Running Head: LESSON PLAN CRITIQUE: PROGRAMMING AND COMPUTATIONAL THOUGHT

Lesson Plan Critique:

Programming and Computational Thought: Introduction to Entry Level Programming utilizing Robots

Jonathan Nilson

95651148

ETEC512-64C

UBC

Sunah Cho
Running Head: LESSON PLAN CRITIQUE 2

Introduction

The lesson I have chosen to critique, “Programming and Computational Thought: Introduction to Entry

Level Programming utilizing Robots” is by no means weak or faulty. Many of its aspects reflect elements

found within general constructivist theory. Further, while not clearly articulated, links to behaviourist

principles can be made, as well as to the gamification models of Cognitive Nueroscientist and Teacher

Judy Willis. However, the lesson can benefit from a more conscious linking to specific educational

theories, as well as adjustments so that these theories can be more fully implemented. With this in

mind, I will identify and expand upon areas that would benefit from a more deliberate inclusion of

specific principles, including: behaviourism and how it relates to classroom management; the game

theory and cognitive neuroscience practices of Judy Willis and how they may impact students levels of

engagement; and constructivist theories, including those of Jerome Bruner and Jean Piaget, and how

they aid students’ development of their own knowledge.

Behaviourism

While the majority of the lesson utilizes theories other than behaviourism as means of students

developing and practicing their knowledge, behaviourism can play a significant role in how the lesson is

executed, particularly in creating a manageable learning environment. Using appropriate stimuli and

reinforcements to indicate when the lesson is to begin and when transitions are to occur would

minimize disruptions as students move from one activity to the other. Fudge et al (2008) identifies that

group activity transitions are difficult to manage effectively, and when not approached in a clear,

systematic fashion, may result in increased off-task behaviours and lost learning time.

In its current state, the lesson plan only makes minor use of behaviourism. Situated at the start of the

lesson, robots following an automated pattern within a circle of student chairs provide an initial

stimulus. This stimulus is intended to generate a response of gathering students together, capturing
Running Head: LESSON PLAN CRITIQUE 3

their attention and generating a conversation. The effectiveness of this stimuli is determined by both

past practice and the application of appropriate reinforcement, such as positive comments and

acknowledgement of the on-task behaviour (Standridge, 2002).

What the lesson significantly lacks is an effective means of transitioning between each section of the

lesson. This not only includes the introduction, robotic challenges and final reflection pieces, but also in

between the robotic challenges themselves. In order to address this, I would utilize musical stimuli in

manner similar to Brent Vasicek (2011, January 5), as means to mark, indicate the length of, and even

warn of the approach of transition times. For each transition, I would play a music clip of a set length

that the students were familiar with so that they were both aware that they were within a transition

time and also how long they had to transition. In the case of intense activities, where the warning of an

impending transition would be useful, I would play another musical clip of a specific length, such as two

minutes, where the students could ensure they have completed their activities to the best of their

abilities, before moving on to the next.

Judy Willis, Cognitive Neuroscience and the Video Game Model

Judy Willis’ theories on the benefits of the video game model to aid learning (2011, April 14) seems a

logical fit for a lesson that consists of a series of scaled challenges. Of particular interest are her theories

relating to individualized achievement challenge, or tasks that are within a student’s potential to achieve

but whose success are not automatically guaranteed. This, when combined with the subsequent

dopamine boosts that result from student success, encourages students to be resilient and engaged

when they are faced with steadily more difficult tasks.

Unmodified, the lesson plan does have elements of Willis’ theories, specifically in the set of

incrementally more difficult challenges that the students must accomplish. Success in one challenge

allows students to progress to the next, allowing for the “…harder work as a reward for doing well”
Running Head: LESSON PLAN CRITIQUE 4

(Willis, 2011, April 14) element that she sees as key for the brain receiving dopamine surges. However,

the challenge of maneuvering a robot through a series of paths seems almost too simple, and the

likelihood of success to obvious for students to necessarily meet the criteria for individualized

achievement challenges. As a result of this lack of challenge, students might find themselves bored and

disengaged from these lesson (Willis, 2011, May 24), and certainly not receiving the doses of dopamine

that Willis sees as integral to intrinsic motivation.

