In EDU 226 we had the opportunity to learn about a computational thinking activity and how its lesson plan was structured.
We also watched a video with a computational thinking lesson in action:
Provide feedback on the lessons’ strengths and weaknesses through the eyes of an instructional designer. As an instructional designer, what would you change to make these activities/lessons more engaging, accessible, and inclusive? What elements of computational thinking concepts can you incorporate into these lessons to improve them?
Add your responses below.
When teaching computational thinking in the first lesson yes the teacher uses the four steps of computational thinking 1. Decomposition 2. Pattern Location 3. Abstraction and 4. Algorithm however they are applied is a creative way because that class is creating monsters. When applying computational thinking skills for creative purposes it is always going to be more engaging. When students feel that the lesson is engaging they usually try harder and do not give up as easily because it doesn’t feel like they are working, it feels more like a project or like they are having fun.
The second lesson also used computational thinking however, using computational thinking and its steps to figure out the math problem was definitely less engaging for students. I would imagine that there were several students in the class that felt overwhelmed when they were presented with this math problem. Solving this problem probably felt like a chore to a lot of the students. Yes, the steps that computational thinking skills follow were helpful in solving the problem and they did teach a life math skill but it is not a skill that can be used in everyday life.
The unplugged approach teaches computational thinking through hands-on activities Without depending on technology. Through easily understood real-world examples, this can assist students in understanding Computational Thinking topics including decomposition, pattern recognition, abstraction, and algorithms. Even while the unplugged activities present computational thinking ideas, some of them don’t have obvious connections to real-world applications, which can make it more difficult for students to understand how relevant computational thinking is outside of the classroom. To accommodate various learning styles, incorporate multimedia components whenever feasible, such as storytelling, flowcharts, and instructional videos. Algorithms can be illustrated with representations like flowcharts, and abstract computational thinking principles can be made tangible through storytelling.
The lesson increases accessibility and maintains cost-effectiveness by assisting students in interacting with computational thinking ideas without the use of computers. Also this lesson effectively covers key computational thinking elements; decomposition, pattern recognition, abstraction, and algorithm design; which are essential for developing problem solving skills across disciplines. However, the lesson may not sufficiently challenge advanced students or support those who need extra help. A one-size-fits-all activity could limit the lesson’s effectiveness for learners at different levels. An element of computational thinking concepts that can be incorporated into this lesson to improve engagement, accessibility, and inclusivity are: Differentiation: Introduce variations in activity difficulty. For example, in an algorithm design activity, beginners could map out simple step by step processes, while more advanced students might develop more complex procedures, such as a sequence for a game or project plan.
Both lessons lie in their ability to develop critical problem-solving skills, logical reasoning, and a systematic approach to tackling complex challenges. They make students adaptable, analytical thinkers capable of navigating real-world problems across various disciplines, not just in computer science. Both encourage creativity, collaboration, and a growth mindset while fostering the ability to break down problems into manageable parts, identify patterns, and design step-by-step solutions through key concepts like decomposition, abstraction, and algorithm design.
The strength of the first lesson is that the teacher uses creativity and innovation by encouraging students to explore different approaches to solving problems (e.g., creating a monster). Computational thinking fosters creative problem-solving, so the teacher allows students to use imagination and creativity.
The first lesson’s weakness is that it is straightforward and oversimplifies complex problems by breaking them down into smaller parts. This overlooks nuances and leads to solutions that may not be fully effective in real-world situations.
The second lesson’s strength is its relevance to the real world (practicing math). The students learn to apply computational thinking to everyday problems, enhancing their ability to analyze situations and devise effective solutions.
The weakness of the second lesson is a lack of engagement because only some people like math and have the innate ability to think computationally. This requires dedicated training and practice, which can be a barrier for some learners. Furthermore, an overreliance on computational thinking can lead to rigid problem-solving approaches that may not suit situations requiring more nuanced or creative solutions.
The strengths in lesson one are student group work and the opportunity to create their own algorithm and not just follow one. This allows students to have an enhanced learning experience since they have the opportunity to engage with their peers as well as engage in higher order thinking. One weakness in this lesson is I did not notice any scaffolds. To make this lesson more engaging I would give each group the choice to select different creatures. To make it more accessible, I would allow groups to have the choice of material to use (paper or digital) to complete this assignment.
One strength in the second lesson is how the teacher relates the concept to real life so that the students can make connections. The teacher started on their level of understanding in order to help them learn the concept. Like the first lesson, one weakness that I noticed in this less is the lack of scaffolds. To make this lesson more engaging and accessible, I would once again allow groups to have the choice to use paper or the computer to work on this assignment.
To make both lessons inclusive there should be a computer version of the activity for learners that have a low reading level. This is so that the computer can read the activity to them.
