When facilitating construction-based activities like the chain reaction, we often speculate about the learner’s thinking and progression of ideas. We make assumptions about their decisions, new ideas, and problem solving techniques through their words, and the artifacts that they create. Because of the language barrier, this workshop proved more difficult for us to assess their thinking trajectory, so we captured each group’s process through a series of still photos.

We shared some of these pics with two monks that had worked together on their chain reaction contraption, and talked with them about their process while reviewing the images. Geshe Thupten and Geshe Yeshi collaborated on an ingenious mechanism that started the entire chain reaction: it was simple, but very effective. A pulley system, powered by a slow-moving motor: the lid of a pot functioned as a cam, and a hand-braided string as the belt. As the motor turned, the belt pushed a mallet forward, which eventually knocked over the domino blocks that terminated their portion of the chain reaction.

Karen conducted the interview, and part of what made it so successful was showing them photographs we had taken during the workshop, and asking them about specific parts of their work, at first. In the (partial) transcription below, KW stands for Karen Wilkinson, GT is Geshe Thupten (left in this photo), and GY is Geshe Yeshi (right). The monks were translated by our interpreter.

KW: I was curious: this was the first idea I saw you try, can you tell me a little bit about what you were thinking then?

GT, then GY: At the beginning, at this stage we didn’t have any particular set up in our mind, but we were finding [...] what things we can make on this table surface. We can use that block for their ultimate end. And so we tried to do that in various ways. So, before we used this one, we also used marbles, but these two boards… they [the marbles] are too small or too light to knock [them] down, so ultimately we had to take another way.

KW: The wheel had two rubber bands [...] before. Why did you change it? It was like this…

GY, then GT: Before we tried to… we used this without the rubber to rotate it, but we found that it is too slippery, and that the string goes up and down, and so in order to improve that we put these two rubber [bands], and then we tried it once or twice. At that time again we found that the two rubber bands, the blue one and the red one, are too thin, they can’t quite hold the string in the required place. So, again, we had to change this rubber band to a thicker one.

KW: How did you get from the idea of this… to this?

GT: When we tried it once we faced a problem, so in order to prevent that, we had to find another way.

GY: Before we used [...] the string, [...] we used some rubber bands, and even though it can move, it is too slow and it’s not so strong, so we thought of using a string, but the original string was too thin, and so we had to make a larger one. And so we managed by ourselves.

KW: I was very surprised when I saw that, that is was twisted!

GY: And rubber ones are also much more slippery.

KW: So, when the string crossed, why did you have to do it that way?

GT, with GY interjecting: This also came after a particular problem. We had an argument about this, whether to put this or not, because when we don’t have this one over here [the strings crossing], the string goes straight from [a] larger angle, sort of, and so it’s more slippery, and so it falls off. It even goes out of this yellow ring. And so we put it this way, and so it is much tighter, and so it can’t slip either way.

KW: So one more question. I want to know about this, the ending, this part? When did you decide that this is what you wanted to have?

GY, then GT: Right from the beginning, we were concerned about how to knock down that block. [...] During the construction of the whole model we kept thinking about what kind of object we can use to knock [...] it. So after we put the string… first, we put only this one [the dowel], and it was not so strong, because it’s too small and sometimes it goes out of the way, it can’t hit. So we came up with this idea [of using a bobbin as a sleeve for the dowel]. Also we put this “hat” [the rounded wooden ball at the end], so it quite bigger, and easily hit, and also not so slippery, and it’s got some weight, and so it can easily knock down that one.

KW: And what is the clothespin? Why did you need to have that?

Both: Even after we used this one, after we used the string, there was [...] one more problem. It’s too heavy, and it goes up and down.

KW: When I first came to your table, maybe 10 minutes into the activity, you said you’re doing something very simple because you are lazy.

All: [laugh]

KW: Do you remember saying that? So, do you still feel that way, after what you’ve made?

GY [laughing]: So, right from the beginning we said this is like… we are supposed to be scientist, like science students? And so this is the first science project we are doing, [...] and so we said it’s very important we should make something easy and that is scientific.

GT: Even though I was interested in making some complicated models, I was concerned about the short period of time, and so right from the beginning I thought that it’s difficult to put different things in the middle, and so in order to cover the space we used the long rope. [...] We are happy to have all these kinds of equipment and facilities so that we can make our own kind of model.
Before, [...] we have been taught about the kinds of different models, and different machines, but this is the first time we actually looked at the design and made it ourselves.

KW: Ha! So what do you mean? You studied mechanisms, but haven’t built them? Like, in books? Or, how?

GT: Yeah, normally what we learn is from books, and other translations from the teachers. But this time, first we heard a description of cams and cam followers, and after that not only did we actually see it by ourselves, but we also made it, and we have seen how these cams are moving and working. So, looking at these things now I have some kind of clue that [...] other machines that we are used to see must have these kinds of structure inside.
I’m also feeling kind of concerned, or kind of worried, because now I feel that I will find it very interesting to make things, and I fear that I might end up spending my time making these sort of models in the monastery, and so I won’t have time to study the theoretical part.

