EDET 677 Final Project Club Planning Document Rubric

Aleta May

EDET 677 Mechanics of Technology

August 2016 Final Project for Dr. Lee Graham

Club Planning Document Rubric

“The mission of the Lower Kuskokwim School District (LKSD) is to ensure bilingual, culturally appropriate and effective education for all students, thereby providing them with the opportunity to be responsible, productive citizens.” http://www.lksd.org/lksd/

Technology has a 2016-2019 Technology Plan Timeline:

The section that draws my attention the most is B. Technology Integration. We need broadband width / speed, etc, but it is vital that we begin integrating technology into students’ everyday curriculum by learning, and bravely “jumping in” as teachers. The School district mission points out the words opportunity, responsible, and productive citizens. Technology Integration for self confidence in our 21st Century goals for careers and in our students’ confidence to make their place well in this world.

2016-2019 Technology Plan Timeline
A. Goals. Standards, and Strategies
Plan Element Task Responsible Party Funding Source Completion Date
Internet Access Evaluation of Network District Technology Needs (Bandwidth) Technology Coordinator TAI Department TAI Budget October 30, 2016
Continue E-rate Process (Contract Expires June 30, 2017) Technology Coordinator TAI Budget Pending E-rate Deadlines
VTC Evaluation of VTC Infrastructure VTC Equipment, Bandwidth Technology Coordinator TAI VTC Team TAI Budget August 28, 2015
Evaluation of VTC Instructor’s Needs Instructor Comments/Concerns Technology Coordinator TAI VTC Team
VTC Instructors
TAI Budget General Fund August 1, 2015- December 15, 2015
PD Technology Coordinator District PD Coordinator TAI Budget General Fund January 15, 2016
B. Technology Integration
Readiness Ensure Completion of Above Task Technology Coordinator TAI Budget January 15, 2016
Collaboration Creation of the Technology Advisory Committee Technology Coordinator TAI Budget January 15, 2016
Needs Assessment Survey Technology Coordinator TAI Budget December 15, 2015
Collaboration With Content Experts Technology Coordinator DAPS Department TAI Budget General Fund December 15, 2015
Timeline Technology Plan Timeline Technology Coordinator TAI Budget January 15, 2016
Technology Integration Technology Coordinator TAI Budget January 15, 2016
Technology Standards Tied to Core Technology Coordinator TAI Budget January 15, 2016
C. Access
Fund Use E-rate/NSLP Survey Data Collection Technology Coordinator
Site Administrators/ Site Staff
TAI Budget Site Budget October 1, 2015
E-rate/NSLP Survey Data Compilation Technology Coordinator TAI Budget October 31, 2015
Budget Inventory Analysis Technology Coordinator Assistant Superintendent Business Manager TAI Budget General Fund January 15, 2016
Parental/Community Communication and Involvement Stakeholder Surveys Technology Coordinator TAI Budget January 15, 2016
Community VTC Technology Coordinator TAI VTC Team TAI Budget January 15, 2016
Social Networking Tools Technology Coordinator Technology Integration Specialist TAI Budget General Fund January 15, 2016
Expenditures E-rate Funds BIA Analysis Technology Coordinator TAI Budget October 31, 2015
D. Professional Development
PD Plan Core Curriculum PD District PD Coordinator General Fund January 15, 2016
Technology PD Technology Coordinator Technology Integration Specialist TAI Budget General Fund January 15, 2016
Technology Integration Across Content Areas Core Content/ Technology Integration Technology Coordinator Core Content Experts Technology Integration Specialist TAI Budget General Fund January 15, 2016
E. Assessment
District Assessment District Report Card
Previous 3-years to Reflect Changes
Technology Coordinator Testing Coordinator TAI Budget General Fund January 15, 2016
Maintenance of Evaluation of Network Technology Coordinator TAI Budget October 30, 2016
Equipment and Hardware District Technology Needs (Bandwidth), VTC Needs, Etc… TAI Department
E-Rate Compliance Social Networking Presence LKSD Website Presence Classroom Presence Technology Coordinator Technology Integration Specialist
TAI Department
TAI Budget General Fund Site Budget January 15, 2016
Internet Safety Policy Internet Safety Policy Review Meeting #1 Technology Coordinator Technology Integration Specialist
Technology Advisory Committee
TAI Budget General Fund September 30, 2015
Internet Safety Policy Review Meeting #2 Technology Coordinator Technology Integration Specialist
Technology Advisory Committee
TAI Budget General Fund November 30, 2015
Internet Safety Policy Final Review Technology Coordinator Technology Integration Specialist
Technology Advisory Committee
TAI Budget General Fund January 15, 2016
Public Notice and Hearing Internet Safety Policy Public Hearing LKSD School Board LKSD Board Funds TAI Budget General Fund January Board Meeting
Submission to EED 2016-2019 Technology Plan Technology Coordinator TAI Budget Pending State Deadline