Computational thinking concepts are already incorporated into these lessons but to improve these lessons, I would provide the students with a checklist with visuals of the steps of computational thinking to help guide them through their activity.
Lesson 1 effectively applies collaboration and communication, allowing students to learn from one another while engaging with the four core concepts of computational thinking—decomposition, pattern recognition, abstraction, and algorithm design. The creative element of designing their monsters enhances engagement and personal investment in the task. However, the requirement for all students to complete the same task may hinder engagement, particularly for those who struggle. Providing clear models or examples could help students better understand the expectations and processes involved. To improve this lesson, differentiate tasks based on students’ strengths, allowing for varying levels of complexity within groups. Incorporating language support for multilingual learners is crucial for inclusivity, along with offering visual aids and digital tools to enhance creativity and expression. This aligns with Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles, ensuring that all students can participate meaningfully.
Lesson 2 does well by connecting new concepts to familiar experiences, such as cleaning their room, which fosters student engagement and critical thinking. The teacher’s guidance in breaking down complex problems promotes collaboration and peer learning. However, the fast pace of the first activity may leave some students confused, and individual work limits support for those who struggle. To improve this lesson, differentiate instruction to accommodate varying abilities and provide visual aids for clarity. Offering examples of similar problems can help clarify expectations and model effective problem-solving strategies.
In both lessons, integrating debugging opportunities can further enrich learning, encouraging students to identify and correct errors fosters critical thinking.
For lesson 1, I really like how this lesson gets everyone involved and working together. It’s great for getting everyone to learn. But I think it might not work for more quiet students. To make it better for everyone, I’d use different teaching methods like pictures and interactive tools to help all kinds of learners. Adding more explicit examples of computational thinking and using technology, like coding platforms for making algorithms, could make the lesson even better and show how it’s practical and fun for everyone.
Lesson 2 effectively breaks down complex problems into manageable parts, using relatable examples to enhance understanding and relevance. It emphasizes pattern recognition, fostering problem-solving skills while encouraging creativity through activities like mad libs. However, it could benefit from more explicit elements of computational thinking, such as abstraction and algorithm design, and may not fully address diverse learning needs, potentially leaving some students disengaged. Recommendations include incorporating tiered tasks, using technology for interactive learning, fostering mixed-ability group dynamics, and including diverse cultural examples to make the lesson more inclusive. The lesson can enhance engagement and help students develop a robust problem-solving mindset by addressing these areas.
The videos’ lessons strength was that it effectively engage students in computational thinking (CT) through hands-on learning and collaboration. However, they do not cater to varying skill levels and diverse learning needs. To improve the lessons, I would implement the following:
Engagement: Use game-like features, such as earning badges for completing tasks, to increase motivation, especially for younger students.
Accessibility: I would implement Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles by providing various options for accessing and demonstrating understanding, such as visual aids or hands-on activities, to accommodate diverse learning styles.
Inclusivity: I would introduce tiered tasks to meet the needs of students with varying abilities, enabling them to interact with the material at their own level.
Real-World Applications: I will connect computational thinking (CT) concepts to real-world issues to engage students more deeply and encourage them to use their skills in real-life situations.
Addressing these areas will make the lessons more engaging, accessible, and inclusive for all students. This will effectively improve their understanding of computational thinking concepts.
Provide feedback on the lessons’ strengths and weaknesses through the eyes of an instructional designer. As an instructional designer, what would you change to make these activities/lessons more engaging, accessible, and inclusive? What elements of computational thinking concepts can you incorporate into these lessons to improve them?
Both lessons were very engaging to watch and they were thought out carefully. Some strengths I noticed in lesson 1 were that the teacher used a fun activity to engage in higher order thinking and she used tangible materials that students could manipulate. through this activity, students were able to engage in many of the thinking processes. A weakness that could be said about this particular lesson would be its relatability to the actual lesson. While it was a fun activity to think computationally, I’m wondering what the learning object will be after. Honestly, I would not change the activity though.
In the second lesson, the strength was that the teacher made sure to engage students in computational thinking then explained the work they just did. She used numbers and addition which is a skill they already knew. She engaged their schema. similar to the first lesson, the work they do as a warm up, is not related to the work they actually need to do. I wonder whether they will be able to transfer the skill easily to the next activity.
The only thing I would change in both lessons to include diverse learners is intentional grouping. I believe that doing so strategically targets students in a way that will promote their engagement in the lesson.
Both lessons have strengths and weaknesses, but I will call these Glows and Grows. Naturally, depending on the grade level, student needs, and language skills, we can always identify what works and what doesn’t.
