The first two units of the year for kindergarten, first, and second grade were focused on computer programming and algorithmic thinking skills. They started with a unit of Code.org computer science, and then worked with robo-mouse and a bit of Scratch Jr. programming. I wanted their 3rd unit to move away from the computer for a while to do some hands-on building and making. I decided to divide the unit into two mini projects, the first focused on guided/directed building, the second much more open-ended.
The theme of week one was architecture. We began by reading the book "Iggy Peck: Architect". It's the story of an architectural prodigy whose singular passion for building at first causes friction with his classroom teacher, but ultimately saves the day. For this portion of the unit, the building materials were drinking straws and chenille sticks. My plan was to have students start by building basic 2D shapes, and then connect those shapes to make more complex figures. However, a number of classes (1st and 2nd grades) had students who independently discovered the technique of using 2 chenille sticks in one straw end to construct 3D figures. This led me to differentiate the builds a bit to account for the different levels of building acumen. For kindergarten, we focused mostly on 2D shapes and identifying their attributes. Kinder did try their hands at 3D building, but for some the fine motor coordination was too much. With first and second I stuck to my original plan of a 2D day, a 3D day, and 2 building challenges.
Building challenge number 1 was to construct a tower that would hold a ball several inches off the table top. This challenge provided an excellent lesson in keeping one's focus on the intended function of the structure. In each rotation I had groups that built amazing towers over 2 feet tall, but that did not manage to elevate the ball because their focus was on building up, not for holding the ball. Another teachable moment from this challenge was that triangles are more stable than squares. Many groups built structures that could hold the ball, but that twisted and fell due to a lack of support when the ball was added. Some teams kept building past the point that was necessary because they did not think to test what they had built. That said, each class had teams who managed to build something to hold the ball.
The second building challenge was a bridge the could span a 12 inch distance between 2 boxes. Again, there were groups who lost sight of what they were building for and dismantled workable models because they did not take the time to test their structures. Some teams built simple beam structures, while others built triangular supports and overhead trusses.The most impressive part of the bridge challenge was seeing the students use what they had learned from failures in the first challenge to avoid making the same mistakes. As usual, with this and the first challenge, the students surprised me with their abilities and creativity.
The second part of this unit was themed on animal adaptations. We started by looking at a variety of animals and discussed their various adaptations and how they were suited to survive in their environments. Students were challenged to design an animal that was a mash-up of two or more animals, incorporating both animals' adaptations. They had to explain how each adaptation contributed to their imagined animal's success in its particular habitat. First, students drew and labeled pictures of their animals highlighting the adaptation they thought were most important. Then they built a 3D model of their animal based on their drawing using a variety of upcycled materials. Finally, they constructed a model of the animal's habitat using a file folder and the same upcycled resources they used for their animal models.
This portion of the the unit was hard on those students who are not yet fully comfortable with the creative freedom I strive to provide in the lab. They kept asking questions that started "Can I..." and "Is it OK if..." and so on. Building my students' creative confidence has been one of my personal goals this year and this unit has shown me that, while things are not yet where I would like them to be, we are moving in the right direction. From the beginning of the year to now, there is a noticeable decrease in the number of students holding their work up to me and asking, "Like this?". And that is what I call progress.
The first two units of the year for kindergarten, first, and second grade were focused on computer programming and algorithmic thinking skills. They started with a unit of Code.org computer science, and then worked with robo-mouse and a bit of Scratch Jr. programming. I wanted their 3rd unit to move away from the computer for a while to do some hands-on building and making. I decided to divide the unit into two mini projects, the first focused on guided/directed building, the second much more open-ended.
The theme of week one was architecture. We began by reading the book "Iggy Peck: Architect". It's the story of an architectural prodigy whose singular passion for building at first causes friction with his classroom teacher, but ultimately saves the day. For this portion of the unit, the building materials were drinking straws and chenille sticks. My plan was to have students start by building basic 2D shapes, and then connect those shapes to make more complex figures. However, a number of classes (1st and 2nd grades) had students who independently discovered the technique of using 2 chenille sticks in one straw end to construct 3D figures. This led me to differentiate the builds a bit to account for the different levels of building acumen. For kindergarten, we focused mostly on 2D shapes and identifying their attributes. Kinder did try their hands at 3D building, but for some the fine motor coordination was too much. With first and second I stuck to my original plan of a 2D day, a 3D day, and 2 building challenges.
Building challenge number 1 was to construct a tower that would hold a ball several inches off the table top. This challenge provided an excellent lesson in keeping one's focus on the intended function of the structure. In each rotation I had groups that built amazing towers over 2 feet tall, but that did not manage to elevate the ball because their focus was on building up, not for holding the ball. Another teachable moment from this challenge was that triangles are more stable than squares. Many groups built structures that could hold the ball, but that twisted and fell due to a lack of support when the ball was added. Some teams kept building past the point that was necessary because they did not think to test what they had built. That said, each class had teams who managed to build something to hold the ball.
The second building challenge was a bridge the could span a 12 inch distance between 2 boxes. Again, there were groups who lost sight of what they were building for and dismantled workable models because they did not take the time to test their structures. Some teams built simple beam structures, while others built triangular supports and overhead trusses.The most impressive part of the bridge challenge was seeing the students use what they had learned from failures in the first challenge to avoid making the same mistakes. As usual, with this and the first challenge, the students surprised me with their abilities and creativity.
The second part of this unit was themed on animal adaptations. We started by looking at a variety of animals and discussed their various adaptations and how they were suited to survive in their environments. Students were challenged to design an animal that was a mash-up of two or more animals, incorporating both animals' adaptations. They had to explain how each adaptation contributed to their imagined animal's success in its particular habitat. First, students drew and labeled pictures of their animals highlighting the adaptation they thought were most important. Then they built a 3D model of their animal based on their drawing using a variety of upcycled materials. Finally, they constructed a model of the animal's habitat using a file folder and the same upcycled resources they used for their animal models.
This portion of the the unit was hard on those students who are not yet fully comfortable with the creative freedom I strive to provide in the lab. They kept asking questions that started "Can I..." and "Is it OK if..." and so on. Building my students' creative confidence has been one of my personal goals this year and this unit has shown me that, while things are not yet where I would like them to be, we are moving in the right direction. From the beginning of the year to now, there is a noticeable decrease in the number of students holding their work up to me and asking, "Like this?". And that is what I call progress.
No comments:
Post a Comment