From circuits myth-busting to physical computing in the iOT
Problems and possibilities
In science maker-based classrooms, technology is commonly used as a tool for making in projects — for creating, designing, and coding artifacts, and as an integral part in electronic project explorations (e.g., Arduino, Makey Makey, Smart Blocks, LittleBits, Scratch, smart fabrics, etc.). However, technology can also be leveraged to support knowledge construction and creative problem-solving processes. In “Navigating worlds of information: STEM literacy practices of experienced makers,” Gravel et al. (2018) studied and described identifying, organizing, and integrating source information as an important maker literacy practice and a bridge to learning while making in school settings. I argue that creative process literacies are equally valuable. Brainstorming and iterating is difficult for kids (and most humans) to do. We are goal- rather than process-oriented and keen to settle on our first idea or solution. Yet, trusting in an iterative process method such as Design Thinking (Brown, 2010) — widely used by designers and engineers — or Invent to Learn’s Think, Make, Improve (TMI) design model (Martinez & Stager, 2013), is key to the creative problem solving that innovation industries rely upon today. The maker-based science classroom should be no exception.
How does a bulb light? If you ask a middle-schooler to explain this, you will quickly discover that students in science classrooms hold many common misconceptions around the nature of electricity, starting with the nature of simple circuits (Andersson, 1986; Osborne, 1983). For example, circuits are commonly described as something that flows in a linear fashion from the battery to the bulb, and electricity is often thought of as something that is consumed. These are misconceptions that must be dispelled before students can move on to learn about more complex processes and systems.
The learning experience
Constructivism (Von Glasersfeld, 2008) posits that knowledge construction is a process of continually building upon and reframing one’s knowledge with new or restructured understandings. If students (and their teachers) consider what they know to be true heading into a lesson, then new or conflicting information will be experienced as a more noteworthy event. This metacognition increases the agency of the student, engaging them and ensuring a more memorable learning experience — learning that “sticks.”
Kahn (2007) found that a particular instructional strategy that works well to support this knowledge construction through model-based inquiry is the generate-evaluate-modify (GEM) model. Furthermore, a technology-enhanced version (T-GEM) can further catalyze the process. In this instructional sequence, the teacher leads the students through a cycle of generating ideas, evaluating them, then modifying them based on what they found in the evaluation phase. The initial generating ideas phase helps the students to zero in on current understandings. As noted above, this is a key first step in constructing new knowledge. Additionally, the iterative nature of evaluating and modifying ideas through simulations and other means is an aspect that makes this method particularly effective, as students are able to work through a number of ideas in quick succession.
The teacher’s role in the GEM model is critical. There are instructional strategies, most notably the use of skillful prompts and questions within each stage, that scaffold the students’ inquiry processes and activities. For example, in the generate phase, the teacher might prompt the students to consider what they understand or hypothesize about a relationship or process. In the evaluate phase, the students would be prompted to evaluate their understandings based on new information discovered through modeling, comparing, and otherwise investigating a line of inquiry. Students are then asked to modify their initial ideas based on that evaluation and then summarize and apply their learnings to new cases.
Kahn’s success with the T-GEM cycle showed a promising instructional strategy for achieving both process and content goals in chemistry classrooms. This circuits lesson plan will build upon that success. Teachers will utilize the T-GEM model to support their students in learning about electric circuits, modeling and iterating upon their understandings to dispel misconceptions, then will take that understanding further, combining generate-evaluate-modify cycles with technology-supported creative problem-solving and ideation methods borrowed from Design Thinking (Brown, 2010) to explore and extend their learning to improve and enliven the world around them.
Pedagogical goals and technology’s role
Students will engage in GEM cycles over the course of three lessons. The goal of Lesson 1 is for students to truly understand the nature of an electric circuit, to dispel any misconceptions, and understand its basic components. Specifically, to make concrete abstract processes happening at a molecular level, students will construct visual models (drawing) and test the configurations with wires, bulb, and battery, thereby coming to understand that: A) a circuit is a pathway made of wires through which electrons can flow, B) the battery is a power source giving force (voltage) to the electrons, making them move, C) when those electrons get to the light bulb, they give it the power to make it do work, and D) in the case of a light bulb, the filament wire exchanges some of the electron energy into heat and light energy.