Lesson 1
This lesson is highly engaging for little kids. It has monster heads and wacky eyes. Kids work in groups, which fosters collaboration and community. The lesson is dynamic. Students have the autonomy to create their own set of rules to create their very own monster. Students are exposed to computational thinking concepts, such as abstraction, decomposition, algorithms, and pattern recognition. The students work together to problem solve by looking for patterns that will allow them to create the steps to creating the monster. They also need to break up the problem into manageable parts.
As far as recommendation, I would use additional images and colored pictures to make the lesson more fun. I would allow some students, especially those who like to work alone, to do so. To add a scaffold of representation, I would allow students to record or videotape the steps. It is hard for young students to write things down in such a way that can be understood by others.
Lesson 2:
I found this lesson engaging but strange too. At one point I was unsure what the teacher wanted the students to do. It reminded me of a card trick my cousin used to do or one of those tacky party tricks. The lesson is engaging but I am not sure the students realize what they did. This lesson is highly teacher-centered. At one point the teacher says to them something like, you guys will be the smartest kids in your class and so on. It seemed like that was the ultimate goal; for students to realize they would be better than others. I would have a graphic organizer and pair students to collaborate, and figure out a solution to the question. These kids seemed like 2nd or 3rd graders, and their attention span is usually not this long. A good set of manipulatives, a challenge, or a game can have a better effect.
Both lessons have glows and grows. Naturally, depending on the grade level, student needs, and language skills, we can always identify what works and what doesn’t.
Lesson 1:
This lesson is highly engaging for little kids. It has monster heads and wacky eyes. kids work in groups, which fosters collaboration and community. The lesson is dynamic. Students have the autonomy to create their own set of rules to create, their very own monster. Students are exposed to computational thinking concepts, such as abstraction, decomposition, algorithms, and pattern recognition. The students work together to problem solve by looking for patterns that will allow them to create the steps to creating the monster. They also need to break up the problem into manageable parts.
As far as grows, I would use additional images and colored pictures to make the lesson more fun. I would allow some students, especially those who like to work alone, to do so. To add some a scaffold of representation, I would allow students to record or videotape the steps. It may be hard for very young students to write things down in a way that can be understood by others.
Lesson 1
Lesson 1 shows how computational thinking can be used to take a big problem and break it down into a few smaller problems. In the lesson, students are asked to write a set of instructions to draw a monster. Students are working in groups to write the instructions and then swap them with another group, who will then have to draw the monster. Students have to use the 4 steps of computational thinking (decomposition- making a gameplan of the task), pattern recognition (thinking about what characteristics the monsters have in common), abstraction (remove any differences between the monsters), and then writing an algorithm (students write step-by-step instructions with the monster’s parts, using blanks for the monster’s unique characteristics).
Lesson Strengths:
Lesson Weaknesses:
Improvement ideas:
Lesson #2
In lesson #2, the teacher asks students to add the numbers from 1-200 in their head. Students are evidently confused and not sure how to begin. The teacher encourages students to look for patterns (Ex: 1+200 = 201, 2+199=201, etc.) and the students figure out that the answer to the math problem was 100×201=20,100. The teacher explains that the students used decomposition to break down the problem, used pattern recognition to see similarities, and then put what they learned in an algorithm that they could use to solve the math problem.
In the follow-up activity, students are instructed to figure out how to play a game based on three phrases that are provided. Students are asked to circle the matching parts and underline words that are difficult from player to player.
Lesson’s Strengths:
Lesson Weaknesses:
Improvement Ideas:
Lesson #1:
strengths-
Weaknesses-
Improvements:
Maybe create a web-based program to be used vs. drawing, if working with older students. Instead of specifically being a monster maybe be just creating a list of steps to complete a task and see if other students can follow through.
Lesson #2:
strengths-
weaknesses-
Improvement:
Use more visuals such as pictures to be more inclusive.
Lesson plan #1
Strengths:
The lesson has a clear, engaging goal that encourages creativity and practical application of computational thinking. The teacher explains and defines key concepts in a simple, understandable way, making abstract ideas accessible to young students.Students were actively writing and following instructions, promoting collaboration and hands-on learning. Teacher Integrated multiple computational thinking skills in a cohesive activity, reinforcing their interconnectedness.
Weaknesses:
While the teacher gave good definitions and examples,Some students might struggle with understanding and applying the four computational thinking steps without additional support. It is also important to make sure that all students write clear and understandable instructions. This might be challenging, leading to potential confusion during the monster-building activity.
Lesson plan #2
Strengths:
The teacher engages students with a question about personal experiences, making the lesson relatable and intriguing. She also teaches valuable skills like decomposition and pattern recognition, which are fundamental in computational thinking. The lesson included group activities and personalized support, encouraging collaboration and tailored learning. The teacher also encouraged students to explain their reasoning, reinforcing understanding.
