“With freedom come responsibility”. This is what my boss tell teachers who go through our teacher training to intro to Computer Science course. Well, the same say applyes to any project based learning (PBL). Because when the students get more room of choice, the teachers -by default- assume less responsibility. Hence, PBL is a great way to push students to their potential of creativity and steepen up their learning curve. But that comes with a price. The teacher is now assuming the role of a coach (Isslehardt, 2013) where the responsibility of learning transfers to the students, which is not exactly a straightforward process. It has to be gradual. It has to be smooth.
I think programming in of itself pushes one to think creatively. Applying it in the context of making just makes the whole experience much more interesting and creative. If I would assign a project based programming assignment, it would be game development where the user need to interact with anything other than mouse and keyboard. The latter rule can be accommodated by providing Makey Makey , a tool that makes almost anything a keyboard. To be precise, the main criteria on assessing this programming project will be:
1- Create a game that a 4 year old would be able to play
2- The game is fun with creative input, so that a middle-aged person would want to try! (hint: you can use Makey Makey)
3- The game functions well, that a peer student cannot catch a single bug.
In this way, the students are given the freedom to work on something they are passionate about, and they will need to think outside the box to related to the different age groups that might play with their game. Of course their coding skills will be put to test to create a fully functional game.
Inspired from Wiggins (2012) and his insights on assessments, the assessment is made concise. Yet, it looks at the Impact and creativity of the project, by making sure the audience actually play the game “whether or not it is fun or boring”. The assessment criteria also clarifies the purpose of the project, as Wiggins puts it “to make clear that the purpose is to cause an intrinsic effect, NOT please the teacher”.
Stressing on the idea of teachers acts like a coach, Isslehardt explains how important it was for the teachers to have a day-to-day base-touch with students, to make sure they are progressing in their projects. It is expected that students might not have the discipline to take progressive actions when meeting an obstacle. Hence, the teacher should act her role of following up, guiding and supporting her students.
Just like Gee’s reflection on the power of videogames in his own childhood (like many of us experienced), I believe it is even more effective to allow students create that experience for someone else, as it will be an incentive to flourish their creativity.
References:
Wiggins, G. (2012, February 3). On assessing for creativity: yes you can, and yes you should. [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://grantwiggins.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/on-assessing-for-creativity-yes-you-can-and-yes-you-should/
Isslehardt, E. (2013, February 11). Creating Schoolwide PBL Aligned to Common Core [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/PBL-aligned-to-common-core-eric-isslehardt
Hanan Alshikh 