Evaluating the innovation of Technology Purchase, Equity and Integration

 One way to know some of these goals have been met is not by using a check off list, rather embedding the use of technology into instruction. Serena Pariser “wanted her middle school students to have deeper dialogues about literature. She tested two different tools to support small-group conversations: TodaysMeet and Padlet” (Pollock, p. 43). With TodaysMeet, students typed contributions about the novel they were reading rather than talking face to face. In Padlet, students brainstormed and typed their responses simultaneously onto the screen. This in particular encouraged students to talk about the comments in their small groups immediately. Students could also use iPads to see each other’s thinking. “Tech use supports what students are learning rather than usage being the end goal itself (2016, Pollock, p. 43). Equity does not mean an equivalent device in every student’s hand, it means smart use of technology.

“ 1. What’s your equity vision for students in your classroom?

2. What tech did you experiment with to see if it could help achieve that visio?

3.  What did you do with your students to test that use of technology and how did it go?     (Show the pros and cons for students.)

4.  What’s your conclusion about how ‘smart’ that tech use was for achieving your equity vision?” (Pollock, 2016, p. 42).

Asking myself and other educators, these questions is a quality template for evaluating our innovations.

To organize the beginning of our makerspace at Lewis Angapak Memorial School (LAMS), I am using questions from Jennifer Cooper, Sept. 30, 2013.

When will the space be used? and Where in the school would be ideal? What considerations are important?

The Makerspace will be during school, in the library, my small room, and in classrooms. More questions proposed by Cooper (2013) are questions I ask as I plan a during school club for our school:

What range of “subjects’ will be taught in the space? What types of activities and projects could be done there?

This needs to be left up to teachers’ imagination as to what is needed to make connections between making and the standards they are making in class.

Which tools are most needed? Will digital fabrication tools such as CNC routers, laser cutters or 3D printers be included? Which materials will be used?

I believe the priority is 3D printers and electronic kits. Woodworking routers sound great as well; we will need newer models to assure safety guards are in place.

Who are the kids that will be using the space? Will others use the space as well? Who is staffing and managing the space?—This question speaks volumes to me about keeping the makerspace student-centered:

Eight Big Ideas Behind the Constructionist Learning Lab

Statements extracted, from Dr. Seymour Papert’s big ideas that support the atmosphere in the design of my makerspace:

  1. “We learn best of all when we use what we learn to make something we really want.”
  2. If you can use technology to make things, you can make a lot more interesting things.
  3. “…fun and enjoying doesn’t mean ‘easy.’ The best fun is hard fun.”
  4. “Many students get the idea that ‘the only way to learn is by being taught.’ . . . You have to take charge of your own learning.”
  5. “To do anything important you have to learn to manage time for yourself. This is the hardest lesson for many of our students.”
  6. “The only way to get it right is to look carefully at what happened when it went wrong.”
  7. “The best lesson we can give our students is to let them see us struggle to learn.”
  8. “. . . learning about computers is essential . . . BUT the most important purpose is using them NOW to learn about everything else” (Stager, 2006 in Martinez & Stager, 2013).

How will it be built? Is a new or separate structure needed, and if so what type? What is the budget? Will the design and construction team be a combination of contractor and volunteers, all-volunteer or fully contracted?