Weaknesses:
The teacher asked students to mentally add numbers up to 200 may be too challenging, especially for younger or less advanced students. Some students might require more time or alternative explanations to grasp the concepts fully.
The initial activity may not resonate with all students who are not required to do chores at home,potentially leading to disengagement. I didn’t find many weaknesses as I feel she had the students’ full attention. She knew what her students needed and delivered.
Lesson 1:
Strength:
Weakness:
Improvements: I would allow students to draw the whole monster and give an option between a monster or an animal. This will help the students that can draw one thin, draw the other. I will also allow them to paint or color it.
Lesson 2
Strength:
Weakness:
Improvement: I would make a fun math game for students to play as a whole class and with partners. I would also have a video and manipulatives for students.
As I mentioned in my previous post, when students are introduced to a real-life problem/issue, they feel more engaged and ready to tackle it because it is familiar to them. I liked how the teacher in the video opened the lesson with an open-ended question: “Have you ever…” and you can see how students started to brighten up and raise their hands and agree with her. She was also using gestures and mimicking, which helped a lot with students at their age. From the beginning of the lesson, the teacher started to activate their prior experiences to introduce to the concepts of CT. What is also interesting is that these activities are unplugged yet engaging and collaborative. The students are able to show their innovative ways of thinking, and the teachers are able to give them immediate feedback. Some might think that figuring out patterns is an easy task; however, as the task requires more variables to add, it becomes more complex, and seeing the students tackle such an advanced concept is fascinating.
I think that, depending on the grade level and the student’s developmental stages, introducing CT will look quite different in various subject areas and with various learner populations. In my case, providing additional support to my ENL students would require to breaking down the lesson into fragments, adding stations by language or expertise, translations of the activity, videos, lots of visuals, and assistive technology for my lower readers. I would need to differentiate a lot to make this type of lesson successful. I would also use digital tools to engage my students more in the lesson, i.e., Nearpod, Padlet, or have them even come up with a real-world problem with their group.
Lesson 1: Drawing a Monster
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Enhancements:
Lesson 2: Classroom
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Enhancements:
Provide feedback on the lessons’ strengths and weaknesses through the eyes of an instructional designer. As an instructional designer, what would you change to make these activities/lessons more engaging, accessible, and inclusive? What elements of computational thinking concepts can you incorporate into these lessons to improve them?
I feel that the lesson was decent. The strength of this lesson was using something that all students were familiar with – cleaning their rooms. She said that cleaning your room can be hard and feel like a huge task. But she also mentioned to her class that if they were to clean/pick up sections at a time that that would be easier to do.
The weakness for me was the game that she had them play or design. I could not understand the concept.
As an instructional designer, I would have a video (would be played with closed captioning and subtitles. It would also be provided in Spanish for the ESL students) of breaking down the steps on how to clean your room. I would have just asked the class what do they immediately think of when they are asked to clean their rooms. I would a fe answers and then have them watch the video. I would follow up with the fact that the video that was just shown was how to use computational thinking. And follow with a simple activity.
The lesson taught to the students was interesting. The students were engaged from the beginning in the introduction. The lesson was accessible when the teacher considered the learners’ strengths and knew their weaknesses. Her instructions were very clear and gave the students to use their strategies to solve. It helps the student have control and power over their work. This can help the students grow in their learning.
Maryann, I agree with you. But I do feel a little more can be added.
Lesson 1 Strengths:
· Encourages creativity and patterns in designing their monster.
· Stimulates computational thinking through the task of decomposing their monster, reconstructing the monster, and putting together an algorithm to be followed to re-create their monster.
· Serves as a simple introductory to computational thinking steps algorithm, decomposition, patterns, and abstraction.
· It’s a hands-on activity that is engaging for students.
Lesson 1 Weaknesses:
· Doesn’t relate computational skills to real-life scenarios
· Only touches on small parts of computational thinking
· Task may be too basic for varying skill levels
Lesson 1 Suggested improvements:
· Add storytelling and create an opportunity for problem-solving
· Allow students to add color to their monsters.
· Add the option to add more monster features depending on skill level.
· Add additional monsters.
· Create the entire monster not just the head. That allows for tinkering, and pattern recognition.
Lesson 2 Strengths:
· Presents a challenging problem that stimulates curiosity, pattern recognition, and algorithms.
· Helps develop critical thinking by teaching students how to approach seemingly big problems and decompose them.
Lesson 2 weakness:
· The problem may be too challenging
· Students may need individual support
· Accessibility concerns, needing additional support for students who can’t do mental math.
Lesson 2 Suggested improvements:
· Gamify the math lesson.
· Start with smaller ranges that promote decomposition.
· Use manipulatives and visual aids to demonstrate patterns.
· Differentiate the instruction and break into groups based on skill level.
