User Image

Erik Lindemann

Primary (5 to 8 years old), Elementary (9 to 12 years old)
Language Arts And English, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies

Erik Lindemann's collections

 

Behind Design: Exploring Culture Through Artifact Investigation

<p><u>Introduction</u></p> <p>How might we learn about cultures through the study of artifacts? What role could the study of design elements and process play in in deepening our understanding? How could we leverage student agency of the design process to gain opportunities to recognize relationships between artifacts and culture?</p> <p>This collection provides opportunities for students to uncover complexity by looking closely and making connections between cultures and the design process behind the artifacts. Student claims are based on evidence using provided resources for investigation. The <em>Artifact Investigation Map</em> serves as a visible thinking tool for documenting our understanding of a culture by making connections between the artifact and research. </p> <p><u>Procedure</u></p> <p>Begin by looking closely at an artifact, <em>Lone Dog Winter Count</em>, using a Project Zero Routine, <em>Zoom In</em>. Through close examination, we begin to develop hypotheses about the object and the connections to the culture. While a main goal is to learn more about the culture related to the artifact, we are also building a capacity for using this thinking process to build understanding. Record and display class ideas generated through this routine. In the discussion of culture, we are looking at how people live: What do the people value? What are their priorities and motivations? </p> <p>Introduce the points of <em>The Artifact Investigation Map</em>. Ask students, “How could this be used to organize the ideas documented from the thinking routine about the artifact and the people who created it?”. (Students may recognize this as the Engineering Design Process.) Building on our initial <em>Zoom In</em> documentation, the group connects the artifact ideas to the map points. Different questions within each point may serve as prompts to continue making connections and lead to more questions about what we still wonder, guiding the next research steps. Provide a space to record and share new questions during the process.</p> <p>Begin the research process with the first video <strong><em>Lakota Winter Counts.</em></strong> Using information from the source, model the process of organizing the findings using the different points on The<em> Artifact Investigation Map</em>. Be sure to highlight unanswered questions in the map as the class decides the future steps in the research. Support the student use of resource-based evidence starting from this Learning Lab collection when making and documenting claims. Depending on the learners, this phase may vary in the structure of guidance and interaction. Documentation is shared with an emphasis on providing opportunities to discuss the claims, findings, and analysis. </p> <p><u><br /></u></p> <p><u>Guiding Points for Inquiry using <em>The Artifact Investigation Map</em>: </u></p> <p><strong>Ask</strong>: What needs or problems might this artifact address/solve? Does this design reflect empathy for a particular group or person? </p> <p><strong>Imagine</strong>: What possible prototypes or variations might have been produced in the timeline of this artifact? Could there have been earlier versions leading to this one?  </p> <p><strong>Plan</strong>: Identify and describe what could have been key factors and/or restrictions influencing design process. Examples: materials/natural resources, traditions, people power, skills, technology/tools, historical and natural environment….</p> <p><strong>(Re)Create</strong>: Describe the possible steps taken to create the artifact. What could this look like? Options include for this exploration: Try to create a version or reenact one of the steps of the process. Use observations of the process to draw possible conclusions about the culture. Sketch or act out the steps. Take a part of the process and use the <em>Step Inside</em> thinking routine. <strong>*Document and share this process with the group in order to prepare for the next phase of The</strong><em><strong> Artifact Investigation Map</strong></em> </p> <p><strong>Improvements:</strong> Since the creation of this artifact, what versions do we see today? What would the biography of this type of innovation look like? How might this type of artifact connect to modern innovation?  *Extension for Improvements: Use the thinking routine <em>Imagine</em> If to evaluate a modern iteration of the artifact. How does it compare to the original? </p> <p><u><br /></u></p> <p><u>Documenting Ongoing Conclusions/Questions/Reflections </u></p> <p>Throughout the investigation, students share and post supported claims about the culture and reflect upon the process of using the design cycle to guide the study. </p> <p>For the final reflection, use the thinking routine <em>I Used to Think, Now I Think… </em>to look for changes in thinking. Keep the process and research lines of thinking open for continued exploration with the unanswered questions. </p> <p>#PZPGH</p>
Erik Lindemann
30
 