This will happen by work order with our maintenance staff. Although this is embedded in the school budget, they have many tasks to complete.

More items to budget for are based on these facts: In Spencer & Juliani, (2016), a great way of reasoning as to why students will not stay on the same projects; particularily as they get older and more diverse in interests, skills, abilities, mindset, etc.; was to ask, “Why have the same training when everyone is on different levels?” (p. 29). The Industrial Arts teacher who was quoted started developing a new class titled “Creative Design and Engineering” (p. 29). Because of this, I can visualize many tools and materials, organized into areas like electronics, but with a sewing machine (with heavy duty needles for metallic conductive threads) nearby for designing fabrication with LED lights.

Accessible to the fabric and sewing area, there would be a 3D copier corner that may require “borrowing” certain types of metal thread, from the electronics section, for binding together clothing pieces created on the 3D machine that used a plastic type of filament. Overlapping these areas will be materials used to create classy curtains, and a fabric steamer to watch the effects of steam as wrinkles are released—then ask, “Why does this work?” Next to this area is a “LilyPad Arduino, an electronic textile construction it” (Telhan, Kafai, & Litts, 2016, p. 232) that activates through sensors and human touch and can be used on felt fabric. Students could experiment by connecting circuits “by incorporating conductive patches into the sleeve’s end” (p.228) for a fun way to study how electricity conducts through different types of metal threads/tapes.

Another section would be set up with a variety of regular school supplies that are in easy reach. Items include scissors, a variety of tapes, markers of different types, colored and drawing pencils and sketch paper; brass fasteners, clips, clamps, staplers, and glue. Paints that include oils, watercolors, tempra, and a small spray-paint compressor for larger temporary displays. The point here is to include sections that inspire the artistic senses as students use their imaginations to represent their thinking that is usually tied to a classroom project, standard, or other goal.

Another area, likely upstairs, would be set up for repairing or remixing old bicycles around the village. There would be a water area for finding air leaks and figuring out why certain tire patch adhesives work better than others. Wood materials for building replicas of the boardwalk in tundra that depicts, shifting from the effects of temperature.

A science section would include an area for making models of the earth (including electronic population LED light representations), water samples from the river, clay for showing layers, and items for creating astronomy representations. With Arduino boards and computers, the options are endless.

Presently, we just found out this week that the Material Request Funds (MRFs) that were placed for this fall were not filled. The situation that was described to us was very unfortunate. I am sure this will slow down the original idea of starting out with 3D printers, since classroom books and supplies will have to be reordered now. But our Site Administrator still wants to clear space(s) for electronic makerspace activities and robotics. This is high on his budget list for this year.

Other funding strategies are to go to the school board and ask for Corporation money to purchase big ticket items like a 3D printer, or a set of electronic kits for middle school science. There are grants for technology and student populations who have a low income. Also, there are stores who will donate some funding or supplies at cost for the maker space. These avenues are all certainly worth looking into.

I did look up the Leapfrog Creatr 3D Printer, 200X270 X230 mm Maximum Build Dimensions 0.05-mm Maximum Resolution; ABS, Laybrick Nylon, PLA, and PVA Filament. What I noted is that this is a name brand, but also that the price range for a 3D printer that can last serve the elementary is wide: $813.79-$2,870.04. I not a range of comparable 3D printers on a chart in class, but not knowing what is best for our students living out in rural areas for long term maintenance, I would defer to discussion with out District Technology Director, Kevin McCalla.

Some Items beginning from youngest to older students; mostly taken from Amazon.com:

Makey Makey – Invention Kit $49.95

LightUp Tesla Kit (Bluetooth Edition $70. to $100.)

Wearable electronics would have to include the purchase and or donation of fabrics if combined with the sewing projects of Kuspuks:

LilyPad Arduino 320 Main Board  21.95

Adafruit Gemma—Miniature Wearable Arduino-like Electronic Platform $10.34

Squishy Circuits Kit—25.00 + 5.49 shipping

The Official Arduino Starter Kit Deluxe Bundle with Make: Getting Started with Arduino: The Open Source Electronics Prototyping…by Arduino  $149.95

One good point about location is that it needs to be spaced properly to avoid being overcrowded, and it needs to be focused on visibility of students to facilitators.

