Zooming into a Tinkering Project: The Progression of Learning through Transitional Objects
Main Article Content
Abstract
The Maker Movement has been received by the field of K–12 education with great enthusiasm as a way of teaching STEM content to children. We call attention to and identify learning opportunities in children’s projects created in a playful, informal environment with easily available materials. In keeping with research in the field of maker education and learning sciences, we describe tinkering as a constructionist learning activity in which meaning making is captured through transitional objects (Bamberger, 1995). First, we examine one specific tinkering project and identify transitional objects within the project. Next, we discuss the process of meaning making as captured through the transitional objects and identify the significance of children’s emerging views of scientific concepts. Finally, we discuss implications for adopting the concept of transitional objects for capturing children’s meaning making and learning in the domains of K–12 science and engineering education.
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
Atran, S., Medin, D., & Ross, N. (2004). Evolution and devolution of knowledge: A tale of two biologies. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 10(2), 395–420.
Bamberger, J. S. (1995). The mind behind the musical ear: How children develop musical intelligence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bamberger, J., & Schön, D. A. (1983). Learning as reflective conversation with materials: Notes from work in progress. Art Education, 36(2), 68–73.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.
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.
Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and ‘making’ in education: The democratization of invention. In J. Walter- Herrmann & C. Büching (Eds.), FabLabs: Of machines, makers and inventors (pp. 203–222). Bielefeld: Transcript Publishers.
Brahms, L. (2014). Making as a learning process: Identifying and supporting family learning in informal settings (Doc- toral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh).
Burton, J. M. (2000). The configuration of meaning: Learner- centered art education revisited. Studies in Art Education, 41(4), 330–345.
Burton, J., Horowitz, R., & Abeles, H. (2000). Learning in and through the arts: Curriculum implications. In E. Fiske (Ed.), Champions of change: The impact of arts on learning (pp. 35–46). Washington, DC: The Arts Education Partnership and the President’s Committee on the Arts and Humanities.
Cajas, F. (2001). The science/technology interaction: Implications for science literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 715–729.
Callanan, M. A., & Jipson, J. L. (2001). Explanatory conversations and young children’s developing scientific literacy. In K. Crowley, C. Schunn, & T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional science (pp. 21–49). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.
Committee on K-12 Engineering Education. (2009). Engineering in K–12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
diSessa, A. A. (2004). Meta-representation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331.
diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. (2000). Meta-representation: An introduction. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(4), 385–398.
Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495–504.
Honey, M., & Kanter, D. E. (Eds.). (2013). Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators. Routledge.
Lavelli, M., Pantoja, A. P. F., Hsu, H., Messinger, D., & Fogel, A. (2004). Using microgenetic designs to study change processes. In D. M. Teti (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in developmental psychology (pp. 40–65). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy. Handbook of child psychology, 4, 153–196. Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., Carpenter, S., & Penner, D. (2000). The interrelated development of inscriptions and conceptual understanding. In P. Cobb, E. Yackel, & K. McClain (Eds.), Symbolizing and communicating in mathematics classrooms: Perspectives on discourse, tools, and instructional design (pp. 325–360). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl- baum Associates.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Litts, B. K. (2014). Making learning: Makerspaces as learning environments (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison).
Lucas, B., & Hanson, J. (2016). Thinking like an engineer: Using engineering habits of mind and signature pedagogies to redesign engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP), 6(2), 4–13.
Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 5(1), 4.
National Academy of Engineering. (2008). Changing the conversation: Messages for improving public understanding of engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (1998). National Science Education Content Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K–8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(1), 5–23.
Resnick, M. (2006). Computer as paint brush: Technology, play, and the creative society. Play = learning: How play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and social- emotional growth, 192–208.
Resnick, M. (2007). All I really need to know (about creative thinking) I learned (by studying how children learn) in kindergarten. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity & Cognition (pp. 1–6). Washington, DC: ACM.
Resnick, M., & Rosenbaum, E. (2013). Designing for tinkerability. In M. Honey & D. Kanter (Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 163–181). New York: Routledge.
Sawyer, R. K. (2003). Improvised dialogues: Emergence and creativity in conversation. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1998). Making mathematics and making pasta: From cookbook procedures to really cooking. In J. G. Greeno & S. V. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning (pp. 299–319). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Schön, D. A. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Knowledge-based systems, 5(1), 3–14.
Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475–522.
Seiler, G., Tobin, K., & Sokolic, J. (2001). Design, technology, and science: Sites for learning, resistance, and social reproduction in urban schools. Journal of Research in Sci- ence Teaching, 38(7), 746–767.
Vossoughi, S., & Bevan, B. (2014). Making and tinkering: A review of the literature. National Research Council Committee on Out of School Time STEM, 1–55.
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.
Worsley, M., & Blikstein, P. (2016). Reasoning strategies in the context of engineering design with everyday materials. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 6(2), 58–74.
Worsley, M., & Blikstein, P. (2017). A multimodal analysis of making. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 1–35.