In order to make the challenges more engaging, I would add the additional variable of having to

complete each specific task in the least amount of time as possible, combined with an overall maximum

amount of time allowed for the completion of all challenges. Students would therefore want to

minimize how long it takes to complete each task to ensure they had enough time for subsequent ones.

Students would still have a set activity time for each challenge that would allow them multiple

opportunities to achieve the best possible challenge time.

Constructivism: Bruner and Piaget

When originally conceived, this lesson plan, was intended to include constructivist elements, the core of

which is the opportunity for students to build and develop their own knowledge and understanding,

rather than simply having content delivered to them with the expectation of memorization. This is

reflective of the constructivist belief that knowledge is not simply something that can transmitted from

one to another, but is rather a product of one’s attempts to internally organize their experiences and

the context in which they occurred (Von Glasersfeld, 2008).

To facilitate learning, constructivists such as Jerome Bruner suggest that the role of teachers is to

provide structured support for these experiences, often in the form of limiting choice or variables, as

students begin to build their knowledge of new concepts (Wheeler, 2016, June 7). Referred to as

scaffolding, this support is gradually reduced as students become more familiar with the concepts being
Running Head: LESSON PLAN CRITIQUE 5

learned. As learning occurs, students determine how the newly acquired experiences and information

will incorporated into their existing knowledge schema. Jean Piaget’s cognitive development theory

recognized the need for this incorporation, which he differentiated between assimilation, the

integration of new information into existing knowledge schema, and accommodation, the alteration of

knowledge schema in order to account for the new data (Zhiqing, 2015).

While present to some degree, the above mentioned constructivist elements are underdeveloped within

the lesson and do not maximize the student learning opportunities. The scaled robot challenges do

somewhat resemble a scaffolded activity, but the provision of all the coding language at the lesson’s

start, removed from the context of the relevant challenges, may not provide enough structure for

success. Further, while an opportunity is provided for students to reflect on their learning at the end of

the lesson, there is no opportunity at the start to determine their existing knowledge schema. Without

such an initial assessment, it is difficult to determine what the actual impact of the learning is, including

whether students were able to assimilate the newly acquired information or whether accommodation

was required. While a seemingly minor detail, the assimilation versus accommodation question would

help determine the success of previous introductory programming lessons.

To better align the lesson with Bruner’s scaffolding concepts, I would adjust the delivery of the

foundational coding concepts so that the relevant information was presented right before the required

activity. The initial activity would require the greatest amount of support, with each subsequent activity

requiring only supplement code to support that specific challenge. Further, less explanation of the

nature of the code would be required as students become adept with the programming language.

To allow for a clearer understanding of students’ existing knowledge of programming and computational

thought, I would also include a new reflection opportunity as a pre-learning activity where students

would outline what they understood about computer code, including what influenced this knowledge.
Running Head: LESSON PLAN CRITIQUE 6

This initial reflection would later be utilized as point of reference in the subsequent end of lesson

reflection, in which students would indicate how their knowledge had changed or grown from this

starting point. This in turn, would allow me to better assess the development of my students’ learning,

including if they were able to assimilate their coding experiences into an already well-structured, open

knowledge schema, or whether they were required to accommodate the information and radically

rethink what they knew about programming.

Conclusion

While I considered this lesson plan to be comprehensive and well thought out when I initially developed

it, subsequent experience with several educational theories have brought deficiencies to light.

Behaviourist principles, game theory and elements of Bruner and Piaget were all present, yet they are

approached haphazardly and with limited understanding. While this lesson will continue to be under

development, and will remain so as long as I continue learning, this new iteration is a much better

reflection of both my knowledge of these educational theories and the potential they have to impact the

learning of my students.

Critique References

Fudge, D. L., Skinner, C. H., Williams, J. L., Cowden, D., Clark, J., & Bliss, S. L. (2008). Increasing on-task

behavior in every student in a second-grade classroom during transitions: Validating the color

wheel system. Journal of School Psychology, 46(5). Retrieved from:

http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/sci

ence/article/pii/S0022440508000307?np=y
Running Head: LESSON PLAN CRITIQUE 7

Standridge, M. (2002). Behaviorism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and

technology. Retrieved from: http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/index.php?title=Behaviorism

Vasicek, B. (2011, January 5). Music to manage your classroom. Retrieved from:

http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/classroom_solutions/2011/01/music-to-manage-your-

classroom

Von Glasersfeld, E. (2008). Learning as a Constructive Activity. AntiMatters, 2(3), 33-49.

