Metro E WeDo 2.0 & TelloDrone Field Day

Update Below ↓↓↓

For the Metro Elementary Field Day, my partner Brandy Zinsmeyer and I thought it would be best to create a small anchor chart going over the various coding terms for our students for each activity. Since there is 20 minutes per activity, we could resonably spend 10-15 minutes discussing the terms and showing the coding systems with the last 5-10 minutes actually utilizing the students code with the WeDo Legos and TelloDrone. 

ANCHOR CHART: 

Below is an example of what our anchor chart will look like. Obviously each term will be related to the software we are using rather than what is identified in the picture, but this is just an idea. Some terms for each might include: 

WeDo 2.0 - Flow Blocks, Motor Blocks, LED Blocks, Display Blocks, Sound Blocks, Repeat, Start, etc.

TelloDrone - Navigation, Flip, Takeoff, Land, Loops, Forward/Backward/Left/Right/Up/Down, etc.

Anchor Chart Example

CODING PRACTICE:

For example, imagine the following image as a print out, where each section or function is a separate cut out that students can tangibly rearrange before using it on the computer. We thought it would be best to have the student rearrange each function however they agree and translate it to show them what they created!

Below is the coding format for the TelloDrone and WeDo Lego Software that the students will be working with. 

TEST IT OUT: 

Each function will be explained in the anchor chart, then the student will pratcice the software with manipulatives (the cut outs), and finally we will end each portion with the students practicing their shared code. 

WeDo 2.0 - ISTE CT Standard 5.4.b: "Design authentic learning activities that ask students to leverage a design process to solve problems with awareness of technical and human constraints and defend their design choices." 

TelloDrone - ISTE CT Standard 5.3.b: "Apply effective teaching strategies to support student collaboration around computing, including pair programming, working in varying team roles, equitable workload distribution and project management."

UPDATE: 

On Tuesday, September 26th, my partner and I were finally able to share our activities with the students of Metro Elementary! I think that in all, it went well. The students were very well behaved and engaged in out activity. We created 2 anchor charts, one for WeDo 2.0 and another for the TelloDrone activity. Brandy was able to create magnets that the students could work with to write their own code, and I think that it was a VERY useful. Here are a few pictures!

                   

To begin a brief recap, we arrived around 4pm at Metro Elementary School of Design. We were all prepping everything necessary for our activities before we made our way to the cafeteria and met the students we would be working with. By 4:20pm I was introduced to three adorable 4th and 5th graders who were well mannered and very focused. Our first activity was the TelloDrone, and almost everything was perfect. 

TelloDrone:

We began with our anchor charts and explained each function, we had some discussions about prior knowledge and their experiences with STEM as a whole. Our students all agreed that their school does not focus a lot on Science, but they assured us that it was a big interests for most of them. The magnet board that was created proved incredibly helpful, and we were able to use it with our students, no problems. 

Towards the end of our lesson, it became time to use our drones, but we had a few technical difficulties. When we first entered the cafeteria, I synced the drone to my TelloDrone smartphone app, and assumed it would stay charged since it was not in use, but I was wrong. 

Once it came time to use the actual drone with students, the drone battery had died and it had to be repaired with a new battery. We were not able to successfully connect the drone, but were able to swap it out for our table parnters'. Our students had an amazing time watching the drone perform the sequence of code they were able to come up with, but we finished our lesson a few minutes behind schedule. 

Lego WeDo 2.0

After moving from the cafeteria to the outside area, we worked on the second activity, WeDo 2.0 Legos. Unfortunately, by this point the students had already been pretty amazed by our drones, and out lego activity was not as engaging for them. One of our students had left, and the two we worked with were just not as interested as the first time around. We went over our second anchor chart, and I believe it was just a lot of information to absorb at once. The Send Messages activity did not have the same engagement as the glowing snail or quacking duck thing. It is understandable, since our activity is a bit more complex. It would take more than 20 minutes to truly go through the necessary components to enjoy and understand this lego activity like my partner and I had over the course of 3 weeks. I do feel that it was still a success, but there are definetly things I would do differently, which I will talk more about below. 

Field Experience Reflection:

In thinking about the ISTE CT Standards, I feel that many can apply depending on the extent our day is looked at. If I were to assign any specific standards, they would be the ones previously listed in the former blog, Those standards are as follows: 

WeDo 2.0 - ISTE CT Standard 5.4.b: "Design authentic learning activities that ask students to leverage a design process to solve problems with awareness of technical and human constraints and defend their design choices." 

TelloDrone - ISTE CT Standard 5.3.b: "Apply effective teaching strategies to support student collaboration around computing, including pair programming, working in varying team roles, equitable workload distribution and project management."

Taking a larger look at the work we completed, I would go as far as to say the entire day in itself is best reflected through "Facilitator" (Educators facilitate learning by integrating computational thinking practices into the classroom. Since computational thinking is a foundational skill, educators develop every student’s ability to recognize opportunities to apply computational thinking in their environment. Educators:) 5.5.b Empower students to select personally meaningful computational projects. Any artifacts as a reflection of this can be seen throughout this blog post. I believe that the learning done in this lesson could only be achieved through an educator who is passionate, who is skillful in intergration of CT, and who can recognize any opportunity for students to learn. Even while having technical difficulties with our drone, we walked through the process with our students, to ensure they understood how and why problems like these may occur, and what to look for when resolving. I feel most strongly and connected with 5.5.b, nonetheless, either previous standard is best suited with each activity.

Reflection: 

All in all, I think it was a great experience. I believe that our students left with more knowledge than they started with, and in teaching that is always a win! I hope that for next time things can run smoother, with less tenchincal difficulties, but they can't all be winners. I think that having situations like the one with our drone makes the educator much more prepared for the second time around. You recognize what to troubleshoot for, you plan further ahead and you problem solve a quick fix. One thing I have learned, is to always be on my toes. I would like to ideally have more time to work with the students, and more autonomy for the activities we can do, but the materials we were provided were in no way boring. One of my favorite parts of STEM, is the ability to teach activities with the Low Cost, No Cost ideology. When working as the STEM Coordinator at the Garcia Center, I was able to create activities that students can recreate at home without breaking the bank. Hopefully soon coding and advanced technology like drones will be much more affordable and accessible for young students. Until then, I hope to be able to introduce this kind of work to other students.