Akcaoglu, Mete

Kale, Ugur

English

Purdue E-Pubs

Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning Volume 12 Issue 2 Article 11 Published online: 9-13-2018 Guest Editors' Introduction: Tinkering in Technology-Rich Design Contexts Mete Akcaoglu Georgia Southern University, makcaoglu@georgiasouthern.edu Ugur Kale West Virginia University, Ugur.Kale@mail.wvu.edu IJPBL is Published in Open Access Format through the Generous Support of the Teaching Academy at Purdue University, the School of Education at Indiana University, and the Jeannine Rainbolt College of Education at the University of Oklahoma. Recommended Citation Akcaoglu, M. , & Kale, U. (2018). Guest Editors' Introduction: Tinkering in Technology-Rich Design Contexts. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 12(2). Available at: https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1828 This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact epubs@purdue.edu for additional information. This is an Open Access journal. This means that it uses a funding model that does not charge readers or their institutions for access. Readers may freely read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles. This journal is covered under the CC BY-NC-ND license. September 2018 | Volume 12 | Issue 2Guest editors’ introductionThe Interdisciplinary Journal of  Problem-based LearningTinkering is an iterative problem-solving process (Bevan, Gutwill, Petrich, & Wilkinson, 2015; Martinez & Stager, 2013; Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013). It is interest driven, usu-ally informal, and often playful. At the heart of tinkering is the will and skill to be able to design successful systems, and solve problems. Tinkering is central to making, and can be facilitated through technology-rich (e.g., 3D printers, robot-ics kits, coding software, etc.) and non-technological tools (e.g., plastic cups, rubber bands, papers, etc.) by allowing learners to be the designers and makers of objects, projects, or ideas (Resnick, 2017).Following the footsteps of Papert’s constructionism (1980), makerspaces, STEM or STEAM labs, or studios are increasingly finding a place in formal school settings (Becker et al., 2017). While there is a lack of visibility of these efforts to guide, unify, and possibly help replicate future practice and research, various design-based models and pedagogical approaches to learning may provide options. As a learner-centered instructional approach, problem-based learning (PBL) can serve as a framework to support learners’ prob-lem-solving efforts in makers’ context. Learners could be guided to tackle the problem through iterative problem defi-nition, exploration, design, sharing, and elaboration (Savery, 2006; Schmidt, Rotgans, & Yew, 2011).The six papers that were accepted for publication in this special issue present ways and approaches to address poten-tial issues while implementing PBL approaches to tinkering and making activities in various contexts. One suggested theme across multiple papers is that engaging in such pro-cesses is not always straightforward. The authors highlight opportunities and challenges for both inservice and pre-service teachers, and they share their experiences related to inquiry, problem-solving, and design in tinkering contexts. Below, we provide a brief description of each piece. We hope that they not only provide examples but also encourage the PBL and makers community to explore new tinkering and making activities in PBL contexts to further enhance our understanding of them.Approaches to Tinkering in  Technology-Rich Design ContextsJill Marshall and Jason Harron present their framework and a rubric for introducing and evaluating maker activities in pre-service teacher education. Through a literature review and a survey of educators and others in the field who are engaged in integrating making in education, they identify five ele-ments of making in STEM education: ownership/empower-ment, maker habits, production of an artifact, collaboration, and STEM tools. In their article, they provide examples of these elements from their work with preservice teachers and give the readers opinions regarding how to implement maker activities in teacher education. Monica Chan and Paulo Blikstein present results from a case study conducted to understand the outcomes from mid-dle school students’ participation in engineering activities in a makerspace (i.e., FabLab). Through their observations and interviews with students, they identify that makerspaces allow for problem-based learning and inquiry-based activi-ties, and lead to student collaboration and negotiation. They also detail how, in some cases, student preferences can shape instructional approaches. Students may not be willing to work in teams but prefer working individually, but this does not prevent them from engaging in problem-based learning and inquiry.Shaunna Smith explores how children