Finally, the teacher will lead a hands-on activity with tennis ball models to demonstrate and solidify the phenomenon of how electrons flow within a circuit. The resulting “deep understanding enables students to apply their knowledge in authentic contexts beyond the original learning context.” (Grotzer & Perkins, 2005, p.15).
In Lesson 2, students will become familiar with littleBits, a set of modular electronics that snap together for prototyping and learning. The basic module categories include power, input, and output modules, and wires for extending reach or changing direction. Students will investigate how littleBits are constructed (mental deconstructions and modeling), see one exemplar littleBit that is taken apart, and then expand their thinking to the world around them to consider how other simple circuit appliances work.
Lesson 3 will do the job of knowledge transfer and real-world application, and students will learn how to creatively problem-solve using the Design Thinking process. The phenomenon of “smart” connected objects and the Internet of Things (IoT) — i.e., where an object can report its condition and take direction from afar — have become ubiquitous to students’ everyday lives. In Lesson 3, students will apply their understanding of the principles and components of simple circuits and littleBits to creatively solve problems using everyday objects and littleBits’ CloudBits modules. A CloudBit is a low-cost system for implementing internet-enabled projects. The system is comprised of a cloud-enabled module and accompanying code that allows students to connect everyday objects to the Internet of Things (IoT) using basic IFTTT (if this, then that) programming. For example, if it’s 3:00 pm, then feed the fish with the automatic fish feeder of the student’s design; if there is a loud sound in the garage, turn on the light and snap a photograph; or, each time I am liked on Instagram, inflate the ego balloon!
Students will engage in the creative problem-solving process through Design Thinking to 1) identify problems and opportunities in the world around them, 2) ideate solutions, 3) build, test, and refine solutions, and 4) reflect on their learning. Students can draw from and manipulate code from the littleBits open-source library to enact input and output commands to manifest the intentions of their designs. The technology environment gives immediate feedback on whether their code, as designed and written, is sound in the programming stage, thereby growing and strengthening their coding skills. The coding environment is open-source, so there are online social learning opportunities both amongst classmates and the wider CloudBit community. Mitch Resnick’s Papert-based Distributed Constructionism (1996) is a core underpinning here, as the students engage in maker-based learning activities collaboratively on and offline. Social affordances within the Design Thinking process also abound, fostering collaborative student learning in the design and feedback processes through small- and whole-group work and discussions.
As a whole, these lessons are designed to scaffold students through an engaging learning sequence, teaching them science content, and then supporting them to build their creative problem-solving process literacies that are central to most maker-centered projects and critical in today’s workplace.
Lesson artifact
LESSON 1: How does a bulb light?
Learning goal: Students will understand the nature of an electric circuit, and it’s basic components.
Materials: D-cell battery, 2 insulated conductive wires, light bulb, paper and pencil for constructing diagrams and recording results, tennis balls in tennis can.
Lesson cycle
— Generate: Have students explore their (mis)understandings by generating ideas and models to explain how a circuit works. Encourage them to generate rival models showing the same event in different ways. Include a discussion of conductors, insulators, and the concept of resistance.
— Evaluate: Have students experiment with various configurations they have modeled and record which ones light the bulb and which do not. Discuss why this might be so.
— Modify: Have students revise their models based on the evaluation evidence.
LESSON 2: Deconstruct littleBits
Learning goal: Students will investigate how littleBits are constructed and expand their thinking to the world around them to consider and mentally deconstruct how other simple circuit appliances work.
Materials: littleBits modules: power, input, output, wires.
Lesson cycle
— Generate: A) Allow students to play with littleBits modules, then ask: What have you noticed? Are there any patterns or rules for how they behave? What does each of the different colored modules do? B) Ask: Do you notice that the magnets can only be snapped together in one direction? What is the wrong way that the littleBits magnets are designed to prevent? C) Deconstruct the inside of littleBit modules by drawing models.
