaces, particularly in education environments, balance practicality with creativity and collaboration to serve the needs of the school community” (p. 8). Tan, Barton, & Schnekel (2018) highlight that “children’s funds of knowledge were recruited by engaging them in community ethnography, which informs of the making design process” (p. 77) via a makerspace environment. The purpose of this activity is to align a purposeful makerspace activity to topics explored in Pre-K and kindergarten using the book by Thong & Parra (2015), Round as a Tortilla.

     

    Repeated Reading Strategy

    Day One

    1. The teacher will introduce the, Round is a Tortilla, to their students. The teacher will show the front cover, back cover and conduct a picture walk.  Remember to read the story enthusiastically, and with expression.
    2. After reading, ask why questions to allow time for students to make inferences and to measure understanding of story events.
    3. Begin the a KWHL: What do we know? What do we want to know? How will we find out? What have we learned? How will we find out?

    Send home a Round as  Tortillia Makespace STEAM Event letter to invite parents to the school library and to participate in making items from the story. Include 4 challenge card ideas in the letter with a link to the video. Invite the makerspace community. Your librarian should be able to help you facilitate this process.

    Day Two

    The teacher will conduct the second read-aloud to enrich reading comprehension and provide further engagement opportunities through a book talk, and highlight vocabulary.

    1. Add more frequent questions.
    2. Ask children questions to think beyond the story with completing a KWHL, What have we learned?
    3. Introduce 4 STEAM Makerspace Challenge Cards and Makerspace activities. Here are some ideas. Encourage students to make their own challenge card but remind students that cards should connect to elements found in the story.
      1. Journalist: Be a storyteller and make a story about shapes in your community.
      2. Scientist: Be a scientist and investigate the process of making masa and round tortillas. Be a computer scientist: Make a game with squares and other shapes.
      3. Artist: Make a weave of shapes to use as a rectangular flag as represented in the story. Make an oval necklace.
      4. Engineer: Engineer a sail for a boat that you make.

    Day Three:  Makerspace STEAM event in the library. Students will make items that represent elements in the story with their parents and makerspace community.

    Repeat the reading of the story. After the activity, ask the children, What have you learned?

    This activity connects to Moll’s ideas of knowledge as it involves the child’s entire community in the literacy process. Children can learn how their culture connects to classroom topics through the art of making. Elders can help children learn how to weave, code, build, and apply STEAM principals through everyday activities.

  • Reframing Social Constructionism Through Purposeful Makerspaces

    USE-GADGETS-AVENTURES-IN-DESIGNSocial constructionism “relies on the centrality of language to mediate what people come to understand about their lived experiences” (Avermann, 2011, p. 205). Constructionist environments support “active learning” approaches in which learners are engaged in building their own public objects or artifacts. Active learning emphasizes cognitive processes occurring during the actual construction of the object. The public nature of the final object or artifact is also understood to be important (Beynon & Roe, 2004). The “maker movement emphasizes learning through direct experiences, hands-on projects, inventions, and is based on a constructionist learning theory even if members and advocates of the movement are unaware of the theory” (Stager, 2013). Papert (2000) advocates that Piaget’s belief of all learning takes place in discovery is accurate. However, Papert extends this idea to suggest that setting learners “to the task of re-empowering the ideas of being learned is also a step toward re-empowering the idea of learning by discovery” (p. 723). Papert (1999) underscores the importance of Piaget’s theory of constructivism and the nature of knowledge. Challengers of Piaget’s constructivism often refer to experiments demonstrating knowledge acquired by infants. However, Papert stresses “Piaget as a giant in the field of cognitive theory, the difference between what a baby brings and what the adult has is so immense that the new discoveries do not significantly reduce the gap but only increase the mystery” (Papert, 1999, p. 105). Papert’s Knowledge Machine” introduced the world to a new theory of learning, constructionism, which “synthesized revised insights into human development, systems theory (cybernetics) and how we think about learning (epistemology)” (Maser, 2013). Technology based modeling and methods of teaching with technologies deliver alternative methods to teaching, providing learners with choices that engage the learner in an improved learning experience (Burbaite, Stuikys, & Damasevicius, 2013). While at MIT, Papert developed Logo, designed to introduce children to programing and robotics as early as 4th grade. Children received instant feedback from a real and physical response to their creation using technology.  Papert envisioned robotics as being extremely influential to children at a young age. Learners perform higher when engaged in an activity that is meaningful to them, and robotics along with programing languages encourages curiosity and experimentation beyond the actual syntax (Pierce, 2013). Papert led many research projects to study the effects of constructionist theories with at risk populations and in high-risk environments. These projects attempted to build an alternative approach to the learning environment. Despite obstacles, students proved to be successful. Experiences from Papert’s work towards building a community of learning centered on constructionism continues to guide the future design of learning environments (Stager, 2013).