I especially appreciate the word cross-pollination and that the activities might include:

  • Cardboard construction
  • Prototyping
  • Electronics
  • Robotics (like Arduino and Lego Robotics)
  • Digital fabrication
  • Building bicycles and kinec sensor machines (that may include Kinect for XBOX 360)
  • Textiles and sewing

Supplies and rules for safety:

Of course, no makerspace is complete without a well-marked and accessible first-aid kit. I believe one for smaller cuts or scrapes needs to be additional to one that is geared to more serious injuries. Thin gloves need to be available for prevention of the spread of blood borne pathogens. Kits like this need to be in makerspaces, and should be close by to each classroom. This is a point that cannot just be assumed. Also, a fire extinguisher needs to be within quick reach.

Clean up procedures posted and frequently referred to keeps the makerspace area organized and safe. In the Hublinka (2013) article, I see the chant on page 1; “Protect. Double-check. Aim away. Clamp it. Focus. Never play.” This is a good idea for avoiding accidents for younger students, but I think it needs to be accompanied by a chart with changeable pictorial examples.

Sustainability and Updating

 The initial investment will be to spend time and effort cleaning areas out; such as getting rid of encyclopedias and other reference books that have not been used in at least 10 years. Then I believe we need pegboard and tool cabinets with drawers to organize our space. Student ownership will include leaving time for students to put away tools, sweep, and clean up the space daily before the next group uses the makerspace.

Another way to sustain a space is to invite community participation; such as a maker day where parents / community are invited to attend (Martinex & Stager, 2013) and just keep them informed about what is going own at school. Here is a piktochart infographic I made as an example:  https://magic.piktochart.com/output/14919991-maker-day-at-lam-school-november-2016

My own question is how to start organizing the strategies for getting our makerspace off to a great start?

The strategy below reminds me of a jigsaw strategy, but I am thinking it is more like a Reciprocal Teaching program that, while developed for reading can be applied to students in a Makerspace working in pairs or small groups and actually asks themselves “what does this mean?” Metacognition is thinking about what you are thinking—

Metacognition informs you when you encounter something interesting

or substantive; . . . when you reread a passage [in the case of a makerspace,

rethink a failed attempt] with frustration because meaning did not flow to

you at first (Carter, 1997).

Metacognition in reading reminds me of Fadel’s Curriculum Redesign that is named Meta-Learning. At the center is 21st Century Education (which really is student-centered), with knowledge, skills, and character overlapping to “Imagine deeper learning. . .”

Novice makers like novice readers, interact with items and books and experience these according to how “their prior experience is activated” (Carter, 1997). Flexibility in using a variety of strategies derived from the facilitator, peers, or other sources help students add to what they know with the current situation they are presently in.

Here is a strategy model that can create a framework for organizing my teaching which Dr. Pravin Bhatia (I added brackets) I have provided an analogy from Reciprocal Reading from Palenscar to Bhatia’s model provided in a YouTube link in references below:

  • Step 1 Divide students into groups of 6 (or fewer).
  • Step-2 Dividing the subject matter within those groups [or divide students according to their interests and perhaps get them going into different tasks toward a cause].
  • Step-3 Each group reads [discusses] the portion allotted to it (silently read [research online, interview others, draw]; better to read [watch video clips together with audio] than to listen so they get the ideas even when they cant get the words [which gives them visual ideas to go with the words].
  • Step-4 Each group discusses the topic (this discussion is the most important part). [Students bring together what they found out and get started together.] This is peer learning. The teacher goes from table to table group. The teacher clarifies difficulties.
  • Step –5 Each group then in turn, presents it’s portion to the whole class. (communication and analyze skills are learned by doing this)
  • Step-6 All students ask questions from the group. This is where the most analyzing come from..

I believe this model can be a framework for weaving in Makerspace activities, electronics, coding, explaining what worked and what did not work. Teachers and students reflect at the end of the day.