— Evaluate: Teacher demonstration of what is inside (one module has been set aside as the “take apart” module). Ask students to discuss how their models match or don’t match what they have discovered is inside the littleBit.
— Modify: A) Have a whole-group discussion to move the students towards the most plausible models. Students then modify their models. B) Prompt the students to expand their thinking to the world around them. Have them consider how other simple circuit appliances work. Have a few lamps, etc., on hand to view up close (e.g. notice that the single wire is actually two wires, the plug has two prongs, etc.)
LESSON 3:
Learning goals: Knowledge transfer. Students will apply their understanding of the principles and components of simple circuits and littleBits to solve a problem. They will be able to engage in the creative problem-solving process to 1) identify problems and opportunities in the world around them, 2) ideate solutions, 3) build, test, and refine solutions, and 4) reflect on their learning.
Materials: Post-its for brainstorming ideas, CloudBit module, CloudBit code (create accounts to access code library), found objects, art supplies, raw materials, cardboard, and recycle-ables for building prototypes (may be gathered after ideas are generated).
Lesson cycle
The Design Thinking process is typically broken down into problem finding (understand, define), problem solving (ideate), and solution testing (prototype, test) phases. These can be mapped onto the GEM stages in various ways. The following is one suggested way.
— Generate: Facilitate a class discussion on what frustrations they have at home or at school that might be improved upon in some way (no solutions, yet, just identify problems!). Have a scribe write one problem per post-it as they come up.
— Evaluate: A) Have the students sort through the problems by grouping them, naming categories, and removing duplicates. B) Consider and clarify the ideas as a group, individually dot vote on the 3 most important/frustrating/relevant (criteria can be decided as a group). C) Move those with the most dots to the top. Group up by going to the issue each student would most like to work on. Ideal group sizes are from 2-4 people.
— Generate: Brainstorm ideas for solving the problem. These could be around serious (a safety concern) or delightful topics (Instagram likes). Have fun with it! Use some of the prompts below to help get them unstuck.
— Evaluate: Again, organize the ideas and encourage the students to narrow down by dot voting.
— Modify: From the narrowed ideas, choose one or combine to make a new final idea to move to the prototype and test phase.
— Generate: Guide the students in creating rough prototypes (from drawings to rough cardboard constructions. Just enough to be able to evaluate whether it is a good or effective idea for solving the problem.
— Evaluate: Test out the prototypes. Do they achieve the intended goal? How might it be improved upon? Use prompts below to generate new ideas for modifications.
— Modify: Lead the teams to reflect upon their testing results, encourage them to go further using the tips below. Even if there isn’t time for another round, reflect on what they might have done next.
Teacher tips to spur brainstorming, and prompts for the satisfied maker:
From Invent to Learn, Martinez & Stager, 2013
“How can I make my/our ___ faster, slower, better, more accurate, prettier, green, cooler, stronger, smarter, more flexible, taller, shorter, more efficient, less expensive, more reliable, lighter, more elegant, easier to use?“
: :
References
Andersson, B. (1986). The experiential gestalt of causation: A common core to pupils’ preconceptions in science. European journal of science education, 8(2), 155-171.
Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Development Outreach, 12(1), 29-43.
Gravel, B. E., Tucker-Raymond, E., Kohberger, K., & Browne, K. (2018). Navigating worlds of information: STEM literacy practices of experienced makers. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(4), 921-938.
Grotzer, T. and Perkins, D. (2005). Causal Patterns in Simple Circuits: Lessons to Infuse into Electricity Units to Enable Deeper Understanding. http://www.pz.harvard.edu/ucp/curriculum/circuits
Khan, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91(6), 905.
Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to learn. Torrance, CA: Constructing modern knowledge press.
Osborne, R. (1983). Towards modifying children’s ideas about electric current. Research in Science and Technological Education, 1(1), 73-82.
Resnick, M. (1996, July). Distributed constructionism. In Proceedings of the 1996 international conference on learning sciences (pp. 280-284). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (2008). Learning as a Constructive Activity. AntiMatters, 2(3), 33-49. Available online: http://anti-matters.org/articles/73/public/73-66-1-PB.pdf