    Constructionists follow constructivist theory, believing that children through personal experiences construct and reconstruct knowledge. Both viewpoints endorse the objective to push learners to consider a variety of perspectives and viewpoints within the world. Doing so advances cognitive abilities of learners by provoking learners to consider and expand a deeper understanding about themselves within their environments. However, constructionism emphasizes active and situational learning in which connectedness with the environment is “key to learning” (Acerman, 2001).  Unlike constructivists, constructionists stress the importance of a learner to use their ideas to attempt to solve a real problem coming from a personal perspective, thus making the environment meaningful.  Papert stresses that active and situational experience provides idea power or being one with what you are doing. Constructionism is “powerful in its use, powerful in its connections, powerful in its roots and its fit with personal identify” (Papert, 2000). Noss and Clayston (2015) provide characteristics of constructionism agenda, which is beneficial toward beginning to address the many misunderstandings and issues presenting the framework of constructionism. Characteristics include “modeling, accessibility to digital technologies, layering problem solving activities, designing socially relevant learning, and “knowledge made visible by being represented in a language with which learners can express themselves” (Noss & Clayston, 2015, p 287).

    Makerspace environments can lend themselves to social constructionism following Noss & Clayston’s (2015) characteristics as learning can be designed to socially engage our youth through relevant problem solving activities or challenges. Products and the making process allow learners to socially share their perspectives using language and cultural experiences native to their background. These are the types of activities I have been designing. I have been working and traveling for the last week attempting to take ideas to a mobile makerspace outreach bus to expand research from my previous makerspace projects. .

    This new project seeks to build upon previous NASA MMS research conducted by me through past funding and research that incorporated NASA’s MMS Makerspace Mobile Training Outreach programs, NASA MMS STEAM camp programs, the NASA MMS Challenge, MMS Transmedia book, and MMS Educators Guide. Previous programs provided global professional development for the last four years at ISTE, SITE, Makerspace, ASCD, and TCEA. The mobile STEAM makerspace outreach program developed last year seeks to expand NASA’s MMS Challenge incorporated at NASA’s MMS Launch Event in March 2015 at the Kennedy Space Center, which would serve underrepresented indigenous populations in creative approaches to enhance elementary and middle school community STEM programs. A collaboration between NASA outreach programs, university, community museums, scientific foundations, and industry could assist in building an outreach program exploring in a comparative study general perceptions, confidence levels, and self-efficacy in STEM content areas and career pathways. Improvements in teacher professional development programs would increase the overall student STEM experience in lower and middle school programs.  End results would lead to a highly confident and skilled STEM elementary and middle school workforce, encouraging more students to consider entering a STEM career pathway.

    Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: What’s the difference. Future of learning group publication, 5(3), 438.

    Avermann, D.  (2011). Some “Wonderings about literacy in teacher education.  In J.B. Cobb, & M. K. Kallus (Eds.), Historical, Theoretical, and Sociological Foundations of Reading in the United States (pp. 13-66). Boston, MA: Pearson.

    Beynon, M., & Roe, C. (2004). Computer support for constructionism in context. IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 2004.

    Maser, M. (2013, 01 8). Papert led revolution in learning; visionary saw potential of students using computers to explore thte world and themselves. The Vancouver Sun

    Noss, R., & Clayson, J. (2015). Reconstructing Constructionism. Constructivist Foundations, 10(3), 285-288.

    Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. Constructionism, 36, 1-11.

    Papert, S. (1999). Papert on piaget. Número especial “The Century’s Greatest Minds,” Time, 29, 105.

    Papert, S. (2000). What’s the big idea? Toward a pedagogy of idea power. IBM Systems Journal, 39(3.4), 720–729. doi:10.1147/sj.393.0720

    Stager, G. S. (2013). Papert’s Prison Fab Lab : Implications for the maker movement and education design, 487–490.

     

     

  • Digital Fabrication (DigiFab) Technology as an Instructional Tool in K-12 Professional Development

    A course was designed for current K-12 teachers and instructional technologists recently as part of our PhD research towards our personal learning theory. With modification, this course could easily translate to instruction for pre-service teachers.

    The purpose of the course was to provide professional development (PD) training regarding DigiFab technology and potential instructional uses for quick and efficient implementation.

