Figure 1: A montage of ducks.
Timed Session Plan
3 mins – Opening Mentimeter
2 mins – Introducing Genetic Algorithm (Flowchart Slide)
5 mins – Iteration 1 with Ducks and Clay
5 mins – Iteration 2 with Ducks and Clay
3 mins – Closing Mentimeter
Key Decisions
I decided to start and end with a mentimeter to assess current and later understanding – a known technique (Pierce, 2022). Mentimeter is used in lots of our teaching at CCI, and so I wanted to see what others would think of it as a tool.
The flowchart slide explained the genetic algorithm to set up the activity. I then planned for several iterations with the ducks: this was less structured so that I could react to the time constraints.
The use of ducks and clay was inspired by a previous lesson I’d done, where I hadn’t intended for students to use the two in tandem – however, the students decorated their ducks with the clay anyway! I wondered if I could capitalise on this for the microteach.
Description of Session
The session started with Mentimeter and I discussed the feedback as it populated the word cloud live. I then introduced the flowchart.
Figure 2: Pre-session Mentimeter Results
Figure 3: Flowchart of Genetic Algorithm shown at the start of the session.
Next, I moved to the centre. I kept the table set up by Blythe as it felt more intimate and facilitated discussion so I mimicked the position.
Figure 4: Instructing to decorate the ducks.
I then instructed to decorate the ducks and line them up, shown below.
Figure 5: Lining up the ducks.
We had an informal discussion about the “fitness function” to decide which ducks get carried forward for the next iteration and placed the ducks into clusters. Here was where I think some of the most interesting discussions happened, with different ideas for how the ducks should be evaluated ranging from subjective opinions to more concrete ideas (e.g. hat size).
Figure 6: Clusters of ducks.
We then repeated the process, to show how the population of ducks changed over time. I ended by asking the same question with Mentimeter and discussed the feedback, shown below.
Figure 7: Post-session Mentimeter Results
Reflection on feedback
The flowchart had a technical complexity to it, which was sufficiently challenging for the time frame without requiring too much skill to understand cf. flow theory (Csíkszentmihályi, 1990)
We did two iterations of the algorithm. I was surprised by how effectively the duck population changed – it was clear that the selection had made a difference. There was an opportunity here to explore the ethics of the algorithm more so. For example, the ducks could have evolved to expose how these algorithms re-enforce inequalities in the dataset. The teachers asked questions on this e.g. how does the fitness function work with demographic data. The post-session feedback also suggests bias selection was a key takeaway of the activity. In future, I will explore this to leave a more impactful impression, not immediately obvious when under the fun guise of playing with rubber ducks.
It was also clear that the ducks and clay created a fun atmosphere. The teachers asked me about the materials and seemed delighted when I told them they were essentially children’s toys. The teachers also seemed happy to take the ducks home with them – perhaps giving them a reminder of the session and an object to reflect on at home.
References
Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1990) Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York, USA: Harper Collins.
Pierce, M. (2022) ‘Tweaking Your Pre and Post: Capturing Student Learning at the Session Level’.