KW: Oh, uh-oh! [laughs] That would be a problem! [Laughs]

GT: So, from my side, I will try to split the time between making things and the theoretical part, and also a variety of thoughts on how to make these things.

KW: Good!

GY: Basically, I am a lazy person regarding making things, and I don’t have much experience about making these kinds of models, making things by hand, but [...] during this workshop I came to realize that it’s very important, in scientific studies, to have more questions and do practical things by yourself.
Before, during the previous science classes, and other conversations, I heard that the moonlight is the reflection of the sun’s rays, but even though I heard this, I didn’t like that very much, because I can’t believe that, it can’t convince me properly. But after working with this Mylar and all these reflections, now I am very much convinced that yeah, the light that comes from the moon can be that of the sun.
So, by looking at the works that you have done and all the responses that you take, all the care that you have taken for this workshop, it also gives us encouragement to work harder.

On the second day of working on their chain reaction machine (and the last day of building workshops!) we switched session, so that instead of the morning, we had the whole afternoon. We could hardly contain our excitement for what was to come, as the room lay all set up and in-progress from the day before, tables waiting to be completed.

It seemed to us (Karen, Mike, and Luigi) that most of the monks had already settled into their ideas, and had a pretty good sense of what they intended to accomplish, and the associated metaphors that we had asked them to think about. Based on the previous days’ tendencies, we had anticipated that most of the metaphors would revolve around three main themes: Buddhism, Tibet, and animals. Surprisingly, this activity brought out a little more variation and zaniness, with sometimes slightly disturbing undertones. For example, one of the elements in a machine consisted of a Tibetan monk slapping a Chinese person (cringe!). Another one involved an autorickshaw (repurposed from an earlier light-reflection prototype) running over a monk, which would then, by falling over, complete a circuit.

Always very inventive, some highlights included:

A soccer match between Tibet and the US, complete with first and second prize cups, and clapping audience.

A brilliant pulley system, with hand-braided rope, that we had never seen before.

A couple of hand-made gears, which after many iterations, prototypes, and a variety of materials, finally worked flawlessly. Perfect pitch!

Tashi’s creation, as always, was unconventional and a little bit crazy. He went through several different ideas, beginning to build, only to abandon them halfway through when he either lost interest in them, or ran into problems that were maybe too complex for him to solve. At one point he had started to build a model of the twin towers, including a way to make the tops collapse when hit by an airplane suspended on a string! Somewhat to our relief, he abandoned that line of thought, but that meant that he started the second day’s with a blank table. Then in a fit of inspiration, he started stringing foam tubes together, eventually fashioning some sort of crazy oversized monk that would shake uncontrollably and make all kinds of scary and “horrible” sounds, including thunder, clanging bells, dogs chasing after cats, and loud and campy music. Through its shaking motions, the monk figure would cause pieces of aluminum foil to hit each other, completing circuits, and setting the next machine in motion.

A rare treat: the translators, who were by the way such an essential part of our experience in Sarnath, in and out of the workshops, got to collaborate on their own table. They made a brilliant “Tibet express” train, complete with conductive rails!

Finally, the time came to set the whole contraption off. In typical fashion, all the monks crowded around the tables, we started a countdown from five (in Tibetan, of course!), and Geshe Thupten Khunkhen set the first block off. Of course, a chain reaction machine never works smoothly! The snags are part of the fun, and the monks enthusiasm was as high as we’ve ever seen: there were shouts of encouragement, teasing of each other, and joyful yelling when things worked. In fact, the whole experience was so delightful, that we had to set it all up and run it one more time!

And to end things on a great note, we set up an outdoor screening of one of our favorites chain reaction videos ever: Pythagora’s Switch!

We (Karen, Mike, and Luigi) explored cause and effect today as we started a two-day build of a metaphorical chain reaction. Using Bruno Munari’s drawings as inspiration (including his drawing of a machine for sniffing artificial flowers), we organized the work tables into a snake-like chain for the group to build their metaphorical machines. Ultimately, these will be linked together and set off as the finale of the workshop.

Getting ideas from past projects, a few new building materials, and a variety of evocative objects that we revealed especially for this activity, the monks jumped right in and started designing and building. There is little hesitation with this group as they each gathered a wide variety of materials and carried out a series of rapid prototypes – making observations, and discussing each of these with their partners.

Ultimately, ideas began to form, and challenges emerged that seemed too compelling to ignore. Each pair of monks made good progress in the short two and a half hour session, and it was difficult to get them to take a tea break (and we were quite late for lunch).

The ownership of ideas seems strong with this group, but, the ownership of the artifacts created during previous activities seems less important. Past project contraptions (like the automata, and Mylar Reflection machines) have been quickly incorporated into this final activity. Often, the machines from past activities are dismantled in order to utilize a cam, linkage, or machine system in their current projects. We were a bit surprised when we learned that they were taking apart machines that were not theirs to begin with, and when we asked the monks if this was OK, they looked at us with a sly smile and said “of course”. There seems to be little need for them to own the artifacts of their learning, and as one mentioned “we carry our thinking and ideas with us much easier than our contraptions”.