Retrieved from: http://anti-matters.org/articles/73/public/73-66-1-PB.pdf

Wheeler, S. (2016, June 7). Scaffolds and spirals. [Web log comment] Retrieved from: http://www.steve-

wheeler.co.uk/2016/06/scaffolds-and-spirals.html

Willis, J. (2011, April 14). A neurologist makes the case for the video game model as a learning tool.

[Web log comment] Retrieved from: https://www.edutopia.org/blog/neurologist-makes-case-

video-game-model-learning-tool

Willis, J. (2011, May 24). How to plan instruction using the video game model. [Web log comment]

Retrieved from: https://www.edutopia.org/blog/how-to-plan-instruction-video-game-model-

judy-willis-md

Zhiqing, Z. (2015, January). Assimilation, accommodation, and equilibration: A schema-based

perspective on translation as process and as product. International Forum of Teaching and

Studies, Vol. 11(1/2). Retrieved from: http://scholarspress.us/journals/IFST/pdf/IFOTS-2-

2015/v11n2-art9.pdf
Running Head: LESSON PLAN CRITIQUE 8

ICT: Programming and Computational Thought Unit: Revised

Lesson 2: Introduction to Entry Level Programming utilizing Robots
Grade Level: 8-9 (Secondary)
Subject Area: Junior ICT (BC - Applied Skills and Design Curriculum)
Required Time: 1-2 Classes
Lesson Utilizing a class set (10) of “Sphero/SPRK” robots and student owned devices
Description: (smartphones/tablets) preloaded with the programming application “Tickle”, students will
explore in groups of three the basics of basic programming languages. The Tickle enabled
devices will be used to control the robots through a series of increasingly challenging tasks,
requiring students to explore the variables and limitations of the programming language.
Student group members will be assigned rotating roles within their triads, alternating
between robot control, data/process recording and general support of the activity.
Learning  General learning Outcomes:
Outcomes: o Students will be able to demonstrate the use of a programming language
(Tickle) to accomplish basic tasks, while providing specific examples of
programming language grammar and syntax.
o Students will develop an understanding on the roles of variables within a
programming environment, and the variables affect outcomes.
o Students will explore the specificity of programming languages and how to
accomplish tasks despite language restrictions/limitations.
 This lesson will also provide opportunities to address these specific learning outcomes
from the BC Curriculum.
o Content - Students will be introduced to and work with:
 Programming with modular components
 Collaboration in a cloud-based environment
o Curricular Competencies (Ideating Focus) – Students will:
 Take creative risks in generating ideas and add to others’ ideas in ways
that enhance them
 Screen ideas against criteria and constraints
 Critically analyze and prioritize competing factors, including social,
ethical, and sustainability considerations, to meet community needs
for preferred futures
 Choose an idea to pursue, keeping other potentially viable ideas open
o Cross-Curricular Competencies – Students will practice how:
 To impart and exchange information effectively (Communication)
 To critically assess and creatively address specific challenges (Thinking)
 To engage with peers in a socially responsible and respectful way,
while maintaining a positive sense of self within the dialogue (Personal
and Social Responsibility)
Previous Students should understand as general concept how computer programming languages are
Learning: highly restrictive and specific, and the inability of computers to understand vague or intuitive
instructions as humans can. Concurrently, students should also understand that despite
these limitations, programming languages can allow computers and other digital devices to
accomplish incredible things. An initial reflection as a part of pre-lesson activity will
indicate whether such learning has actually occurred, and whether it may need to be
compensated for.
Resources  10 Sphero/SPRK robots
Required:  4-6 rolls of masking tapes for creating paths and mazes
 Enough floor space for said mazes and paths
 10 Tape measures/meter sticks
 4-6 additional smart devices for students who lack access
Running Head: LESSON PLAN CRITIQUE 9