Building a Metaphor

<p><u>Introduction:  Exploring the Legacy of Roberto Clemente</u></p> <p>How does our world influence our lives and how do we contribute to the world? Far from Roberto Clemente’s birthplace of Puerto Rico stands a bridge in his name. In what ways does this bridge in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, represent Roberto Clemente’s legacy? By applying <em>Project Zero</em> routines, student groups build bridges as metaphors to explore the legacy of Roberto Clemente. <br /></p> <p><u>Building Bridges: An Approach to Understanding Product and Process</u>   <br /></p> <p>How might our Learning Lab investigation combine with the design process to deepen concept understanding and uncover complexity? What are the benefits of shifting our learning environments to cultures of contributions in communities of learning for all students and teachers?  What connections can we find between Roberto Clemente’s legacy and our construction process?   </p> <p>Within the arc of the lesson are opportunities for teacher-led routines and independent/small group application. With a stress on process, the reflection opportunities are embedded within the design steps as students use thinking routines to translate research findings into elements of a bridge to share understanding. The thinking routines included within this collection are rooted in <em>Project Zero</em> research including <em>Making Thinking Visible</em>, <em>Global Thinking</em>, <em>Agency by Design</em>, and Edward Clapp's <em>Participatory Creativity</em>. </p> <p><u><br /></u></p> <p><u>Procedure Part 1: Exploration and Documentation</u> <br /></p> <p> The first phase of this lesson provides learners with opportunities to explore the life of Roberto Clemente. Begin by displaying the first piece in the collection, the portrait. Find a link to lines of inquiry by clicking the paperclip icon. Find questions and thinking models to promote close looking to help students make connections and support claims with evidence.  Document ideas and highlight the hanging questions generated with the goal of understanding Roberto Clemente’s life, or legacy.   <br /></p> <p>The next pieces in the collection go together. One is a link for learning the <em>+1 Routine</em> for viewing the other, the movie “What Roberto Clemente Meant to Baseball”. Allow the learners to share key concepts about Roberto’s Legacy adding to earlier documentation (suggestion: collect ideas on sticky notes and display on the board).  <br /></p> <p> Pose the question referencing the ongoing documentation: “What are we noticing about influence and contributions? What influenced Roberto’s legacy and what contributions did Roberto make to the world?”  Display <em>Circles of Influence to Study Legacy</em> for sharing and organizing this thinking as the research resumes. Model the process of taking the ideas collected during the exploration and placing them within the different circles (each circle could be a separate poster with another poster between them). </p> <p>The next steps could take different configurations, from teacher-led to small groups/individuals, to match the needed levels of support and modeling.  Using these learning lab resources, students explore the pieces and website links to interact and collect ideas. Over time, findings are shared on the class input/output posters based on the <em>Circles of Influence to Study Legacy</em>. Provide opportunities for the whole group to explain, discuss, and refine the findings. Keep this thinking visible for the next part of this lesson. </p> <p>  </p> <p><u>Procedure Part 2: Building Understanding Through the Construction Process</u>   <br /></p> <p>Share how a bridge is named after Roberto Clemente located just outside of the Pittsburgh Pirates baseball stadium, PNC Park. Ask how this might be a fitting symbol, or metaphor for Roberto’s legacy. By making connections to collective findings from Part 1, groups are tasked with building a symbolic bridge to represent Roberto Clemente’s legacy. Using the <em>Parts/Purposes/Process</em> routine, groups document the process contributions as well as how characteristics of bridge pieces (and the bridge as whole) connect to different aspects of Roberto’s legacy (look back at documentation from part 1).      </p> <p>Materials and tools provided may vary (cardboard, construction paper, blocks, Legos…) depending on time, space, and age group. In addition, one member of each group is selected to document different types of contributions members make in the task. Meet with this set of observers to discuss the task and explain how they will also be doing this documentation while also participating. Review and provide the <em>Participatory Inventory</em> tracking sheet. Also, prepare large <em>Parts/Purposes/Process</em> charts for each group. The construction time is ideal for asking student groups to unpack the thinking as it takes shape. <br /></p> <p><br /></p> <p>  <u> Closure</u></p> <p>When groups have completed construction and analysis, allow time for a gallery walk. The Connect-Extend-Challenge (connections to ideas documented by other groups) routine can support this type of thinking for closing discussions as ideas are shared about metaphor, process, and implications. </p> <p>#pzqvsd</p><p>@ErikLindemann_</p><p>#pzpgh  </p> <p><br /></p> <p>  </p>
Erik Lindemann
28
 