Student ownership of learning is major. Grant Lichtman at TEDxDenverTeachers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzu9RY4tP-A noted this as well. “He also said schools need to be creative, dynamic, permeable, adaptive, relevant, and self-correcting.”

Environmental Atmosphere

Intellectual design space—a growth mindset that promotes a belief that, students can make and create; with both computer and resources around them; individually and together. The growth mindset simply means that students are encouraged to try, not to be concerned with perfection, yet to develop a mentality of trying again, a different way, and being willing to consult peers or experts for ideas and ways of trying a new direction. “Creation is the heart of creativity and is only meaningful when grounded in action – it’s not a feeling, a mindset, or an outcome (Martinez & Stager, p. 80)”

When students walk into my ideal Makerspace area, the room will be organized, inviting, and have areas that invite from a variety of interests. Seymour Paper strikes the balance well: “The role of the teacher is to create the conditions for invention rather than provide ready-made knowledge” (Martinez & Stager, 2013, p. 157).

The areas will be set up to invite both young students and older students. A major area of focus will be incorporating technology into each project at some level. For younger students, they may use MaKey Makey Kickstarter There will be Arduino-based projects for middle school students and up. Some middle school students may start with other types of circuitry projects if they are overly frustrated with Arduino projects (Martinez & Stager).
I will need to model for my students, as well as, help students develop a “Growth Mindset: Positing that talents and abilities can be developed through effort, good teaching, and persistence” (Fadel, p. 4).  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYLDXaqjaDQ&feature=youtu.be

To maintain a strong growth mindset, where students believe in themselves that they can do something new, we as teachers need to take on what it is like for beginners:

This same PDF from Stanford explains that it is important to take on a beginner’s mindset during the activities.

  • Don’t judge.  Observing makers does not include adding one’s own value judgments regarding “their actions, circumstances, decisions, or ‘issues’”
  • Question everything.  A four year old might repeatedly ask “why,” so one way to handle this is to ask “why” back. Look at things from the perspective of the maker.
  • Be truly curious.  Also be filled with wonder, even if the circumstance presents as uncomfortable or familiar.
  • Find patterns.  What are some themes or threads that seamless crossover in interactions between participants or their project making.
  • Really.  As leaders, we plan for events. This may become a deep-rooted and fixed mindset. Be open to what partcipants say—avoid jumping to advise.  dschool.stanford.edu site

Additionally, I the students need to understand that teachers can be open about how they are learning along with the students on many projects. This is teaching by example. Hlubinka, et al. (2013), reminds us that we are all makers. It may be difficult to stay ahead of students, but it will get easier over time—with experience. The advice given on p. 22 is “Let it go. . . . “just be reassured that nobody expects you to be an expert in everything.”

The teaching learning process in the classroom is dynamic; “. . . it flows back and forth from students to teachers” (Barseghian, 2011). Teaching students is dynamic in that while we teach, we also learn.

An important role of the Makerspace Coordinator is that he/she “knows about the usage and safety of the tools in the shop” (Hlubinka, Dougherty, Thomas, Chang, et al., 2013, p. 19). This will need to be learned and practiced prior to running “safety training for all who use the Makerspace” (p. 19).

Learner-Centered Instruction

As far back as Jean Piaget (1896-1980), he reminded teachers to ground teaching in action, not rote memorization; and to begin “with real and material action” (Libow-Martinez & Stager, book, p. 14); and Piaget’s collegue, Seymour Papert, would later frame the educational establishment’s favoring of the former approach over the latter as a battle between instructionism and constructionism” (Libow-Martinez & Stager, book, p. 14).

John Dewey (1859-1952) promoted the interdisciplinary learning based in authentic projects; thus preparing children to observe, problem solve and create methodical procedures for expressing their reasoning. Dewey was concerned with viewing the process of learning from the point of view that children are more than intellectual beings! They are social, emotional, and physical. Modern making can be expressed in the words of John Dewey: “First, that the problem grows out of the conditions of the experience being had in the present, . . . the new facts and new ideas thus obtained become the ground for further experiences in which new problems are presented. The process is a continuous spiral” (Libow-Martinez & Stager, book, p. 14).

