We Make the Road by . . . Making!

8/12/2019 We Make the Road by . . . Making!

1/5

We Make the Road by . . . Making!

Final Reflection for HTH 240: Liberating Structures for Inclusive Classrooms

Eduardo

Eduardo stood in front of the class, holding his contraption: a large white box with a hole cut outat one end. This is my vortex canon , he announced . I made it over the weekend. It was thebeginning of a new week and Eduardos turn to share at morning meeting. Let me show youhow it works, he said proudly . His first grade classmates were now completely silent, on theedge of their seats, eager to see exactly what the vortex canon would do. Eduardo positioned asmall plastic glass on one side of a table and his invention on the other. Then . . . BOOM! Heslammed the middle of the box with both hands, and the glass went flying off the table. Theclass was in awe. Magic! How does it work? I asked. It pushes the air out, and that hits theglass, Eduardo explained. A huge grin lit up his face. He couldnt have looked happier.

Like many young children, Eduardo loves to move and talk and play and make. But, by his ownadmission, Eduardo sometimes finds it difficult to control his body. During calmer activities,such as literacy centers, he can wander around the classroom, start chatting with neighbors, orbuild towers out of pencils. In kindergarten, Eduardo experienced similar challenges, but theeducational program was a better match for his learning style. In The Power of Their Ideas (2002), Deborah Meier celebrates the playful, autonomous spirit that characterizes kindergartenclassrooms:

[Kindergarten] is, alas, the last time children are given independence, encouraged tomake choices, and allowed to move about on their own steam. The older they get theless we take into account the importance of childrens own interests, and the less wecherish their capacity for engaging in imaginative play. (In fact, we worry in

kindergarten if children lack such capacity, while later on we worry if they show it toomuch.) In kindergarten, we design our rooms for real work, not just passive listening (p.48).

Eduardo took advantage of this environment. As a kindergartener, he would sometimes arriveat school and request materials from his teacher: I need some paper plates, some straws, andsome string, he once said. Then, he went to work! In first grade, an increasing focus onfoundational academic skills leaves less time for these creative, hands-on endeavors. In otherwords, there are fewer opportunities for Eduardo to exercise his passion for making. Afterseeing Eduardo in his element, I knew I had to find more of these opportunities. Perhaps theycould be a positive outlet for Edu ardos boundless energy.

Before long, I expanded my thinking. Surely, Eduardo was not the only child in the class whoenjoyed manipulating materials, putting his imagination to work, and sharing his creations. Infact, d ont all kids love these things? I wondered if there were other students in our class likeEduardo, less conspicuous but just as in need of chance to create. Perhaps all of our first gradestudents would benefit. I envisioned a more differentiated day, where we balanced literacy,math, and writing activities with a more kinesthetic learning experience. Inspired by theMaker theme of this years D eeper Learning conference, my teaching partner and I planned tointroduce Maker Time.


2/5

A Constructivist Framework

At first, I was unsure how to frame this experience. Should we set specific challenges, such ashow to build a bridge with popsicle sticks, or eschew formal learning objectives? Maker Timecould be a free-associative activity with no specific goals in mind; making would be sufficient toitself. It was a curious dilemma.

To resolve it, I reflected on the relationship between teacher and learner. To start, people arealways learning. As we move through life, we continually make meaning of the world. In ThePower of Play: Learning What Comes Naturally (2007), David Elkin highlights the value ofautonomous learning experiences for young children:

It is vitally important to support and encourage self -directed activities by the infant andyoung child. Even if those activities appear meaningless to us, they can have greatpurpose an d significance for the child. (p. 93).

It would be foolish, however, to conclude that teachers serve no purpose. The role of theteacher, according to one of my colleagues, is to help people make more meaning of the world.(I would add that great teachers also help people create meaning in the world.) In We Make theRoad by Walking (1990) , Paulo Freire emphasizes the teachers active role in the learningprocess: The educator as an intellectual has to intervene. He cannot be a mere facilitator. Hehas to affirm to himself or herself (p. 180). If teachers were to leave students by themselves,Freire claims, it would be to fall into a kind of irresponsibility (p. 181). In crafting a vision forMaker Time, I attempted to blend the perspectives of Elkin and Freire. Maker Time would bedirected by the students, but I would intervene to help them make meaning of their experience.

To set the stage for this relationship, I identified three areas where I hoped my students wouldgrow: creativity, collaboration, and communication. These areas are consistent with aconstructivist framework that places student learning center stage. In the final section theirbook, In Search of Understanding: The Case for the Constructivist Classroom (2002) , Brooks and

Brooks review how constructivist teachers encourage and accept student autonomy andinitiative. Students would choose who they worked with (in groups of four) and help to setnorms. When it came to making, students would be granted total creative freedom. Studentswould have access to a maker box, full of stickers, pipe cleaners, felt, and balsa wood (amongother materials), and they could make whatever their hearts desired.


