Children’s Negotiations of Visualization Skills During a Design-Based Learning Experience Using Nondigital and Digital Techniques
Main Article Content
Abstract
In the context of a 10-day summer camp makerspace experience that employed design-based learning (DBL) strategies, the purpose of this descriptive case study was to better understand the ways in which children use visualization skills to negotiate design as they move back and forth between the world of nondigital design techniques (i.e., drawing, 3-D drawing with hot glue, sculpture, discussion, writing) and digital technologies (i.e., 3-D scanning, 3-D modeling, 3-D printing). Participants included 20 children aged 6–12. This research was guided by Vossoughi, Hooper, and Escudé’s (2016) call for explicit attention to pedagogical practices during the integration of “making” activities. Content analysis was used to analyze qualitative data, including observation, researcher/facilitator field notes, think aloud protocols, daily reflective exit tickets, and participant artifacts. Findings highlight the ways in which participants negotiated visualization skills through (a) imagining, drawing, and seeing through creating 2-D sketches, (b) reasoning and relating through writing stories, (c) transforming through 3-D extrusion, (d) observing and noticing through 3-D sculpting and 3-D scanning, and (e) manipulating through digital 3-D modeling, mental rotation, and mental transformation. Implications for formal K–12 educational contexts and teacher preparation programs are discussed.
Article Details
1. Publication and Promotion: In consideration of the Publisher’s agreement to publish the Work, Author hereby grants and assigns to Publisher the non-exclusive right to print, publish, reproduce, or distribute the Work throughout the world in all means of expression by any method now known or hereafter developed, including electronic format, and to market or sell the Work orany part of it as Publisher sees fit. Author further grants Publisher the right to use Author’s name in association with the Work inpublished form and in advertising and promotional materials
2. Copyright: Copyright of the Work remains in Author’s name.
3. Prior Publication and Attribution: Author agrees not to publish the Work in print form prior to publication of the Work by the Publisher. Author agrees to cite, by author, title, and publisher, the original Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning publication when publishing the Work elsewhere
4. Author Representations: The Author represents and warrants that the Work:
(a) is the Author’s original Work and that Author has full power to enter into this Agreement;
(b) does not infringe the copyright or property of another;
(c) contains no material which is obscene, libelous, defamatory or previously published, in whole or in part.
Author shall indemnify and hold Publisher harmless against loss of expenses arising from breach of any such warranties.
5. Licensing and Reuse: Reuse of the published Work will be governed by a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0; http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc/4.0/). This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon the Work non-commercially; although new works must acknowledge the original Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning publication and be non-commercial, they do not have to be licensed on the same terms.
References
Arnheim, R. (1969). Visual thinking. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Bekker, T., Bakker, S., Douma, I., van der Poel, J., & Scheltenaar, K. (2015). Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 5 (Digital Fabrication in Education), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2015.12.001
Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and “making” in edu- cation: The democratization of invention. In J. Walter- Herrmann & C. Büching (Eds.), FabLabs: Of Machines, Makers and Inventors. Bielefeld: Transcript Publishers.
Buechley, L. (2013). Thinking about making. FabLearn Key- note, San Francisco, CA.
Bush, S. B., Cox, R., & Cook., K. L. (2016). A critical focus on the M in STEAM. Teaching Children Mathematics, 23(2), 110–114. https://doi.org/10.5951/teacchilmath.23.2.0110
Bush, S. B., Karp, K. S., Cox, R., Cook, K. L., Albanese, J., & Karp, M. (2018). Design thinking framework: Shaping powerful mathematics. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 23(4), E1–E5. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5951/mathteacmiddscho.23.4.00e1
Clapp, E. P., Ross, J., Ryan, J. O., & Tishman, S. (2016). Maker- centered learning: Empowering young people to shape their worlds. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Clements, D. H. (1998). Geometric and spatial thinking in young children. An Investigation of the Development of Elementary Children’s Geometric Thinking in Computer and Non-computer Environments. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, NSF MDR-8954664.
Geiser, C., Lehmann, W., & Eid, M. (2008). A note on sex differ- ences in mental rotation in different age groups. Intelligence, 36, 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2007.12.003.
Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Design- ing to learn about complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247–298.
Hungwe, K., Sorby, S., Molzon, R., Wang, M., & Charles- worth, P. (2014). Supporting the development of spatial visualization in middle grade and high school students. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 20(4), 379–393.
Huse, V. E., Bluemel, L., & Taylor, R. H. (1994). Making con- nections: From paper to pop-up books. Teaching Children Mathematics, 1(1), 14–17.
Johnson, P. (1991). Pop-up paper engineering: Cross-curricular activities in design technology, English, and art. London and Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.
Jordan, K., Wüstenberg, T., Heinze, H.-J., Peters, M., & Jän- cke, L. (2002). Women and men exhibit different cortical activation patterns during mental rotation tasks. Neuro- psychologia, 40, 2397–2408. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(02), 00076-3.