Is today’s maker movement based in such theories? In my view, yes! We have so much constructive technology available to us now. We can socially communicate our understanding and build our knowledge just from discussing our reasoning, ideas, and thoughts by way of hands-on technology. Considering this list alone, children and adults alike can communicate to create by using “3D printers, robotics, microprocessors, wearable computers, e-textiles, “smart” materials, and new programming languages” (Libow-Martinez & Stager, article, p. 13). Both formally and informally, any person can use sharing tools and find ideas with instructions online.

Born in 1928, in South Africa, Seymour Papert may inadvertently be the originator of the modern day term, metacognition. He was an advocate of “coercion-free learning environments that inspire children to construct powerful ideas through firsthand experience” (Martinez & Stager, book, p. 18).

The purpose of project-based learning, that includes constructionism as well as constructivism, is to develop learning within context. In one way, this is not new thinking. As the chapter opens up on page 11, it states: “Making things and then making those things better is at the core of humanity” (Martinez & Stager, book). The difference now can be that with the computer age and multi-devices, “New open source microcontrollers, sensors, and interfaces connect the physical world to the digital world” (Martinez & Stager, article, p. 13). We can program computer devices to use as controllers to make connections between the digital and physical worlds.

Constructionism definitely brings old ideas back into the schools in an age that has more opportunity than ever to bridge technology to making and creating for real purposes.

Constructive technology has received its heritage from tinkering! It is constructionism versus Instructionism; and the framework of making, creating, is built upon an interdisciplinary point of view (Martinez & Stager, book, 2013).

Instructionism has the teacher imparting knowledge to students with little consideration for how one subject (discipline) is related to another. The students are receivers of knowledge in this theory of teaching. What is often not considered is that the learner has an internal set of schemata (preformed ways of understanding based on what they already know from prior experiences).


We need to involve students in real making, real technology projects and problem solving for real needs in our world to bring them to an outside view of the world. As educators, Instructionism has ruled for so long, many of us have decided we cannot integrate creativity into our teaching. We can. Perhaps what we are learning from all of this now is that it is purposeful and we are already almost 17 years into the 21st Century. It is time to step off the instructionism ship, and take the necessary risks on the constructive technology and constructionism yacht and launch off into the new horizon with fearless optimism.


Barseghian, T. (5 Feb., 2011). Mind/Shift How we will learn. Three trends that define the future of teaching and learning, (pp. 1-8). KQED News, Retrieved on July 5, 2016.   http://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2011/02/05/three-trends-that-define-the-future-of-teaching-and-learning/

Bhatia, P., Dr. (November 20, 2014). A teaching technique for the 21st Century. TEDxNagpur: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzu9RY4tP-A

Carter, C. J. (1997). How children learn, 54(6), pp. 64-68 http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar97/vol54/num06/Why-Reciprocal-Teaching¢.aspx

Cooper, J. (September 30, 2013). Designing a school makerspace. edutopia. J. Cooper, Designer, maker and gardening teacher in Oakland, CA. Cooper picture of construction makerspace retrieved on 7-4-16 at:  http://www.edutopia.org/blog/designing-a-school-makerspace-jennifer-cooper.

Fadel, C. (2016). 21ST century competencies. Independent School, 75(2), pp. 20-26. Here is a YouTube link to a 1 hour 18 minute webinar by

Charles Fadel, published on March 8, 2016: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYLDXaqjaDQ&feature=youtu.be

Makerspace team: including Hlubinka, M., Dougherty, D., Thomas, P., Chang, S., Hoefer, S., Alexander, I., McGuire, D. Vanderwerff, A., Scott, B. and pilot school teachers (Spring 2013). Makerspace Playbook School Edition. Retrieved 7-5-16: http://makered.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Makerspace-Playbook-Feb-2013.pdf. Maker Media—Creative Commons license (pp. 17-31).

Martinez., S. & Stager, G. (2013). Invent To Learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom. (Chapter 11) Torrance, CA: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.

Pollock, M. (2016). Smart tech use for equity. Teaching Tolerance. http://www.eddigest.com.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s