Overall, the instruction was well designed, the students were engaged, the instructors were knowledgable, and everything had a very natural, organic flow to it.  After the workshop was over, the student reactions and feedback were very positive, and everyone had an enjoyable, worthwhile, and educational experience.  All of the students that I spoke with were interested in learning more about Arduino chips and had ideas for how to apply what they had learned outside of the workshop.

 

That being said, there were a few areas I believe could be modified to potentially help increase student understanding and engagement, which are outlined below.  

 

I believe it is important to keep in mind that the ideas I discuss here are common among all areas of education and are not unique to this space.  Those who ran this workshop did not have formal training in pedagogy or teaching methods, they were passionate volunteers who were willing to give their time to promote something they believed in.  With that in mind, here is my critique of the Arduino Workshop at Bloominglabs.

 

 

 

INSTRUCTIONAL CONTENT

 

In general, the instructional content (both in slide form and delivered by the instructors), was appropriate for someone with limited to no experience working with Arduino computer chips or with programming in general (which was the level many of the students were at). However, there were times when the content on the slides, or that being explained by the instructors, seemed to be over the head of some of the students.  When I asked those students about this, they agreed that there were moments of uncertainty where they did not fully understand the content being presented.

 

Despite this fact, the way workshop was structured allowed for those students who were having difficulty with the content to ask questions and have 1-on-1 time with the instructors during the hands-on segments.  In other words, even though a student might have been confused during the lecture portion, they were able to clear up that confusion a few minutes later while they were attempting to apply what the instructors had just presented.  

 

My suggestion here would be to simplify some of the instructional content, especially the sections about physics and electrical diagrams.  Or, at the very least, offer a brief overview of the necessary ideas beforehand (i.e. resisters, capacitors, how to read electrical diagrams, and so on).  This would help those students who have little or no familiariaty with these concepts.  Additionally, I would recommend checking for understanding more often during the lecture sections.  Rather than just asking, "does everyone understand?" ask specific questions that force the learners to show that they have a decent grasp on the material that has just been presented.  

 

 

 

 

VOCABULARY USAGE

 

My next suggestion would be to choose more carefully the vocabulary used during instruction.  There were times, especially during the aforementioned sections on physics and electricity, where the vocabulary was fairly advanced, students who had little prior knowledge about the topic were struggling to understand the information.

 

What might be helpful is to offer a handout to students at the beginning of the night that covers basic terminology and offers a short background on the physics used for each project. This is even something that could be emailed out beforehand, so that all learners come into the workshop with at least a foundational understanding of the necessary terminology and ideas.

 

 

 

 

INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN

 

Overall, the design of the workshop was excellent.  The mix of short lectures and presentations followed by longer segments of hands-on, experimental activities was incredibly well-suited to the topic.  Additionally, the slides were generally written in a simple, easy to follow fashion, and were not overloaded with text and extraneous information.

 

However, on night 2, when one of the wiring setups for the Arduino chip was being explained, the presenters showed a realistc image of the Arduino wired as it should be, which was incredibly helpful.  I believe if this visual aide had been incorporated in the instruction from the the beginning, it would have greatly helped the students understand how to set up their chip and would have sped up the instruction, allowing for more time to play and experiment with additional ideas.   

 

 

 

 

INSTRUCTIONAL FLOW

 

My final suggestion for improvement is in regards to the flow on instruction.  Overall, the lessons moved forward very smoothly and organically.  Topics were presented and explained, and then the students applied those topics with the help of the instructors and their more knowledgable peers.  It was a wonderful collaborative learning experience that, as previously mentioned, was clearly productive and beneficial.

 

There were times, however, where movement forward through the lesson was slightly impeded by uncertainty, disorganization, and technical issues.  For example, there were a few times where the instructor had difficulty finding the correct file for the next section and several minutes was spent looking for it and then trying to get the lesson back on track.  At other times, it seemed as if the instructor wasn't quite sure where to go next, or how to transition into the next section, and so the students were a little unsure as to what was happening or what they should be working on next.  

 

 

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

Aside from these four minor areas, the overall design and flow of the instruction was excellent.  As mentioned before, the workshops had a wonderful natural and organic feel to them, especially during the hands-on portions where students would help each other, and everyone had time to ask the instructors their questions.  I am grateful for being able to participate in this learning experience and I would absolutely recommend checking out the space to explore the enormous variety of possibilities they offer for creation.