Week 7 - Constructionism and the Maker Movement

Updates: included reference for mirco:bit

Constructionism is based on the idea that learning is most effective when students are actively involved in the process of creating something (Becker, 2016). For example, this could be a product, model or idea. Constructionism heavily ties into the Maker Movement. This is where students work in makerspaces to construct their ideas using a range of materials and tools to produce a project that fits their desired outcomes and vision (Morado et al, 2021). Including activities that implement constructionism and Maker Movement within the classroom, aids teachers in enhancing student’s collaboration, communication, critical thinking and problem-solving skills and fosters student’s creativity (Bower et al, 2020; Stevenson et al, 2019).

Fostering Creativity

The BBC’s micro:bit is a pocket-sized computer that can be used within the classroom to foster students creativity. It features a range of sensors, LEDs, buttons and many input/output qualities that allows students to experiment with coding and to create a variety of interactive and engaging projects (micro:bit, n.d.).

To implement the micro:bit within a project requires students to cultivate and explore their coding skills, by coding a sequence for the micro:bit to achieve the desired outcome. This can be accomplished by using the Microsoft MakeCode programming tool that utilises block coding. These tools greatly develop students’ creativity, as they encourage students to implement design-thinking skills such as collaboration and communication during the learning process. When learning, computational skills such as critical thinking and problem-solving, assist students’ in building knowledge of how to code, for example, mirco:bit must be programmed by a coding tool such as MakeCode to function (Morado et al, 2021).

CC By Olivia Spanswick

In the NSW syllabus, ST3-3DP-T has Stage 3 student’s “define problems and design, modify and follow algorithms to develop solutions” (NESA, 2017). This encourages students to design algorithms (codes) to program their prototypes to move and function in the desired way to meet their project’s needs. For Example, students can create a prototype watering system that senses moisture in soil and if needed, pours water into the soil.

CC By Olivia Spanswick

CC By Olivia Spanswick

Pedagogy limitations

Although MakeCode and mirco:bit are highly successful tools for enhancing students learning, understanding how to use these programs can be very difficult and complicated, especially if you are inexperienced. This might cause students to become disengaged and discouraged if they do not understand how to do something, which will hinder their learning.

References

Becker, S. (2016). Developing Pedagogy for the Creation of a School Makerspace: Building on Constructionism, Design Thinking, and the Reggio Emilia Approach. Journal of Educational Thought, 49(2), 192–209.

Bower, M., Stevenson, M., Forbes, A., Falloon, G., and Hatzigianni, M. (2020). Makerspaces pedagogy - supports and constraints during 3D design and 3D printing activities in primary schools. Educational Media International, 57(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2020.1744845

Introducing the BBC micro:bit. (n.d.) https://microbit.org/get-started/first-steps/introduction/

Morado, M. F., Melo, A. E., and Jarman, A. (2021). Learning by making: A framework to revisit practices in a constructionist learning environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(3), 1093–1115. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13083

NSW Educational Standards Authority (2017). Science and technology K-6 syllabus: NSW

syllabus for the Australian curriculum. https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/k-10/learning-areas/science/science-and-technology-k-6-new-syllabus

Stevenson, M., Bower, M., Falloon, G., Forbes, A., and Hatzigianni, M. (2019). By design: Professional learning ecologies to develop primary school teachers’ makerspaces pedagogical capabilities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1260–1274. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12743