Strengths through the eyes of an instructional designer:
Weaknesses through the eyes of an instructional designer:
As an instructional designer, changes I’d make to make these activities/lessons more engaging, accessible, and inclusive are give more student choice, chance for collaboration and more visual/audio.
Elements of computational thinking concepts I can incorporate into these lessons to improve them are tinkering and more pattern recognition.
As an instructional designer, I would you create the activities/lessons more engaging, accessible, and inclusive by creating additional methods of engagement and representation. I would do this by expanding and/or demonstrating how computational skills can be used across language barriers, assistive technology and/or levels. I would apply multiple grouping opportunities to ensure that learners are comfortable in how they receive the lesson as well as completing the task at hand.
I believe all levels of computational thinking was incorporated on multiple levels in each video. While video one demonstrates computational thinking concepts on a minimum level, the concepts are visible. However, I would have modeled how each concept could be applied with incorporating multiple entry points to support my language learners and possibly technology to support my learners who require additional support/guidance. I believe incorporating decomposing and algorithm concepts will improve these lessons because they are the beginning and ending concepts to some degree where students are brainstorming and working to create a final game plan on how they can/will complete the activity. I think the greatest strength in teaching and modeling how learners can incorporate computational thinking concepts into their learning, is using examples that learners can connect to and applied to in their daily lives even if they have never heard of computational thinking.
Lesson 1: Drawing a Monster:
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
What can be added to support and make the lesson engaging, accessible and inclusive?
Lesson 2: Classroom
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
What can be added to support and make the lesson engaging, accessible and inclusive?
Lesson 1:
Strength: this lesson is very cool and engaging. It’s very well explained and it includes computational thinking.
Weaknesses:
The lesson needs to be more accessible and inclusive. Instead of creating monsters on computer they can use a paper and pencil.
Lesson 2:
Strength: CT is included. I like the fact that the teachers made the lesson engaging by asking the students questions.
Weakness:
Lesson needs to be more slowed down so that students can process it and understand it better.
The goal of each lesson in the computational thinking videos was accomplished. The goal was to use computational thinking, decomposition, break up complicated problems into smaller more manageable ones. Abstraction, pattern finding and algorithms to solve the problem.
I thought that the first video provided an appropriately interesting and engaging computational thinking activity/lesson. Students of that age group enjoy being able to design and create their unique monsters. I felt like it was an easy way to learn algorithms.
Through the eyes of an instructional designer, one that helps with the process of learning and creates enriching innovative collaborative work, here are my points on its strength and weakness of the lesson. Therefore, I may have suggestions for improvement.
Strengths
Weakness
Although, the purpose of introducing computational thinking to the students, was served in the first video, thinking like an Instructional designer, I might change or add activities/lessons to be more accessible and inclusive in both videos.
In the second video, where the teacher used the example of cleaning your room to teach algorithms most of the students seemed not to understand what she was asking. When thinking about inclusion, an interesting fact is that not all children have a bedroom. For that age group, using an example such as cleaning up and organizing their toys might have reached the intended goal.
The computational thinking concept that I would incorporate into the lessons to improve them is pattern recognition, because “pattern recognition guides to make connections between similar problems and experiences.”(Google)
All in all the lessons were engaging but it is our job to also make lessons accessible and inclusive.
Lesson 1: Monster Lesson
Lesson 2:
The monster activity was engaging and accessible. I appreciated that the teacher gave them names for the different types of eyes. I thought this was a subtle way to avoid students using descriptors that might be mean or triggering to other students. To make this lesson more inclusive, I would allow students the option of creating their monster with technology as well as additional ways to present their algorithm, such as a drawing or video/audio recording.
In the second activity, I thought the opening activity was engaging, but not accessible or inclusive. The class was collectively stumped when she first presented the question and then had an “aha” moment when she solved the problem. I would improve this lesson by first giving students some think time with a partner to make sure they understand what the question is asking and get them thinking about how they might solve it. Second, I would be more explicit in breaking down the computational thinking concepts into steps. (For example: Step 1 is decomposition. Let’s break this problem down into smaller parts.) Finally, I would have have some sort of visual where the students could work through the problem with me. This could be a handout, an online tool, etc. where students are recording the teacher model with the steps, so that they can refer back to it later during their independent/group task.
The monster activity was an engaging assignment for students to work on while using computational thinking. The activity provided students with clear parts the monster could have in order to build the monster. The activity also provided fill in the blank sentences. This activity would be more suitable for students in upper elementary (grades 3-5). A simpler monster would be needed for lower elementary students (grades K-2).
As an instructional designer the second activity would surely have to be modified for younger students. I feel if I would have presented that math problem to my schools’ population only a few students would be able to figure it out or even a pattern to figure out the solution. I have taught computational thinking using the process of making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, something more on younger students’ levels.