Behind Design:Q’eswachaka

<p><u>Introduction</u></p> <p>How might we learn about cultures through the study of artifacts? What role could the study of design elements and process play in in deepening our understanding? How could we leverage student agency of the design process to gain opportunities to recognize relationships between artifacts and culture?</p> <p>This collection provides opportunities for students to uncover complexity by looking closely and making connections between cultures and the design process behind the artifacts. Student claims are based on evidence using provided resources for investigation. The <em>Artifact Investigation Map</em> serves as a visible thinking tool for documenting our understanding of a culture by making connections between the artifact and our research. </p> <p><u>Procedure</u></p> <p>Begin by looking closely at an artifact, <em>the <em>Q’eswacha<strong>ka</strong></em></em>, using a Project Zero Routine, <em>Zoom In</em> or <em>See Think Wonder</em>. Through close examination, we begin to develop hypotheses about the object and the connections to the culture. While a main goal is to learn more about the culture related to the artifact, we are also building a capacity for using this thinking process to build understanding. Record and display class ideas generated through this routine. In the discussion of culture, we are looking at how people live: What do the people value? What are their priorities and motivations? </p> <p>Introduce the points of <em>The Artifact Investigation Map</em>. Ask students, “How could this be used to organize the ideas documented from the thinking routine about the artifact and the people who created it?”. (Students may recognize this as the Engineering Design Process.) Building on our initial <em>Zoom In</em> documentation, the group connects the artifact ideas to the map points. Different questions within each point may serve as prompts to continue making connections and lead to more questions about what we still wonder, guiding the next research steps. Provide a space to record and share new questions during the process.</p> <p>Begin the research process with the first video <strong><em>Weaving the Bridge <em>-Q’eswacha<strong>ka</strong></em>.</em></strong> Using information from the source, model the process of organizing the findings using the different points on The<em> Artifact Investigation Map</em>. Be sure to highlight unanswered questions in the map as the class decides the future steps in the research. Support the student use of resource-based evidence starting from this Learning Lab collection when making and documenting claims. Depending on the learners, this phase may vary in the structure of guidance and interaction. Documentation is shared with an emphasis on providing opportunities to discuss the claims, findings, and analysis. </p> <p><u><br></u></p> <p><u>Guiding Points for Inquiry using <em>The Artifact Investigation Map</em>: </u></p> <p><strong>Ask</strong>: What needs or problems might this artifact address/solve? Does this design reflect empathy for a particular group or person? </p> <p><strong>Imagine</strong>: What possible prototypes or variations might have been produced in the timeline of this artifact? Could there have been earlier versions leading to this one?  </p> <p><strong>Plan</strong>: Identify and describe what could have been key factors influencing design process. Examples: materials/natural resources, people power, skills, technology/tools, historical and natural environment….</p> <p><strong>(Re)Create</strong>: Describe the possible steps taken to create the artifact. What could this look like? Options include for this exploration: Try to create a mini-version or reenact one of the steps of the process. Use observations of the process to draw possible conclusions about the culture. Sketch or act out the steps. Take a part of the process and use the <em>Step Inside</em> thinking routine. <strong>*Document and share this process with the group in order to prepare for the next phase of The</strong><em><strong> Artifact Investigation Map</strong></em> </p> <p><strong>Improvements:</strong> Since the creation of this artifact, what versions do we see today? What would the biography of this type of innovation look like? How might this type of artifact connect to modern innovation? *Extension for Improvements: Use the thinking routine <em>Imagine</em> If to evaluate a modern iteration of the artifact. How does it compare to the original? </p> <p><u><br></u></p> <p><u>Documenting Ongoing Conclusions/Questions/Reflections </u></p> <p>Throughout the investigation, students share and post supported claims about the culture and reflect upon the process of using the design cycle to guide the study. </p> <p>For the final reflection, use the thinking routine <em>I Used to Think, Now I Think… </em>to look for changes in thinking. Keep the process and research lines of thinking open for continued exploration with the unanswered questions. </p> <p>#PZPGH</p>
Erik Lindemann
32