I've touched on this in previous posts, but a lot of people ask questions about HOW to implement what we do at STEM in their own settings. The struggle is often an offshoot of a "yeah, but" statement. "Yeah, it's awesome your upperclassmen have individualized schedules, but we can't replicate that with our block schedule." "Yeah it's great that your students are dual-enrolled, but we aren't located on a college campus." "Yeah, PBL is great but our teachers are too busy writing and posting clear learning targets."
Those concerns are valid...to a degree. Not everyone has access to those options, or a FabLab, or maker spaces, or drones, or robotics teams. That is ok. Those are the bells and whistles, they are HOW we do what we do, not WHAT we do. Instead of a "yeah, but" try a "Yes! How?"
The short answer is, match the purpose, not the products. Then embed it in something you already do. This reminds me of discussing differentiation with general ed. teachers, which is often viewed as more work instead of different and better work. When ramps and elevators were introduced to building code to provide access for persons with physical limitations, they also helped the elderly, those pushing strollers, small children and so on. Likewise, providing multiple routes to the same end goal benefits all students, not just those who required differentiation. So, if you want to try a project based learning unit, study what is available for tools or resources, start small, and embed it in something you already do, instead of adding a new unit of study. If you are starting a STEM program or want to practice the engineering design process, adapt it for science, or English (see below).
If you have the good fortune to get the products first, align them to a purpose! I have seen countless tools, 3-D printers, coding programs and so on, sit unused on shelves because educators are a) intimidated by learning how to use them and b) they don't have a reason to implement their use. If you have access, match that with a process. Do you want your students to collaborate? Then try SOLE or PBL. Do you want them to learn to communicate? Try incorporating social media or technology into your classes. There has to be match between the reason you are using a approach, and your end goal. Does your school emphasize being career ready, or a democratic citizen? Chances are you can match the use of technology or innovative practice with something of value. If you use a robot in a vacuum (no not a Roomba lol), then it will be just another flash in the pan. Students may appear engaged while something is novel, but we all know that engagement doesn't equal learning.
Lastly, be ok with something failing miserably. In fact, don't even look at it as a failure, look at it is version 1.0. It may be version 7.0 that works the way you intended it to. Giving up too soon is the pitfall of innovation. Tweaking, reworking, and prototyping until a process, procedure, or product are successful models grit for students, mimics the design process, and makes for more robust final designs.
To recap:
1. Align w/ purpose
2. Use resources
3. Embed
4. Make improvements
5. Repeat
Those concerns are valid...to a degree. Not everyone has access to those options, or a FabLab, or maker spaces, or drones, or robotics teams. That is ok. Those are the bells and whistles, they are HOW we do what we do, not WHAT we do. Instead of a "yeah, but" try a "Yes! How?"
The short answer is, match the purpose, not the products. Then embed it in something you already do. This reminds me of discussing differentiation with general ed. teachers, which is often viewed as more work instead of different and better work. When ramps and elevators were introduced to building code to provide access for persons with physical limitations, they also helped the elderly, those pushing strollers, small children and so on. Likewise, providing multiple routes to the same end goal benefits all students, not just those who required differentiation. So, if you want to try a project based learning unit, study what is available for tools or resources, start small, and embed it in something you already do, instead of adding a new unit of study. If you are starting a STEM program or want to practice the engineering design process, adapt it for science, or English (see below).
If you have the good fortune to get the products first, align them to a purpose! I have seen countless tools, 3-D printers, coding programs and so on, sit unused on shelves because educators are a) intimidated by learning how to use them and b) they don't have a reason to implement their use. If you have access, match that with a process. Do you want your students to collaborate? Then try SOLE or PBL. Do you want them to learn to communicate? Try incorporating social media or technology into your classes. There has to be match between the reason you are using a approach, and your end goal. Does your school emphasize being career ready, or a democratic citizen? Chances are you can match the use of technology or innovative practice with something of value. If you use a robot in a vacuum (no not a Roomba lol), then it will be just another flash in the pan. Students may appear engaged while something is novel, but we all know that engagement doesn't equal learning.
Lastly, be ok with something failing miserably. In fact, don't even look at it as a failure, look at it is version 1.0. It may be version 7.0 that works the way you intended it to. Giving up too soon is the pitfall of innovation. Tweaking, reworking, and prototyping until a process, procedure, or product are successful models grit for students, mimics the design process, and makes for more robust final designs.
To recap:
1. Align w/ purpose
2. Use resources
3. Embed
4. Make improvements
5. Repeat
Comments
Post a Comment