The monster lesson really encourages groups to break down the problem to create their own monster. I found this lesson very engaging, It encourages groups to really collaborate to create the algorithm for other groups to follow. I also like the idea of using transparencies to help the students visualize the outcome of their drawing. The only enhancement I would make is allow the students of this class introduce this same concept to a lower grade class to see if they can use their instructions to create the correct monster.
The second lesson was very thought provoking, some aspects I would change would be to give the students paper to begin writing their ideas down on how to add the numbers 1-200. Also, after creating their game how can they showcase their games to other groups. The students can chose their own form of assessment (using digital tools or other visual tools) and to showcase their instructions for other groups to follow.
The first lesson was an engaging way to introduce computational thinking. I feel that students may find algorithms and abstraction harder and this lesson really simplified it in a way that can be easily taught and comprehend. I really engaged how abstraction was used when face framing the monster because of the different eyes. I would provide a teacher model and label my computational steps with a reasoning. before providing that reasoning i would ask guided questions as to why they feel I may or may not have made the right choice so we can further the discussion. I do feel that students can write a story about their monster or describe how they used computational thinking in their monster piece.
The second lesson was not as engaged and student involved as the first. I feel it was very challenging as i saw many of the students faces in the video. I feel 1-200 was a bit steep and the directions were not very clear. The lesson did not value the needs of all learners. To change that, I feel stdeuts can be grouped in pairs or groups of four to solve a problem. when they solve that problem, they can further explain the steps they took to solve the problem. This will allow them to apply computational thinking and making a connection to the skill. As well as when building on prior knowledge, writing out the steps to cleaning a room and using students answers to make it whole group.
I really enjoyed the monster lesson. I think it is a very engaging way for students to encompass the understanding regarding computational thinking and algorithms. I really liked how they had clear sheets with different parts of the monster that provided a tactile way to organize it while creating their algorithm. I would differentiate the task but choosing different pictures depending on which grade I would be teaching it with. The monster one seems suitable for 4-5th grade whereas 2-3rd grade would have a bit of a simpler picture.
I also thought the lesson on adding the numbers from 1-200 was thought provoking and challenging for the students. This is definitely something that is intended for older grades. For younger grades, I would take the same concepts and apply it to skills that would apply to their grade standards. For example, for second grade, I would focus on the standard that deals with different ways to represent a number.
The first activity on developing steps to create a monster, was accessible to all students as it had visual aids and manipulative’s for students to use to create their own monster. This activity could have been more engaging if students were allowed to create the monster online using a digital tool. As well as allowing students different options to present their steps, whether that was through a voice over, written steps, or verbal presentation.
In the second activity, I like how the teacher introduced computational thinking with a real world example of the task (cleaning your room), all the students were able to relate to this situation which helped guide their thinking. In mini lesson the teacher facilitated, she continued to mention the parts of computational thinking, I think the example of counting the numbers 1-200 was complex for a mini lesson. As an instructional designer I would like to engage students in a mini lesson with come manipulative’s or using a digital tool where students need to construct something. Also, I would have recorded all student responses to generate more students thinking. The activity after the mini lesson where students needed to cross out what did not belong with in the sentence, was a good way for students to recognize patterns and parts that were not important. I would have had a vocabulary chart with all the parts of computational thinking for students to reference and use in their explanation to assess their awareness of which part of computational thinking they were using and why.
The first activity is a great unplugged activity that I have used with my students in the past. They see the patterns and love composing and decomposing the monsters. The students are engaged and truly understand the concept of writing a detailed algorithm as they break up the parts of the monsters. I like the way it is designed and have not changed much when carrying out the lesson with my own classes.
Although in the second lesson the students seemed engaged, I was not. I found the whole lesson boring. She started off good with getting them speaking about cleaning their rooms but the adding of all the numbers seemed overwhelming. Even once the girl explained the pattern she saw, I felt many students would still be lost. From an instructional design perspective, I do not think the math problem she chose really made all the parts of computational thinking concrete. It still seemed a bit abstract to me. I would have an anchor chart that showed all the parts of computational thinking (decomposition, recognizing patterns, abstraction, and algorithms). I would refer to it as we were solving something together, more like a guided lesson. I would also change the scenario. We might use computational thinking to explain how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich or do a cartwheel, or play Tic Tac Toe. These ideas are concrete and can illustrate all the parts of computational thinking.
Jennifer, I agree the second lesson isn’t engaging and even though it seemed like students were engaged, I saw many confused faces. I feel the task was a bit extreme. 1-200 could have been 1-50 or even something that can be used with “PEMDAS”. I also felt that she could have build more on the prior knowledge of making a bed to build a stronger connection. I feel the Anchor chart would be clutch for the lesson because it would add a stronger connection to her problem solving hack that she was trying to implement .