 Projector with means of attaching smart device for demonstration purposes

 Previously set-up digital portfolios, that are enabled to accept video and have
features that support comments/responses
Lesson  Previous class, assign the downloading of Tickle (free) to smart devices as
Preparation: homework.
 Previous class, assign pre-learning reflection activity
o Guiding questions:
 When you think of the term programming language, what do you
think it means?
 What do you think programming code looks like?
 Have you ever seen an example of programming code? Where?
(Note – Constructivism/Piaget: this pre-learning activity reflects the changes necessary to
determine whether new knowledge about coding is either assimilated or accommodated)
 Previous class, ensure students have a means of sharing recorded data from their
devices (ie cloud based services such a Google Drive or DropBox).
 Ensure all robots have been charged.
 Pre-divide class into groups of 3.
Assessment Assessment will be primarily formative, and will include both teacher comments and self-
Methods: reflections. The teacher will provide continual feedback and support during each stage or
challenge. Students groups will video record the process of identifying, analyzing and solving
each challenge, which will be uploaded to their digital portfolios and form the foundation of
a later reflection. The teacher will comment and engage in a dialogue with the student about
the reflection, which will also be documented in the digital portfolio.
Class Summary: Introduction: Approximately 10-15 minutes
 Have student seats set up in a circle.
 Have Sphero robot circling and changing colours on the floor in a pre-programmed
loop within the seated circle (hook/attention getting device).
 Students enter class and immediately join the circle. Likely engage in pre-class bell
conversation about what they are seeing.
 Initial Discussion/Activation of Prior Knowledge
o Ask guiding questions about what the students see occurring before them:
eg – What is taking place? How does the robot know to do this? What are
the nature of instructions?
Set-Up: 3-5 minutes
 Inform students of their groups
 Have group members collect materials – masking tape, measuring tape, cups and
robot (as well as a spare device if necessary).
 Have groups find a clear space within the class or just outside to set up their
challenges.
 Play the 1 minute transition music to prepare students for next section of the
lesson and to alert them to be ready to receive instruction.
(Note - Behaviourism: this is the first instance in the lesson of using music as a behavioural
stimulus, to elicit a response of students bringing a specific activity to a close and then
focusing on the teacher. Gentle encouragement and positive words are to be used as
reinforcers)

Activities
 Utilizing the teacher device and the projector, demonstrate how to connect to the
robot via Bluetooth and the Tickle application.
 Have students complete all three challenges, as listed on the accompanying activity
sheet. In summary:
Running Head: LESSON PLAN CRITIQUE 10

o Students assume one of three roles within the group that they rotate
through: controller, recorder or supporter.
o Using the projector and teacher device, the teacher introduces the
programming instructions in Tickle necessary/useful for completing the
challenge. As a part of it:
 The teacher should only introduce the commands and variable
necessary for the particular challenge the students are currently
on.
 Each subsequent challenge, the total number of instructions
should be reduces, reflecting the existence of previously
provided instructions and the students’ own growing confidence
in coding.
 Students should follow along with their own devices and Tickle
application.
(Note – Constructivism/Bruner: this alteration reflects the need for more clearly defined
scaffolding. The first challenge receives the greatest amount of support, while subsequent
challenges receive proportionately less, as student experience grows.)

o Each challenge is scaled to provide gradually increasing challenges that are

intended to stretch yet still be within the students’ capacities. The scaling
includes:
 Steadily more complex scenarios requiring more advanced
instructions or a greater number of programming variables to
choose from.
 A greater number of environmental variables.
 The need to complete the challenge in the fastest time possible.
 A maximum time limit of 120 seconds, in which all three
challenges must be completed.
(Note – Willis/Game Theory: these additions increase the individualized achievement
challenge to a level that decreases the absolute certainty of success, but is still within the
abilities of the students.)

o Student are to follow a critical/creative thinking approach to the

challenges, including an initial assessment of the problem, an inventorying
of resources (knowledge or skill based), developing potential ideas or
solutions to the challenge, and opportunities to test the solutions and
adjust according to feedback.
o Students are to video record the critical/creative thinking process as well as
their solution attempts, which will be uploaded to digital portfolios and
form the basis of post lesson reflections.
o Students are given twenty minutes to accomplish each challenge. When
there are only two minutes remaining, the two minute warning music will
play, providing students with enough time to make one last attempt at
improving their time and to prepare themselves to move on to the next
activity/challenge.
(Note - Behaviourism: another instance of using a musical stimulus to ensure smooth
transition between activities.)

