Faculty Visit to Lighthouse Creativity Lab

In the latter part of January, a group of 11 Parker faculty visited the Lighthouse Charter School, which is located in Oakland, California. We had participants from all three divisions on the trip. Why? Well, Lighthouse not only has a really fantastic and fully outfitted "maker space" (this is essentially another name for a design lab - both of them are spaces that allow students and faculty to produce both rapid prototypes as well as finished products), Lighthouse also provides specialized instruction to visiting teachers about how to best engage design thinking in their instruction. We were very fortunate to not only have Aaron Vanderwerff, the director for the Creativity Lab, as our guide - we also were joined by Angi Chau, who runs the Bourn Idea Lab at Castilleja School. Our consultant, Parker Thomas, also came each day to assist us.

View of the Creativity Lab space @ Lighthouse

We were all impressed by the "wall of stuff" in the room!

One purpose of our visit was to allow these 11 faculty to receive hands on experience using many of the tools that are used in a maker space or design lab, including 3D printers, computers with CAD design and basic programming software, laser cutters, and other "tools of the trade." Over the course of two days this group of faculty went from having zero knowledge or experience about these things to producing finished products that related to potential projects they would later use with students. The majority of faculty in our group had never been exposed to these technologies, and so having the opportunity to receive an introduction and guided practice on these various technologies was enormously beneficial. We had English, history, and foreign language teachers learn, use, and develop lesson ideas that integrated these technologies to improve a lesson they'd previously used in the classroom. Meanwhile, our science, technology and math teachers learned some new approaches to integrating technology into their lessons, as well as learning some new technology as well.

However, the main purpose was for our faculty to be exposed to the nuances and various iterations of design thinking - which includes elements of engineering design, art design (creative process), the philosophy of making, and also studying complexities in systems. As a result of their learning on these topics, each faculty member would then engage in crafting a lesson or series of lessons that featured design thinking (and perhaps some of the new technologies) to take back to their students at Parker. This work was the main focus of our time and energy.

Our first activity was to examine the parts, purposes, and complexities of an object in small groups. This served as a focusing activity wherein we took an ordinary object and examined it very, very closely. We were encouraged to take the object apart to truly examine the many facets of its composition. My group had a remote control from an older TV. On the surface level. we understood the remote and its purpose. But opening it up to see the chip, wiring, LED light and circuit board that made the entire thing work brought an entirely new level of understanding about the complexity of a relatively simple device. All groups undertook this close examination - and yet the way each group went about that task was fascinatingly different.

The net result was that we had a greater understanding around the first two steps of our design thinking process: Notice and Focus. We also discovered that an activity such as this is a really great orienting tool for student examination of a variety of things ranging from literature to the scientific method.

We then engaged in an extended discussion about the word "design" and what it meant. We obtained new perspective regarding the intersection of design thinking with teaching and learning. Angi and Aaron shared their respective journeys in founding their design labs, including the victories and challenges that they encountered. While some significant learning outcomes have been observed and experienced, they both shared that the work was ongoing and evolving - and that they did not forecast a close to the iterating process of the design lab. It was fascinating to hear how different each school's design lab journey was. They have both cultivated a culture of design thinking in their schools, but it looks and feels very different in each location.

It was also interesting to hear just how long it's taken them to get to where they are. Both schools were well over five years into developing a design thinking program in their school, and they were still hard at work to establish it throughout their curriculum. This opened up a lot of questions from Parker faculty in terms of what worked, what didn't, and how to continue making progress at a tempo that felt natural. The learning we took away was that there is no one right way to engage in design thinking - and that for us to be successful, we need to find our unique Parker approach and continually refine it over time moving forward.

As briefly mentioned above, our groups also delved into the use of new software and hardware as part of delivering a design thinking curriculum. Our group particularly enjoyed its experience with TinkerCad and then 3D printing items. As we were all beginners, we began with a relatively easy object: a "Mickey Mouse" ring. Great fun and a lot of insight from our hands-on experiences with this. As a result, we have a host of faculty eager to try these things out with their teams moving forward.

Using TinkerCad to design the ring/object.

The 3D printer gets to work!

The finished "Mickey Mouse" ring - a success!

The faculty worked extraordinarily hard and really pushed their thinking in terms of not just design thinking, but engineering design and the application of coding/programming into all facets of the curriculum. Due to our small size, each faculty member received generous amounts of one-on-one time with all of our facilitators. At the end of the second day, we spent time having all faculty present their lessons to one another using a structured feedback protocol. As a result, what were already solid lessons became even more creative and meaningful. In the next post, you'll see one of the lessons that was re-imagined in the Creativity Lab brought to life!

Sharing an English lesson involving Design Thinking

Sharing an integrated math/science lesson.

Sharing a re-vamp of a MS science lesson.

Special thanks to Angi Chau, Aaron Vanderwerff, and Parker Thomas for providing us with a chock-full two days of incredible learning and discourse, not to mention great humor and delicious meals!

4th Grade Redesign of the Culminating Project on CA Missions

Our 4th grade students have typically studied the role and history of missions as part of their larger examination of California State History. 