    The following problem was explained by my partner Jared Vanscoder and I. A resurgence of the constructivist approaches to teaching and learning has created a demand for a solution that requires little knowledge of manufacturing processes, aids visualization through tangible representation, and speeds prototyping. Digital fabrication technologies, such as 3D printing, are garnering much attention as they afford users to simply create tangible artifacts from digital model files. This capability is enticing as an tool for teaching and learning in K-12. Given the newness of this technology, very few K-12 instructors (or even instructional technologists) are aware of how these technologies can increase engagement and instructional impact on learners.

    The format of our course is designed as stand-alone instruction to be delivered in two separate formats: face to face (F2F) and online. The option of hybrid (components being delivered both F2F and online) should also be considered.

    How hard is it to develop a research method that both matches your theory and created curriculum?

    The activity allows learners to create order or reorganize information to construct new meaning. Learners construct knowledge, as a builder would begin building a structure. Fabrication technologies facilitate concepts of abstraction, allowing the learner to build or fabricate an actual object or model. It was not hard to match my personallearning theory to fabrication curriculum. After all, fabrication does lend itself to modeling and objects created with such a technology provide for a more meaningful approach to learning. Allowing participants to choose a “real world” scenario or object to reconstruct also fosters an active learning event, which provides further depth and richness in cognitive presence.

    What was simple and what was difficult?

    Creating an online instructional PD approach via problem based learning instructional design model within an e-learning context proved to be challenging. However, Jared and I are committed to being pioneers in the field of Learning Technologies and Cognitive Systems met challenges head on and worked to overcome. The overall product is very strong, with instructional goals met. However, time spent to accomplish learning goals online proves to be more intensive then a face-to-face environment. The overall learning potential I feel is greater in an online e-learning format as it forces the learner to seek solutions and not rely as heavily on an actual face to face community of learners. We suggested a reflection piece of the assessment component. Motivating teachers to complete a reflection at the end of the assessment piece may prove to be challenging. In addition, not seeing a 3D printer and only sending an STL file to post in a blog or learning management system may not be as effective as actually having access to a 3D printed product. Equitable access may prove to be a limitation within the online learning environment for fabrication PD approaches. I feel this activity challenged both Jared and I to think outside the box. As two educators and online students, we understand difficulties presented within the e-learning environment. However, the benefits of the e-Learning activity far outweigh disadvantages. Teachers are exposed to the very learning theory and instructional design methods proven to provide a rich learning experience using learning technologies that foster abstract thinking or cognitive development. Overall, I am very proud of our product. Hopefully, we can test our approach in a qualitative case study.Image

  • #TXEDUCHAT STEM and STEAM Collaboration Sun. Sept. 29, 8-9 PM

    Join me this Sunday as we discuss STEM and STEAM initiatives on Twitter at #TXEDUCHAT. Non-Texas residents, we want to hear from you! Let us know how you are incorporating STEM in your state. http://lnkd.in/bkU7tWY

  • Learning Technologies, Effective or Not Effective?

    Attempting to understand the evolution of learning technologies is complicated.  Thomas Edison’s idea of moving pictures spawned many learning opportunities produced new knowledge and learning technologies.  The market model of research has produced a new world where information is cheaper and easily obtained.

    Why is it so hard to get schools to adopt learning technologies?  This is not a new question or concern.  From literature review, it was interesting to learn that the overhead projector is one of the few examples of learning technologies implemented in the school industry first.  The challenge facing instructional designers to try new ideas and approaches and to encourage use is not a new phenomenon, which I find encouraging as an instructional technologist.

    Research approaches and opportunities are numerous as the adaption process continues to be a struggle.  Reflecting on my personal experience, I found it difficult to even locate a 1:1 K5 campus in Texas two years ago.  Motivational factors that can improve the adoption process need to be studied to ensure that change is productive and leads to newly acquired direction and knowledge.  How can we better match the needs of users?  How can we better include users in the selection of learning technologies?

    Blended approaches that consider global perspectives are often philosophical in nature.  Philosophical reflections from descriptive, normative, and analytic methods assist in developing new questions and ideas to then quantify.

    Educational research follows natural laws of science.  Educational research is a field of science that attempts to define the human ability to transfer knowledge from one individual to another individual, from one individual to a group, from a group to a single individual, a group to another group.  Learning technologies are carriers or storage vessels used to aide individuals ability to transfer knowledge.

    Descriptive studies using surveys are often biased, contain leading questions, and many do leave out nonresponders.  Surveys have to be purposeful.  Interviews, observational research, and questionares must focus on questioning techniques and population.  Approaches using visuals to summarize data was interesting to me.  The arts again lends itself to be the universal medium to foster communications.