Break
 Depending on class variables (student rate of success, students with specific
learning needs, length of class, etc) a break may be required and the lesson carried
on with the next class.
Running Head: LESSON PLAN CRITIQUE 11

Group Discussion/Closure
 Once the challenges have been completed by all students, an opportunity to
discuss the challenges as a class is provided. This will assist with students in
assimilating or accommodating their learning, and provide support for when they
later have to reflect on their experience.
 Guiding questions for the group discussion should initially focus on how the reality
of programming differed from what students’ initial impressions were, and
whether their impressions were close or radically different. Subsequent discussion
points should provide students the opportunity to express their own impressions
of the coding experience, including what they found useful or limiting, and what
kind of challenges they would like to take on next with their newly developed
knowledge.
Portfolios and Reflection
 Before the end of the lesson or final class, students need to be provided an
opportunity to upload the recorded videos to a common or shared area, such as
Google Drive, Dropbox, or, depending on portfolio setup, YouTube.
 Reflections can be completed either as part of the classroom activities or as an at
home follow-up to the days and events.
 Reflections should focus on articulating the points that came up during the group
discussion, including how their own learning was impacted by the activities.
Particular attention should be paid to whether the learning built upon existing
knowledge schema or required the formation of new schema.
(Note – Constructivism/Piaget: both the group discussion and the reflection piece are
intended to assist in either the assimilation or accommodation of the students newly
constructed learning. Further, they will also indicate whether it was assimilation or
accommodation that occurred, indicating the effectiveness of previous lessons in laying the
foundation for this assignment.)

 Reflections will be followed up teacher comments in the portfolio, initiating a

dialogue both about the activity and the students’ individual perspectives on their
learning.
Running Head: LESSON PLAN CRITIQUE 12

ICT 8-9: Introduction to Programming/Computational Thought Revised

Robot Challenges
Using your Sphero and smart devices, you will work in groups of three to complete each one of these challenges in
the fastest time possible. You will have approximately 20 minutes for each challenge, in which you may make
multiple attempts to complete the challenge. The fastest times for each of the three challenges will be
combined, and cannot exceed 120 seconds in total (Note - Willis/Game Theory: this continues to address the
issue of an appropriate individualized achievement challenge.)

Group Roles: Alternate for each challenge

 Controller: Uses their device to program the robot and make adjustments to the language/code as the
group makes discoveries and adapts to feedback.
 Recorder: Uses their device to video record the challenge, including the initial brainstorming/problem
solving discussions, later adjustments to the solution based upon feedback and failed attempts, and the
final success of meeting the challenge.
 Supporter: Uses their device to time the challenge and act as a general helper in meeting the challenge
(eg: resetting the devices, running after it if it goes off course, etc.).

Challenge Process: Approximately 20 minutes

 Setting up the challenge (5 min) – using the materials provided, recreate each of the challenge diagrams,
following the exact measurements.
 Problem/Solving Brainstorming (5 min) – Clarify what needs to be accomplished, and identify the
programming tools that will allow you to accomplish it. Take into account both programming variables
(controllable) and environmental variables (some controllable, some not), that may affect your solutions.
 Experimentation, Adjustment and Execution of Solution (10 min) – Apply the programming solution to the
robot and begin experimenting with the challenge. Adjust the solution based upon your observations and
from received feedback. Continue until your solution is successful, the video is captured, and you have
achieved the best possible time you can.
 You will hear the transition music when you have exactly two minutes left. Be prepared to switch tasks
at the end of the song. (Note – Behaviourism: inclusion the music stimulus to smooth transtions.)