The culminating project for the curricular unit on Missions used to be a PBL (problem based learning) type lesson. Students would learn about a specific California mission, as well as learn about the general mission system in California. Last year, the teaching team decided to try a project form another school that was entitled "The 22nd Mission Project". After students learned about the 21 California missions that had existed, they made a 22nd mission based on meeting a need that might have surfaced in the historical era of missions. This meant that the problem and solution were both set in the past. It was a creative group project and students built a physical model, however, the net result was not very different from what they had learned about and creativity was ultimately fairly limited.

With the introduction of design thinking into the School, the 4th grade teachers realized that there was a chance to try something new. In consultancy with Parker Thomas, the project took a turn to the modern era. Rather than creating a mission for "back in the day," students would create a mission for modern day San Diego - one that would meet a community need and serve the community as it is today. As such, the project question (design challenge) became: "How might we create a mission program in the modern day to improve our community or world?"  

Here is a brief outline of how the project played out in our 4th grade classrooms this year: 

Notice and Focus: Students had post its and they began writing ideas of what organization they'd create to help others. The teachers started by having students put ideas on post its at their tables... and they ended up with a slew of post-its and lots of great ideas. After individuals brainstormed, groups of four kids began to sort and organize the ideas. Based on the student-group organized stickies, the teacher created some over-arching categories. Kids then took the stickies and grouped the stickies into the over-arching categories as a full class. Once all ideas were grouped off, the class narrowed down all of the options to 7 different ideas. These "big ideas" with associated sticky notes were then posted up in stations around the room. 

During the presentation, a group shares the origin of their idea on their display: the post it note where a student indicated their interest in creating a wildlife preserve for all species. 

Brainstorm, Design Create: The teacher then asked kids what they were passionate about and what they wanted to focus on in the design and create phases. Students were instructed to go sit under the poster that named the over-arching topic that was most interesting to them. Students began to talk with others who had migrated to the same area of the classroom and who wanted to focus on the same topic. The teachers noted that a very positive side effect was that kids didn't just follow their friends - they went where they were genuinely interested. The teachers encouraged kids to explore other groups if they weren't sure where they would fit or if they weren't quite sure which idea was the most interesting. Some students moved around a lot, while others stayed in their first choice. A second positive side effect was that kids began generating ideas collectively on their own without prompting. In one notable example, where students were going to create a free access high tech gym, the kids discovered that they were of very different backgrounds and yet somehow they found a way to really make it work. One kid stepped up to be the trainer, one the nutritionist, and the student who was very tech-focused ended up as the designer of the equipment. The kids self made those roles and group placements on their own. It was incredible to watch unfold! 

The teachers gave students several questions to consider in the design and create phases, including:  What does org look like? What is it's purpose or vision? Who will do what in your group? Who do you need to make it run? Students were to identify roles needed, not specific people who they thought should do work in their organization. General outlines and ideas were given to students, and in return students began fleshing out those ideas in detail. Teachers monitored student progress by having students hand in work daily - this was done in traditional written logs/journals as well as using iPads in the "documentation" process. 

Test: The test phase was for groups to first present their work informally to the class and all groups got feedback in this presentation. The class also asked questions of the group which further refined and fleshed out each group's thinking. It also led to a list of tasks for each group to complete in the refinement of their thinking process. The teacher had to train the class that it is absolutely a-ok to not have all the answers at this phase. :) Then, after students revamped their presentations and information, 5th graders, the principal, assistant principal, and assistant head of school came in to view the presentations and provide feedback. The groups took questions about their concepts and provided clarifications as needed. While it would have been nice for kids to once again go through a refinement process, the honest truth is that after the more formal second test presentation, students didn't make substantive changes to their program or mission idea. This might be because they didn't know how or what to do. It might be because the questions asked didn't point enough to specific areas of improvement. Budget type items are very complex and 4th grade knowledge is limited - they don't even understand the concept that taxes fund many different things. The teaching team has determined that it might be helpful to first teach where money comes from, or at least provide some basic economics understandings first.  Another thought the team had was to put another unit of study, the business unit, earlier in the year and then have this new missions project come later in the year. 

Students present their ideas to an audience and obtain feedback.

Another student group presents their modern day mission.

Reflection component: The teacher wrote questions for students to answer to reflect on their work, including: What did you learn, what was your favorite part of the project, what was your least favorite? Should 4th grade use this project again? Kids were very enthusiastic in their responses, with a vast majority stating that the project should definitely be done again for future 4th graders. Also as part of the reflection component, students were asked to reflect on their contribution to the group - what did they do, what could they do better, what did they like about what they did. This was all done in writing. This feedback set up some good conversation about each student's role and contribution.

Share: There was no formalized "share" step and there was not an exhibition night, but there were artifacts produced by the kids that were photographed and captured via video,  and those artifacts were posted up for parents to see, review and discuss with their students. 

All in all, the teaching team felt very enthusiastic about the redesign of this project, and students were highly engaged at all steps of the process. Next year will see continued refinement and hopefully additional design oriented projects for students to tackle!