in a summer camp use visualization skills to negotiate and inform their expe-riences with both non-digital and digital techniques during making activities that incorporate design-based learning. The results from a qualitative content analysis of the data show the ways in which scaffolded activities support chil-dren’s spatial skills, and how facilitators’ interactions with them aide the hands-on design experience.In their design experiment, Priyanka Parekh and Elisabeth Gee examine the tinkering and making (meaning) process in an informal educational context by focusing on how artifacts and ideas transition from beginning to end. They specifically Tinkering in Technology-Rich Design ContextsMete Akcaoglu (Georgia Southern University) and Ugur Kale (West Virginia University)http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1828Akcaoglu, M. & Kale, U. Tinkering in Technology-Rich Design Contexts2 | www.ijpbl.org (ISSN 1541-5015) September 2018 | Volume 12 | Issue 2focus on the use of non-technological and low budget tools such as rubber bands and broken toys in promoting tinker-ing and problem-solving. Through engagement in iterative design and problem-solving in playful, informal learning contexts, Parekh and Gee argue that children discover, learn, and find a use for important STEM knowledge, which may serve for future interest and learning in these domains.Keri Valentine explores the use of Logo with undergradu-ate preservice students in a mathematics education course to promote coding and computational thinking skills. In her study, she provides a detailed account of how to support elementary preservice teachers’ computational thinking by engaging them in Logo activities targeting K–5 geometry concepts. Valentine argues that providing first-hand experi-ences as makers of authentic artifacts (i.e., geometric shapes drawn in Logo) supports the development of future teachers’ knowledge of geometry, as well as computational thinking and coding skills.  Darran Cairns, Reagan Curtis, Konstantinos Sierros, and Johnna Bolyard describe and discuss how middle school math and science teachers integrated 3D printing into their lesson plans. The authors discuss the process of tinkering and prob-lem-solving involved in the digital design process of 3D objects coupled with processes involved in working with the printed artifacts. Interested readers can find samples of the professional development activities in this practice-focused manuscript.ConclusionIn this special issue, our contributors highlighted the impor-tance of tinkering in various design contexts, using a wide range of tools, with different populations, and listed vari-ous components necessary for its successful implementa-tion. Tinkering and problem-solving do not require funding or technology, as noted in the various papers in our special issue, as long as the teachers are willing to create experiences for their students that give students the freedom to explore, design, and sometimes fail.AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank all the contributors for their papers, the IJPBL editors, Drs. Michael Grant and Krista Glazewski, and the great support provided by their editorial assistant, Ms. Haesol Bae. We also would like to thank all our reviewers who have contributed to this special issue.ReferencesBecker, A. S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A.,Giesinger, H. C., & Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC horizon report: 2017 Higher education edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.Bevan, B., Gutwill, J. P., Petrich, M., & Wilkinson, K. (2015). Learning through STEM-rich tinkering: Findings from a jointly negotiated research project taken up in practice. Science Education, 99(1), 98–120. https://doi.org/10.1002 /sce.21151Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. S. (2013). Invent to learn: Mak-ing, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom. Torrance, CA: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and pow-erful ideas. New York: Basic Books.. Resnick, M. (2017). Lifelong kindergarten. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Resnick, M., & Rosenbaum, E. (2013). Designing for tinker-ability. In M. Honey & D. Kanter (eds.),  Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 163–181). New York: Routledge.Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.7771/15 41-5015.1002Schmidt, H. G., Rotgans, J. I., & Yew, E. H. (2011). The process of problem-based learning: What works and why. Medical Education, 45(8), 792–806. https://doi.org /10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04035.x

Guest Editors\u27 Introduction: Tinkering in Technology-Rich Design Contexts

https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1828&context=ijpbl

Guest Editors\u27 Introduction: Tinkering in Technology-Rich Design Contexts

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Purdue E-Pubs