Challenge 1: Back and Forth

 Diagram: Using a measuring implement and masking
25cmx25cm 25cmx25cm
tape, create a 200cm line that has a 25cm by 25cm 200cm
square on each end.
 Objective: Starting from one square, program your 2x
robot to travel along the line until it reaches the end
square, where it will turn, and return back to the starting square. Then have it repeat once.
 Limitations:
o Must be completed as fast as possible, but still meet the other criteria
o The robot must not go past the end squares
Running Head: LESSON PLAN CRITIQUE 13

o The robot must stay within one “robot length” of the taped line
Diagram 2: In a Square 25cmx25cm

 Diagram: Using a measuring implement and masking tape, create a 100cm

by 100 cm square. In one corner, make an additional square that is 25cm by
25cm.
 Objective: Starting from the small square, program your robot to travel
along the line of the larger square, until it returns back to the starting
square. Repeat once more, so that the robot travels around the square 2x
twice.
 Limitations: 100cmx100cm
o Must be completed as fast as possible, but still meet the other
criteria
o The robot must not go past the end square when finishing
o The robot must stay within one “robot length” of the taped line
Diagram 3: Finishing the Question
 Diagram: Using a measuring implement and masking tape,
recreate the question mark diagram. Add a stack of six plastic
cups in the final 25cm by 25cm square. 50cm
 Objective: Starting from the small square, program your robot
to travel along the line of the question mark. At the end of the 25cmx25cm

50cm
path, the robot must knock down or move all the stacked cups.
In this challenge only, the robot may finish outside of the final
square.
 Limitations: 25cm
o Must be completed as fast as possible, but still meet
the other criteria
o The robot must stay within one “robot length” of the
taped line
o All cups must be moved from their original positions 50cm

Assessment
 Share all three challenge videos amongst the group members.
 Upload all three challenge videos to your personal digital
portfolio.
 Reflect on the activity and our subsequent conversations. You
may use the following questions to help guide your response: 25cmx25cm
o As you progressed through the challenges did you
always feel like you could accomplish the task? Or did you feel any uncertainty
o Has this activity altered your knowledge of programming or added to it?
o What is a challenge you would like to attempt? Would you feel comfortable in experimenting
with code on your own to accomplish it?
(Note: these reflection questions serve multiple purposes. Not only do they provide the student opportunities to
more effectively incorporate their newly acquired learning, they inform the teacher whether this incorporation
is assimilation or accommodation, whether the activities were suitable based upon as individualized
achievement challenges, and finally whether the scaffolding was successful, and the students are now able to
meet challenges on their own.
Running Head: LESSON PLAN CRITIQUE 14

ICT: Programming and Computational Thought Unit: Original

Lesson 2: Introduction to Entry Level Programming utilizing Robots
Grade Level: 8-9 (Secondary)
Subject Area: Junior ICT (BC - Applied Skills and Design Curriculum)
Required Time: 1-2 Classes
Lesson Utilizing a class set (10) of “Sphero/SPRK” robots and student owned devices
Description: (smartphones/tablets) preloaded with the programming application “Tickle”, students will
explore in groups of three the basics of basic programming languages. The Tickle enabled
devices will be used to control the robots through a series of increasingly challenging tasks,
requiring students to explore the variables and limitations of the programming language.
Student group members will be assigned rotating roles within their triads, alternating
between robot control, data/process recording and general support of the activity.
Learning  General learning Outcomes:
Outcomes: o Students will be able to demonstrate the use of a programming language
(Tickle) to accomplish basic tasks, while providing specific examples of
programming language grammar and syntax.
o Students will develop an understanding on the roles of variables within a
programming environment, and the variables affect outcomes.
o Students will explore the specificity of programming languages and how to
accomplish tasks despite language restrictions/limitations.
 This lesson will also provide opportunities to address these specific learning outcomes
from the BC Curriculum.
o Content - Students will be introduced to and work with:
 Programming with modular components
 Collaboration in a cloud-based environment
o Curricular Competencies (Ideating Focus) – Students will:
 Take creative risks in generating ideas and add to others’ ideas in ways
that enhance them
 Screen ideas against criteria and constraints
 Critically analyze and prioritize competing factors, including social,
ethical, and sustainability considerations, to meet community needs
for preferred futures
 Choose an idea to pursue, keeping other potentially viable ideas open
o Cross-Curricular Competencies – Students will practice how:
 To impart and exchange information effectively (Communication)
 To critically assess and creatively address specific challenges (Thinking)
 To engage with peers in a socially responsible and respectful way,
while maintaining a positive sense of self within the dialogue (Personal
and Social Responsibility)
Previous Students should understand as general concept how computer programming languages are
Learning: highly restrictive and specific, and the inability of computers to understand vague or intuitive
instructions as humans can. Concurrently, students should also understand that despite
these limitations, programming languages can allow computers and other digital devices to
accomplish incredible things.
Resources  10 Sphero/SPRK robots
Required:  4-6 rolls of masking tapes for creating paths and mazes
 Enough floor space for said mazes and paths
 10 Tape measures/meter sticks
 4-6 additional smart devices for students who lack access
 Projector with means of attaching smart device for demonstration purposes
Running Head: LESSON PLAN CRITIQUE 15

