Standards Reflection-
Designer:
4d: Create CS and CT learning environments that
value and encourage varied viewpoints, student agency, creativity, engagement,
joy and fun.
Having differing viewpoints from a group of students
allowed my partner and I to create an engaging environment for both the Lego and
drone activity. We had two boys and one girl in our student group. The boys
provided energetic over-the-top ideas for both the Lego rover and the drone.
Whereas the girl student was calmer and more structured with her thoughts on
how to go about both activities. The differing engagement provided a fun and
interesting take on how to go about practicing coding.
Leader:
2a: Nurture a confident, competent, and positive identity around computing for every student.
Because both of our activities utilized a
hands-on approach and inquiry based learned environment, I found my partner and
I constantly reassuring students with affirmations. Trial and error learning can
be frustrating for some students because they don’t like to be wrong and take failure
harder than others. But encouraging them to continue trying and that failure is
just another way to learn and grow it built their confidence to eventually come
up with a code that established the command they were attempting to accomplish.
Facilitator:
5c: Use a variety of
instructional approaches to help students frame problems in ways that can be represented as computational steps or algorithms to be performed by a computer.
By utilizing two different types of technology
to teach coding it provided them opportunities to see coding in two different
ways. One was a quickly built rover from Legos that could be instructed to
travel on wheels with limited variability but was still mobile. The drone provided
a more complex perspective of coding that allowed more difficult maneuvers and
could tackle commands by air. We were able to discuss the different problems
students might face that would be more beneficial for a rover on land or a
drone in air.


.png)