When teaching my students about computational thinking I also have used the peanut butter and jelly sandwich process and an activity, something more on my lower students’ level.
The first activity with the monster is great, I have taught it before in the past. It is engaging and accessible to most students. I might extend the activity by allowing student to draw digitally, making it more inclusive.
The second lesson without the benefit of being able to speak to the teacher and understand her thinking is something I most like would not teach. I think this lesson was engaging to the students but I wonder if the students would meet the goal of being able to identify the concepts of computational thinking. The opening activity of asking students to add 1-200 in their heads seemed abstract and more of a party trick. It wasn’t until she wrote the algorithm on the board that most students had a lens into what was going on. Students decompose larger problems and word problems in math all the time. Time is always a factor in teaching so I understand the activity was planned just to capture the attention and lead into the next part playing the game with no rules. I found the lesson plan https://code.org/curriculum/course3/1/Teacher.pdf and I think my classes would be frustrated easily and therefore I most likely would not teach these concepts in this way.
My suggestions to improve this would be to have the vocabulary (decomposition, recognizing patterns, abstraction, and algorithms displayed in the classroom as we went about a lesson. I might introduce the idea of menu planning for a lunch celebration and share the cafeteria menu for the week. We could abstract and look for patterns to figure out what are the parts of a school lunch. Then decompose all the different tasks we would need to do to prepare a class lunch. Next they could create algorithms to figure out the budget, serving sizes, etc. If possible we actually use our work and have a class lunch that we planned.
I would finish the activity with a response sheet where students drew or wrote by each concept how we had engaged in each of them.
Great suggestions! I had the same idea of possibly having a vocabulary chart somewhere.
Love that! thank you for the recommendation!
I love how you extended the activity with a response! I feel that is a great assessment to have students explain their monsters or even come up with a short story. I also enjoyed your recommendation on adding vocabulary to the lesson. I feel when learning a new skill/topic; vocabulary is always an essential reference in case students need that silent reminder as I call it.
As an instructional designer, something I would change to make the lessons more engaging, accessible, and inclusive would be to incorporate hands on manipulatives in multilingual form. I would provide students with graphic organizers and Frame Models in English/Spanish where they have to fill in the blank in order to support the Spanish speaking English Language Learners in my classroom.
Some elements of computational thinking concepts that I could incorporate into these lessons to improve them will involve making the task on Lesson 2 more simple and meaningful. I would use a grade level Math task from last year state test to allow my students to practice using CT as part of their math problem solving skills. I will concentrate on Math problems where students have to show their operations using the CT steps, while encouraging them to always do the necessary Math operation for any problem on the test, regardless if it does not ask them to show their work.
In my experience proctoring Math state exams, the majority of students mark their answers without even calculating the necessary operation to solve the problem in order to identify the correct multiple choice answer. Many students just guess or do the calculations mentally and when I ask them to solve the operation on the space provided next to the problem, and once they find the solution, they marvel to find out their original answer was incorrect.
he lessons’ strengths and weaknesses through the eyes of an instructional designer. As an instructional designer, what would you change to make these activities/lessons more engaging, accessible, and inclusive? What elements of computational thinking concepts can you incorporate into these lessons to improve them?
I found the 1st lesson more engaging than the 2nd lesson. The task was clearly stated and on grade level. The students were presented with a break down of the steps to solve the task and manipulatives were provided as well as graphic organizer like the Frame Model with sentence starters to assist students with coming up with the parts necessary to draw a monster.
I found that the 2nd lesson was not engaging enough. The task proved to be a bit outside of the grade level, as evidenced by only one student understanding the challenge. In order to improve the 2nd lesson I would provide students with manipulatives, like paper and pencil to facilitate the lesson and allow all learners to organize their ideas.
I found the second lesson extremely boring and it would not work with the diverse population in my middle school classroom. I would engage students with a a jigsaw puzzle activity; they would choose from a tangible or a digital puzzle as found here. I would set a two minute timer and ask students to complete their puzzle. Of course they would be unable to do so. Students would then be paired to develop a plan for solving the puzzle. I expect that students would start with grouping like-colored pieces together or, separating outer/edge pieces from the inner pieces. Another strategy would be to connect all like-colored pieces then connect the large sections together to complete the puzzle.
Abstraction and decomposition are key problem-solving strategies that can be applied to many different types of challenges, including jigsaw puzzles.
Abstraction is the process of reducing complex information to a simpler, more general form (Learning.com). When solving a jigsaw puzzle, abstraction involves identifying the key features of the puzzle, such as the color and shape of the pieces, and using this information to create a mental model of the completed puzzle. This mental model helps the solver to identify which pieces belong in which areas of the puzzle and can aid in the process of selecting and fitting pieces together.