 Previously set-up digital portfolios, that are enabled to accept video and have
features that support comments/responses
Lesson  Previous class, assign the downloading of Tickle (free) to smart devices as
Preparation: homework.
 Previous class, ensure students have a means of sharing recorded data from their
devices (ie cloud based services such a Google Drive or DropBox).
 Ensure all robots have been charged.
 Pre-divide class into groups of 3.
Assessment Assessment will be primarily formative, and will include both teacher comments and self-
Methods: reflections. The teacher will provide continual feedback and support during each stage or
challenge. Students groups will video record the process of identifying, analyzing and solving
each challenge, which will be uploaded to their digital portfolios and form the foundation of
a later reflection. The teacher will comment and engage in a dialogue with the student about
the reflection, which will also be documented in the digital portfolio.
Class Summary: Introduction: Approximately 10-15 minutes
 Have student seats set up in a circle.
 Have Sphero robot circling and changing colours on the floor in a pre-programmed
loop within the seated circle (hook/attention getting device).
 Students enter class and immediately join the circle. Likely engage in pre-class bell
conversation about what they are seeing.
 Initial Discussion/Activation of Prior Knowledge
o Ask guiding questions about what the students see occurring before them:
eg – What is taking place? How does the robot know to do this? What are
the nature of instructions?
 Transmission of Foundational Content (Tickle programming language)
o Using the projector and smart device being used to control the robot,
introduce the 5-10 programming commands/instructions in Tickle
necessary/useful for completing the challenges: eg starting event,
movement, turns, speed, rotation, collision test, colour change, hop, etc.
o Demonstrate the potential range of variables and how to adjust them for
the relevant commands/instructions.
o Students should follow along with their own devices and Tickle application.
o Finish by demonstrating how to connect to the robot via Bluetooth and the
Tickle application.
Set-Up: 3-5 minutes
 Inform students of their groups
 Have group members collect materials – masking tape, measuring tape, cups and
robot (as well as a spare device if necessary).
 Have the initial controlling student connect their device to the robot via Bluetooth.
 Have groups find a clear space within the class or just outside to set up their
challenges.
Activity
 Have students complete all three challenges, as listed on the accompanying activity
sheet. In summary:
o Students assume one of three roles within the group, that they rotate
through: controller, recorder or supporter.
o Each challenge is scaled to provide gradually increasing challenges that are
intended to stretch yet still be within the students’ capacities. The scaling
includes:
 Steadily more complex scenarios requiring more advanced
instructions or a greater number of programming variables to
choose from.
Running Head: LESSON PLAN CRITIQUE 16

 A greater number of environmental variables.

o Student are to follow a critical/creative thinking approach to the
challenges, including an initial assessment of the problem, an inventorying
of resources (knowledge or skill based), developing potential ideas or
solutions to the challenge, and opportunities to test the solutions and
adjust according to feedback.
o Students are to video record the critical/creative thinking process as well as
their solution attempts, which will be uploaded to digital portfolios and
form the basis of post lesson reflections.
Break
 Depending on class variables (student rate of success, students with specific
learning needs, length of class, etc) a break may be required and the lesson carried
on with the next class.
Group Discussion/Closure
 Once the challenges have been completed by all students, an opportunity to discuss
the challenges as a class is provided. This will assist with students in assimilating and
integrating their learning, and provide support for when they later have to reflect
on their experience.
 Guiding questions for the group discussion should focus on the both the difficulty
and necessity of working within the limitations of programming language to
accomplish their tasks, as well as how the growing mastery of programming allows
more advanced problems to be solved with greater efficiency. Time permitting, a
discussion on the creative/critical thinking process and how it relates to “ideating”
would be useful.
Portfolios and Reflection
 Before the end of the lesson or final class, students need to be provided an
opportunity to upload the recorded videos to a common or shared area, such as
Google Drive, Dropbox, or, depending on portfolio setup, YouTube.
 Reflections can be completed either as part of the classroom activities or as an at
home follow-up to the days and events.
 Students who complete the challenges early can start on their reflections, prior to
the group discussion/closure.
 Reflections will be followed up teacher comments in the portfolio, initiating a
dialogue both about the activity and the students’ individual perspectives on their
learning.
Running Head: LESSON PLAN CRITIQUE 17

