Our Journey to Make STEM Fun and Accessible in Community Schools
The educational methods that involve hands-on activities and are driven by children themselves often referred to as “playful learning” (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2009), are considered an effective means currently known for promoting the development of young children (Lillard et al., 2013). Although these teaching approaches that incorporate play and hands-on activities have been in existence for many years, they are relatively new in the community schools of Nepal. At Pragati Shikshya Sadhan, a community school in Lalitpur, Nepal, we embarked on an educational journey that not only stimulated the minds of young children but also influenced our approach to teaching and learning. This is the story of our journey of educating STEM to a lively group of eighth-grade students.
Our mission was clear: to provide students with a hands-on learning experience that combined basic electronics with computational thinking skills. We envisioned a STEM kit that would empower these young learners to manipulate fundamental electronic components like LEDs, IR sensors, DC motors, light sensors, and more while using Scratch for Arduino to bring their creations to life. Research has shown us the incredible potential of “playful learning” methods, which encourage child-centered exploration. These methods not only enhance academic progress, but also nurture abilities that endure throughout one’s life, and we were interested in implementing this approach in the community schools of Nepal.
We began by extensively researching the market and collaborating with the Scratch Foundation team. With valuable insights in hand, we set out to develop our own STEM kit with modular components. Through extensive design thinking and research, we developed a safe and easy-to-use kit that provides a hands-on experience for students. In addition, we needed a curriculum that would seamlessly integrate with our kit. Children learn best in active, engaged, constructive, and interactive environments (e.g., Chi, 2009), when the material they are learning is meaningful to them (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2009). Thus, we created workbooks and lesson plans based on the 5E model (Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, and Evaluate), designed to fit into two-hour sessions. Our approach was to start simple, focusing on components like LEDs, resistors, switches, batteries, and light sensors while challenging students to apply their newfound knowledge in the real world.
The classroom experience left an indelible mark on us. Students eagerly explored the components, experimented with them, and formed their own explanations based on their observations. They weren’t just engaged; they were active participants, brainstorming real-world applications for the concepts they were learning. We were delighted by their feedback. They spoke of how experimenting with components brought clarity to complex ideas, and how having tangible tools to work with kept them engaged throughout the class hour. We couldn’t have been happier when they clamored for more of these classes and were eager to do more fun projects with Scratch for Arduino.
This preliminary session served as the cornerstone, helping students learn about basic electronic components and giving us a chance to get their feedback on our STEM kit. After all, students are the most important part of designing a STEM kit. Now, equipped with computational abilities acquired from their Scratch courses and a newfound understanding of electronics, they are ready to generate concrete, interactive projects using our STEM kit and Scratch for Arduino. Our journey is far from over. We see this as an opportunity to uplift our teaching approaches, making them even more effective. The students had fun, brought new ideas to life, immersed themselves in the subject, and began connecting it to real-world scenarios.
Our mission continues as we gather and incorporate feedback, update our curriculum, and facilitate students in community schools with effective teaching approaches. The journey has been rewarding, and the possibilities are boundless.
In this age of STEM education, we’re not just lighting up bulbs; we’re lighting up minds.
References:
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Michnick Golinkoff, R., Berk, L. E., & Singer, D. (2009). A Mandate for Playful Learning in Preschool: Presenting the Evidence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195382716.001.0001
Lillard, A. S., Lerner, M. D., Hopkins, E. J., Dore, R. A., Smith, E. D., & Palmquist, C. M. (2013). The impact of pretend play on children’s development: a review of the evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029321
Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-Constructive-Interactive: A Conceptual Framework for Differentiating Learning Activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x