Kafai, Y. B., Peppler, K., & Chapman, R. (Eds.) (2009). The computer clubhouse: Creativity and constructionism in youth communities. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Kelley, T. R., Capobianco, B. M., & Kaluf, K. J. (2015). Con- current think-aloud protocols to assess elementary design students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(4), 521–540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9291-y
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta- analysis. Child Development, 56, 1479–1498. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130467.
Lohman, D. F. (1996). Spatial ability and g. In I. Dennis & P. Tapsfield (Eds.), Human abilities: Their nature and measurement (pp. 97–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Maeda, Y., & Yoon, S. (2013). A meta-analysis on gender differences in mental rotation ability measured by the Purdue Spatial Visualization Tests: Visualization of Rotations (PSVT:R). Educational Psychology Review, 25(1), 69–94.
Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 5(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1099.
Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. S. (2013). Invent to learn: Mak- ing, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom. Torrance, CA: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.
McKim, R. H. (1980). Experiences in visual thinking. Boston, MA: PWS Publishers.
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study appli- cations in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Nelson, D. (2004). Design based learning delivers required standards in all subjects K–12. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 17(3), 1–9.
Olson, J. (1992). Envisioning writing: Toward the integration of drawing and writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Constructionism: Research reports and essays. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Peppler, K. A., Halverson, E., & Kafai, Y. B. (2016a). Makeology, Volume 1: Makerspaces as learning environments. New York: Routledge.
Peppler, K. A., Halverson, E., & Kafai, Y. B. (2016b). Makeology, Volume 2: Makers as learners. New York: Routledge.
Petrich, M., Wilkinson, K., & Bevan, B. (2013). It looks like fun, but are they learning? In M. Honey & D. Kanter (Eds.), Design, make, play (pp. 50–70). New York and London: Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203108352
Rafaelli, L., Sorby, S. A., & Hungwe, K. (2006). Developing 3D spatial skills for K–12 students. Engineering Design Graphics Journal, 70(3), 1–11.
Read, J., Iversen, O., Smith, R., Blikstein, P., & Katterfeldt, E. (2015). Digital fabrication in education: Expanding the research towards design and reflective practices. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 51(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2016.01.001
Resnick, M., Rusk, N., & Cooke, S. (1999). The computer clubhouse: Technological fluency in the inner city. In D. A. Schon, B. Sanyal, & W. J. Mitchell (Eds.), High technology and low-income communities: Prospects for the positive use of advanced information technology (pp. 263–285). Cambridge and London: MIT Press.
Ryan, J. O., Clapp, E. P., Ross, J., & Tishman, S. (2016). Making, thinking, and understanding: A dispositional approach to maker-centered learning. In K. Peppler, E. R. Halverson, & Y. B. Kafai (Eds.), Makeology, Volume 2: Makers as learners (pp. 29–44). New York and London: Routledge.
Smith, S. (2012). Where art & technology unite: Exploring pop-up books and digital fabrication in the digital paper engineering club. Learning & Leading with Technology, 39(8), 26–28.
Smith, S. (2013). Through the teacher’s eyes: Unpacking the TPACK of digital fabrication integration in middle school language arts. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(2), 207–227.
Sorby, S. (1999). Developing 3-D spatial visualization skills. Engineering Design Graphics Journal, 63(2), 21–32.
Sorby, S. (2009). Educational research in developing 3-D spa- tial skills for engineering students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(3), 459–480.
Sorby, S., & Baartmans, B. (2000). The development and assessment of a course for enhancing the 3-d spatial visualization skills of first year engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(3), 301–307. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2000.tb00529.x
Sorby, S., Wysocki, A. F., & Baartmans, B. J. (2003). Introduction to 3D spatial visualization: An active approach. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar Cengage Learning.
Tartre, L. (1990). Spatial orientation skill and mathematical problem solving. Journal for Research in Mathematics Edu- cation, 21(3), 216–229. https://doi.org/10.2307/749375
Uttal, D. H., Meadow, N. G., Tipton, E., Hand, L. L., Alden, A. R., Warren, C., & Newcombe, N. S. (2013). The malleability of spatial skills: A meta-analysis of training studies. Psychological Bulletin, (2), 352.
Vossoughi, S., Hooper, P. K., & Escudé, M. (2016). Making through the lens of culture and power: Toward transformative visions for educational equity. Harvard Educational Review, 86(2), 206–232. https://doi.org/10.17763/00178055.86.2.206.
Walker, C., Winner, E., Hetland, L., Simmons, S., & Gold- smith, L. (2011). Visual thinking: Art students have an advantage in geometric reasoning. Creative Education, 2(1), 22–25.
Webb, R. M., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2007). Spatial ability: A neglected dimension in talent searches for intellectually precocious youth. Journal of Educational Psychol- ogy, 99, 397–420.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.