DIY Jewelry Holder

I especially like to make things that have a practical application, so I decided to make myself a hanging jewelry holder.

For years, most of my earrings have been stored in a plastic grocery bag that I had stuffed them into when we last moved. Because I don’t have a good place to put them, they have languished in that bag unused. I don’t want a traditional jewelry box because I hate it when the earrings get all tangled up, and I don’t think it’s very easy to see what’s available or find something you’re looking for. I have been wanting some sort of display method where you can see everything and have everything easily accessible.

After spending way too much time online looking for earring holders, I decided that the picture frame idea was exactly what I wanted. I found some examples that looked easy enough to make on my own. I took ideas from different things I found so that I could have all the feature that I really wanted without any that I didn’t need.

My project was pretty simple—I bought a frame, a decorative metal sheet, and some hooks. I cut the metal sheet and replaced the glass and backing of the frame with the metal, using nails to keep it in. Then I drilled holes in the bottom of the frame and inserted the little hooks. In total, the project took about an hour.

A few things about this project surprised me. First, the cost of the materials. The frame was $15, and then I almost balked at buying a piece of decorative metal for $20, because at that point maybe I should just BUY a jewelry holder! I think this must happen a lot, when you want to make something yourself but it turns out to be much more expensive than just buying it. Of course, when you make it yourself, it will be exactly how you want it.

It was also surprisingly difficult to nail the metal sheet to the frame. It took some trial and error with different tools. Luckily my husband has a whole garage full of tools and nails and fasteners. Otherwise it would have taken many trips to Home Depot and much more hassle.

In the end, I am very pleased with the result and I love it! I even had extra metal to make another one for a friend.

A Hundred Cars

We’ve previously discussed the importance of providing ‘Failure culture’ when Invent to Learn says we should focus on Constructionist education. What makes more sense to you?

A few months ago, four-year-old James and Daddy were drawing cars together. They had just started, and each had drawn a car. James started to melt down. “My car is terrible!” he wailed. “It doesn’t look anything like Daddy’s car! I can’t draw cars!” James’s car looked great—for a four year old. It certainly was not a failure in any sense of the word. But to James, it felt like failure, because it didn’t look like Daddy’s. After some tears, we were able to convince him that Daddy has been drawing cars for years and years, and if he drew a hundred cars, then his hundredth car would FOR SURE look like Daddy’s. We even got him a special notebook just for drawing a hundred cars in. Reenergized, he got started right away, and was pleased to notice that even after four or five cars, they were starting to look better and better.

I think that failure culture and constructionist education are actually very similar concepts. Failure culture is based the idea that students these days are too afraid to fail, and consequently do not take risks or be creative. James was ready to cry and give up drawing because his cars didn’t look perfect. But kids need to learn that this is not a terrible thing—in fact, it is part of the learning and improving process.  Contructionist education is where students learn by doing; one important idea is that projects are always in a cycle of improvement iterations; when things don’t work, they are fixed. When things do work, they can be made even better. To me, these are very similar concepts, and I think Martinez and Stager’s criticism of failure culture is really a criticism of its name, not its spirit.

“Failure” probably isn’t the best word choice to describe the process of learning. No one really means true “failure” when discussing failure culture. Most often, mistakes aren’t failures at all—they are early iterations of success (learning). Or they are just how things are when you are a beginner at something. No matter what we call this, the underlying aim is the same: to teach kids that creating and improving is an ongoing process that lasts a lifetime. In a word, it is to build resilience.

James, of course, never drew a hundred cars. He lost interest soon afterward and went to do other things. That notebook is still there, in case he wants to keep going. But either way, I hope that he might have learned one small lesson that day in a lifetime of lessons, that helps him build resilience one obstacle at a time.

Not Full STEAM Ahead

How do you feel about the STEAM acronym? Does the A belong or should we only refer to these concepts as STEM? Why?

The STEM/STEAM acronym makes me a little nervous. My impression of it is that it was devised because Americans were concerned about falling behind other countries in these areas, mostly because of wanting to capture more of the market of tech jobs. While I’m all for kids learning about science and technology (it sure beats not learning at all), I’m very skeptical of the results.

Don’t get me wrong. I love science, technology, engineering, and math. And I agree that the US is falling behind other countries in these areas. But will creating an acronym make a difference? If so, what difference will it make?

I’m worried about a number of possible outcomes:

• The kids who benefit most from this might end up being only affluent kids, not all kids
• The kids who don’t like/are not good at STEM will feel less valued and less interested in learning
• The kids who don’t like/are not good at STEM will not get nurturing opportunities that make them like it more or be better at it
• Girls will get left farther behind than they already are in these areas
• All other areas of learning or ways of thinking will be devalued
• Nothing will change

Additionally, I feel very uncomfortable with the Arts added to the acronym. I’m all for the arts. I majored I music in college, and the decimation of arts programs in schools is, in my opinion, the first sign of the apocalypse. But in STEAM, it just seems like an afterthought, a poor cousin of the rest of the acronym. It’s not fooling anybody. Everyone can tell that it was just stuck in there afterward, and it’s not really related to science. It’s insulting, really. Arts should have its own acronym! There should be a movement just for advocating arts in schools! I know, it’ll never happen.

I think Martinez and Stager make an interesting argument in Invent to Learn that adding the A to STEM might result in the further marginalization of Arts in schools, because it pushes arts into the domain of the science teachers (assuming that “STEM subjects are devoid of the creative disposition of artists”) (p.54).

At any rate, I think the use of the STEM/STEAM acronym is just going to be a passing fad. Mostly because it will soon be meaningless—digital natives are not going to need to be reminded of the importance of STEM subjects in our lives. (Then, in my low moments, I worry that it’s hard enough combating people who don’t even want evolution taught in schools, and that it’s all hopeless.) I think STEM is somewhat deifying these subjects, and inadvertently deifying Maker and Geek culture instead of just showing kids how fun and creative sciences can be. Science and math can be fun for everyone. I hope the adults don’t ruin it.