3/5

To assist with meaning-making, I offered students a particular lens for creativity: divergentthinking. According to Sir Ken Robinson (2010) , divergent thinking is the ability to see lots ofpossible answers. When introducing Maker Time, I would take an object from one of theboxes and pose a question to the children: what different things could this be? A cardboardtube, for example, could be a wheel, a tower, or a musical instrument. The possibilities areendless! In an RSA animate video, Sir Ken describes a study that measured the divergentthinking of 1,500 participants. The test question was simple: how many uses can you think offor a paperclip? While most people could think of approximately 10-15 answers, there was onegroup that stood out: 98% of kindergartners s cored in the genius level. Sadly, as thesechildren grew older, their divergent thinking abilities lapsed. By talking with students aboutmultiple ways to view the same object, I hoped to nurture and sustain this capacity for creativethinking.

Our focus on collaboration and communication also drew from a constructivist framework. Tohelp students construct meaning, Brooks and Brooks (2002) repeatedly point to the power ofdiscourse.

Having an opportuni ty to present ones own ideas, as well as being permitted to hear

and reflect on the ideas of others, is an empowering experience. The benefit of discoursewith others, particularly with peers, facilitates the meaning- making process (p.108).

In our classroom, this approach took on additional importance. Many students are still learninghow to work together, while others are hesitant about sharing their learning with peers. Tofoster collaboration, students would be encouraged to ask each other questions, offer support,and provide feedback. They would also be encouraged to trade materials and share resources intheir maker boxes. In an effort to develop students communicational skills, we would invitestudents to present their creations to others. To alleviate the pressure of speaking in front ofthe whole class and allow each student a little more time, we would split the students into twogroups. At each sharing session, students would be encouraged to describe what they made,the different parts of their creation, and who they worked with. In this way, we would be

strengthening our spotlights on divergent thinking and collaboration.

Time to Make

When I announced that we would be doing a hands-on activity, the students were excited.Where I had just seen a bubbly group of kids, I now saw six rows of perfectly attentive students.Eduardo, I should note, was particularly focused ; he wasnt moving a muscle, though soon, ofcourse, he would be. After generating a list of expectations and selecting their groups, studentsstood in front of their boxes with baited breath. They had been craving this kind of experience,I thought. I gave the signal to begin. Instead of a noisy classroom, which I had been expecting, Iheard the quiet buzz that teachers dream of, the sound of students deeply engaged in theirwork.

Although I was unsure how to gauge the impact of maker time on students creative,collaborative, and communicational skills, there were many moments which signaled growth inthese areas. In terms of creativity, the students had no shortage of ideas for what to make:battleships, carnival rides, puppets, and pancakes all emerged from construction paper, glue,and other basic materials. I was pleasantly surprised the range of ideas exhibited by individuals.Over the course of three maker sessions, Eduardo made a telephone, a fishing rod, and a papersuit. At the same time, I was impressed by the quality of the creations. Students were invested


4/5

in making their creations as beautiful as possible. In fact, the most difficult part of the processwas getting students to stop making and clean up. Overall, it was wonderful to see thestudents unbridled and (almost) unstoppable creativity.

Maker time provided a space for students to collaborate, and it was interesting to see howstudents interacted with one another. Instances of support and conflict were common. Whenstudents were not sure what materials to use for a particular creation, other students werequick to offer suggestions. During one session, one student angrily crumpled up a sheet ofpaper because she wasnt satisfied with her drawing. In response, the student next to heruncrumpled the paper, examined her work , and said Lo ok at this part. I think its beautiful.Conflicts over resources offered students an opportunity to practice problem-solving. On oneoccasion, students decided to share a material by cutting it into pieces. On another occasion,one student re-examined her creation and decided she no longer needed the item in question.During Maker Time, working together meant negotiating the possibilities and conflicts aroundresources.

Since students could decide what they were creating, they were enthusiastic to talk about their

choices. In fact, some students were so excited to share their work, they started showing theirfinished products to friends while others were still making. Over the course of several sessions,students shared their work in groups (of approximately ten students) as well as with their tenth-grade buddies. In general, students seemed more comfortable sharing in partners. Whileconfident in their work, shyer students struggled to find the confidence to explain their processin large groups.

Maker Time was (and still is) a journey into the unknown. Instead of setting some kind ofchallenge or goal, children simply explore what they might create with the contents of a box. Atthe beginning of this adventure, I had worried that chi ldren wouldnt know what to make. This ,however, was never a problem. Beyond our basic expectations of safety and respect for one

another, it was impossible to tell what would emerge out of these sessions. What will studentsimagine? What opportunities for learning will emerge through collaboration? How willstudents share their learning with others? To answer these questions, we must make the roadby making!


5/5

Works Cited

Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (2001). In search of understanding: The case for constructivistclassrooms . Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Elkind, D. (2007). The power of play: Learning what comes naturally . Philaldelphi, PA: DaCapo Press.

Horton, M., & Freire, P. (1990). We make the road by walking: Conversations on education andsocial change . Philadelphia, PA: Kohn, A. (1993).

Meier, D. (2002). The power of their ideas: Lessons for America from a small school in Harlem .Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Robinson, K. (2010). RSA animate: Changing education paradigms. United Kingdom: RSA Events,http://www. cognitivemedia. co. uk). Retrieved December , 15 , 2013.

Documents

We Make the Road by . . . Making!