Challenges and Tradeoffs When Engaging Young Makers With Constructing for Others

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: Jun 24, 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v8i1.22665

Main Article Content

Nathan Holbert
Teachers College, Columbia University
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8365-5114
Sawaros Thanapornsangsuth
Marleen Villeroy

Abstract

As makerspaces and fabrication labs enter schools as a means of motivating children to explore STEM fields, the lack of diversity in engineering and computing must be addressed. The Bots for Tots project explores the potential of leveraging deeper values and perspectives in making practices by engaging young children in designing and creating objects for others rather than for themselves. In this design case, we present outcomes from the first Bots for Tots implementation highlighting key design challenges and tradeoffs for (a) encouraging a personal relationship between builders and clients while retaining design complexity, and (b) ensuring productive prototyping while providing materials and tools with which designers are familiar. We also discuss revisions for a second iteration where we leverage an existing mentorship program to ensure close designer-client relationships, and constrain material choices throughout the construction process to encourage participants to focus on function and process during prototyping.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Holbert, N., Thanapornsangsuth, S., & Villeroy, M. (2017). Challenges and Tradeoffs When Engaging Young Makers With Constructing for Others. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v8i1.22665
Issue
Vol. 8 No. 1 (2017): Special Issue: Makerspace Design Cases
Section
Special Section: Makerspaces

Copyright © 2025 by the International Journal of Designs for Learning, a publication of the Association of Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), published by Indiana University Libraries Journals. Permission to make digital or hard copies of portions of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee, provided that the copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page in print or the first screen in digital media. Except as otherwise noted, the content published by IJDL is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. A simpler version of this statement is available here.

References

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. Basic Books.

Berland, M. (2016). Making, tinkering, and computational literacy. In K. Peppler, E. Halverson, & Y. B. Kafai (Eds.), Makeology: Makers as learners (Vol. 2, pp. 196–205). New York, NY: Routledge.

Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and ‘making’ in education: The democratization of invention. In J. Walter-Hermann & C. Büching (Eds.), FabLabs: Of machines, makers and inventors, (pp. 203-222). Bielefeld: Transcript Publishers.

Buechley, L. (2006). A construction kit for electronic textiles. Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers, Switzerland, 83–90. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISWC.2006.286348

Buechley, L. (2013, October). Thinking about making. Keynote speech presented at the FabLearn Conference, Stanford University, Stanford,CA. Retrieved from http://edstream.stanford.edu/Video/Play/883b61dd951d4d3f90abeec65eead2911d

Buechley, L., & Perner-Wilson, H. (2012). Crafting technology: Reimagining the processes, materials, and cultures of electronics. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 19(3), 21:1–21:21. https://doi.org/10.1145/2362364.2362369

Diekman, A. B., Brown, E. R., Johnston, A. M., & Clark, E. K. (2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1051–1057. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610377342

Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495–504. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.34j1g68140382063

Holbert, N. (2016a). Bots for tots: Building inclusive makerspaces by leveraging “ways of knowing.” Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, UK, 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1145/2930674.2930718

Holbert, N. (2016b). The powerful ideas of making: Building beyond the curriculum. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 5(1), 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-016-0058-4

Intel Corporation. (2014). MakeHers: Engaging girls and women in technology through making, creating, and inventing. Retrieved from http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/technology-ineducation/making-her-future-report.html

Kafai, Y. B., Fields, D., & Searle, K. (2014). Electronic textiles as disruptive designs: Supporting and challenging maker activities in schools. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 532–556. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.46m7372370214783

Kafai, Y. B., & Peppler, K. A. (2014). Transparency reconsidered: Creative, critical, and connected making with e-textiles. In M. Ratto, M. Boler, & R. Deibert (Eds.), DIY citizenship: Critical making and social media (pp. 179–188). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kalil, T. (2013). Have fun--learn something, do something, make something. In M. Honey & D. E. Kanter (Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 12–16). New York: Routledge.

Konrad, A. M., Ritchie, J. E., Jr., Lieb, P., & Corrigall, E. (2000). Sex differences and similarities in job attribute preferences: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 593–641. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.593

Maker Media. (2014). Attendee study maker faire bay area. Retrieved from http://makermedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/MFBA2014-research-deck_FINAL.pdf

Moilanen, J. (2012). Emerging hackerspaces–peer-production generation. In I. Hammouda, B. Lundell, T. Mikkonen, & W. Scacchi (Eds.), Open source systems: Long-term sustainability (pp. 94–111). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

NCWIT. (2015). Women in IT: The facts infographic. Retrieved January 26, 2016, from https://www.ncwit.org/resources/women-it-facts-infographic-2015-update

Nesta. (2015, April 24). Top findings from the open dataset of UK makerspaces. Retrieved from http://www.nesta.org.uk/blog/top-findings-open-dataset-uk-makerspaces

NSF. (2017). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering (Special Report NSF 17-310). Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.

Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.), Constructionism. New York: Ablex Publishing.

Pinkard, N., Barron, B., & Martin, C. (2008). Digital youth network: Fusing school and after-school contexts to develop youth’s new media literacies. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on International Conference for the Learning Sciences, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 3, 113–114.

Qi, J., Huang, A. “bunnie,” & Paradiso, J. (2015). Crafting technology with circuit stickers. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, USA, 438–441. https://doi.org/10.1145/2771839.2771873

Resnick, M., Rusk, N., & Cooke, S. (1998). The computer clubhouse: Technological fluency in the inner-city. In D. A. Schön, B. Sanyal, & W. J. Mitchell (Eds.), High technology and low-income communities: Prospects for the positive use of advanced information technology (pp. 266–286). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Stern, J., Reid, E., & Bancroft, K. (2015). Teaching introductory computer science for a diverse student body: Girls who code style. Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, USA, 705–705. https://doi.org/10.1145/2676723.2678291

Swan, C. W., Paterson, K. G., & Bielefeldt, A. R. (2009). Panel measuring the impacts of project-based service learning in engineering education. Proceedings of the 39th IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, USA, 1–2). https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2009.5350508