Decomposition is the process of breaking down a complex problem into smaller, more manageable parts (Learning.com). When solving a jigsaw puzzle, decomposition involves separating the pieces into smaller groups based on their color or pattern, and then working on these smaller groups one at a time. By breaking the puzzle down into smaller parts, the solver can focus on each section more easily and can also identify which pieces are missing or not yet placed.
By using abstraction and decomposition, a jigsaw puzzle can be approached as a series of smaller, more manageable challenges that can be solved individually and then integrated into the larger puzzle.
After watching the 2 lessons, I believe that they are very strong lessons. The engagement for both lessons were interesting and appealing to students. I also think that the lessons highlight computational thinking very well. The teachers give the students the opportunity to “see” how they can think and/or plan in a computational way. Both lessons encourage students to break down the problem and create steps to solve it.
If I was to design these lessons, I would try to make it something that the students would work on problems that would be appropriate for them. Something that they would see in their communities or their classroom. I believe that the first lesson could have been to draw something other than monsters. Unless it’s Halloween, drawing monsters isn’t necessarily something that needs to be done. Instead, maybe drawing geometric shapes or architectural buildings would be more appropriate. In the second lesson, maybe the students could learn how to do a number problem that they would see in their units. Or money or time mathematical computation.
These are my thoughts on the lessons. I think by adding these changes it might make the lessons more accessible to students that do not see things abstractly and need more concrete examples.
I agree making the drawings more related to the unit they are working on would be more beneficial for the students. Or having the students create algorithms or games related to the math unit would make their learning relevant. Then students could use the algorithms they created to solve future problems independently.
Computational thinking skills have been integrated in the first lesson on monsters. Students have to use decomposition, pattern recognition and abstraction to create the steps needed to draw a monster. They need to see that every monster must have a head, eyes, nose and mouth. The location of each part must also be determined. Then students had to create algorithms so that another student can recreate that monster. The task is visual because the students are using the different drawing of eyes. To make this task more accessible you could make the drawing digital so that students can easily move the different pieces of the head on google slides to recreate the monster. This will also incorporate UDL because students can present their monster using different mediums. Digitally for those students who find it difficult to draw. A graphic organizer of the steps to follow can be given to students for further scaffolding. To make this more engaging you could have students create their own eyes, nose and mouth to create original monsters. They could create different features and gather data on which features are more scary or popular. Then they could use that data to create features for scarier monsters. Furthermore, students can start to create other drawing algorithms to teach their friends.
Computational thinking skills have also been integrated in the second lesson on creating a game. Students had to use decomposition, pattern recognition, abstraction and algorithmic thinking to solve the initial math problem. Students had to break down the steps to add the numbers 1-200. They noticed a pattern of the adding the lowest and then the highest number to find the sum of 201. Then they knew they could multiply this by 100 to find the total sum. I think to make this more accessible adding more visuals for these steps would benefit students. The teacher could create google slides so the students can see the numbers and notice the patterns. Then the students had to create a game using dice. Students found patterns among the steps, abstracted what was important by crossing out the words that were different. This let them create an algorithm for the game. One of the improvements would be to start following the steps of the game with the class before they work in groups. I say this because the game is a bit random. Then showing the students how to go about noticing patterns and abstraction because it can be confusing. For instance, we could color code the sentence frames so they can see the patterns more easily. Furthermore, to make this more accessible the game could be more realistic. The game used random pictures and told them to draw. This led some students to be confused because there was no real purpose to the game. I think it would be more accessible to give students the steps to an actual game. To help scaffold for students, graphic organizers or sentence starters for the steps to play the game would be beneficial so that students can see how to phrase the steps. Or instead of creating a game to be used with dice, the lesson could continue integrating math. Students could create mathematical algorithms for addition, subtraction, multiplication or division.
Wow! I wish that I could be a student in your classroom! You have amazing ideas. I love how you would UDL the lesson. We do it all the time in class. Making the lesson accessible to ALL students. I like the digital idea also. I am so bad at drawing, I would feel more comfortable on a computer. The dice idea is genius. I think students love using them. What great ideas.
I love your idea of making the lesson more accessible and exciting/engaging for the students.
In an effort to make the lesson more engaging for the opening question of the math problem, I would incentivize it. Saying that whoever figured out the answer would get a prize or reward. I would choose a different language and not say that learning about algorithms makes them “the smartest” I could also make the mathematical problem more engaging and inclusive by adding manipulatives to the activity. In regard to the second activity, I would present a model of how the game could be created or played to serve as an example for the students.
I think your ideas would definitely make the lessons amazing. Students always want to compete against anyone and anything. I can visualize how eager the students would be during your lesson.
The use of manipulatives wold make the lesson more accessible for more learners! Good idea!