ICT 8-9: Introduction to Programming/Computational Thought Original

Robot Challenges
Using your Sphero and smart devices, you will work in groups of three to complete each one of these challenges.
You will have approximately 20 minutes for each challenge.

Group Roles: Alternate for each challenge

 Controller: Uses their device to program the robot and make adjustments to the language/code as the
group makes discoveries and adapts to feedback.
 Recorder: Uses their device to video record the challenge, including the initial brainstorming/problem
solving discussions, later adjustments to the solution based upon feedback and failed attempts, and the
final success of meeting the challenge.
 Supporter: Uses their device to time the challenge and act as a general helper in meeting the challenge
(eg: resetting the devices, running after it if it goes off course, etc.).

Challenge Process: Approximately 20 minutes

 Setting up the challenge (5 min) – using the materials provided, recreate each of the challenge diagrams,
following the exact measurements.
 Problem/Solving Brainstorming (5 min) – Clarify what needs to be accomplished, and identify the
programming tools that will allow you to accomplish it. Take into account both programming variables
(controllable) and environmental variables (some controllable, some not), that may affect your solutions.
 Experimentation, Adjustment and Execution of Solution (10 min) – Apply the programming solution to the
robot and begin experimenting with the challenge. Adjust the solution based upon your observations and
from received feedback. Continue until solution is successful and video captured.

Challenge 1: Back and Forth

 Diagram: Using a measuring implement and masking

25cmx25cm 25cmx25cm
tape, create a 200cm line that has a 25cm by 25cm 200cm
square on each end.
 Objective: Starting from one square, program your 2x
robot to travel along the line until it reaches the end
square, where it will turn, and return back to the starting square. Then have it repeat once.
 Limitations:
o Must be completed in under 1 minute
o The robot must not go past the end squares
o The robot must stay within one “robot length” of the taped line

Diagram 2: In a Square 25cmx25cm

 Diagram: Using a measuring implement and masking tape, create a 100cm

by 100 cm square. In one corner, make an additional square that is 25cm by
25cm.
 Objective: Starting from the small square, program your robot to travel
along the line of the larger square, until it returns back to the starting
2x
square. Repeat once more, so that the robot travels around the square
twice.
100cmx100cm
 Limitations:
Running Head: LESSON PLAN CRITIQUE 18

o Must be completed in under 1 minute

o The robot must not go past the end square when finishing
o The robot must stay within one “robot length” of the taped line

Diagram 3: Finishing the Question

 Diagram: Using a measuring implement and masking tape,

recreate the question mark diagram. Add a stack of six plastic
cups in the final 25cm by 25cm square. 50cm
 Objective: Starting from the small square, program your robot
to travel along the line of the question mark. At the end of the 25cmx25cm

50cm
path, the robot must knock down or move all the stacked cups.
In this challenge only, the robot may finish outside of the final
square.
 Limitations: 25cm
o Must be completed in under 1 minute
o The robot must stay within one “robot length” of the
taped line
o All cups must be moved from their original positions

50cm
Assessment

 Share all three challenge videos amongst the group members.

 Upload all three challenge videos to your personal digital
portfolio.
 Reflect on the activity using the following questions to help
guide your response:
25cmx25cm
o As you progressed through the challenges, did you
spend less time on experimentation/adjusting the
variables or more? Or did it remain approximately the same? Why do you think this was the
case?
o Do you think the lessons you have learned about programming can be applied elsewhere? Can
you think of another situation in school or life where you have to experiment and adjust
variables?