Douglas Ball
ABSTRACT
Maker-projects have often been implemented in K-12 schools to foster the emergence of identity, develop maker mindsets, fuel creation, and master STEM skills and content. This paper explores the ability of an electronic textiles, or e-textile, maker project to develop deeper science learning within a unit where computer science, technology, engineering, design, and physics intersect. Maker-project learning is often dedicated to bridging the areas that make up STEM, namely science, technology, engineering and mathematics. However, the content areas of science and mathematics are often less explored pillars within STEM while implementing maker-projects in a K-12 classroom. We look at how a unit on electricity in a high school physics classroom is taught using the programming of an Arduino microcontroller and electronic textile construction. In this way, the science in computer science is emphasized and understood from a physics perspective.
- C. Anderson. 2012. Makers: The New Industrial Revolution. Crown Business. New York.Google Scholar
- B. Bevan, J. Gutwill, M. Petrich, and K. Wilkinson. 2015. Learning through STEM-rich tinkering: Findings from a jointly negotiated research project taken up in practice. Science Education, 99(1), 98--120.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Blikstein. 2013. Digital fabrication and 'making' in education: The democratization of invention. In J. Walter-Herrmann & C. Büching (Eds.), FabLabs: Of Machines, Makers and Inventors. Bielefeld: Transcript Publishers.Google Scholar
- G. Chasseigne, C. Giraudeau, P. Lafon, and E. Mullet. 2011. Improving students' ability to intuitively infer resistance from magnitude of current and potential difference information: A functional learning approach. European journal of psychology of education, 26(1), 1--19Google Scholar
- R. Cohen, B. Eylon, and U. Ganiel. 1983. Potential difference and current in simple electric circuits: A study of students' concepts. American Journal of Physics, 51(5), 407--412.Google ScholarCross Ref
- N. K. Denzin, and Y. S. Lincoln. 2011. The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage.Google Scholar
- M. C. Periago, and X. Bohigas. 2005. A study of second-year engineering students' alternative conceptions about electric potential, current intensity and Ohm's law. European Journal of Engineering Education, 30(1), 71--80.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. Driver, H. Asoko, J. Leach, P. Scott, and E. Mortimer. 1994. Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational researcher, 23(7), 5--12.Google Scholar
- R. Driver, and V. Oldham. 1986. A Constructivist Approach to Curriculum Development in Science. Studies in Science Education, 13, 105--22.Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. G. Glaser. 1965. The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social problems, 12(4), 436--445.Google Scholar
- J. Gu, C. Tofel-Grehl, D. Fields, C. Sun, and C. Maahs-Flaudung. 2016. Let Them Sew: Improving Student Interest in Science. American Educational Research Association National Conference. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- E. R. Halverson, and K. M. Sheridan. 2014. The Maker Movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495--504.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Hatch. 2013. The maker movement manifesto: rules for innovation in the new world of crafters, hackers, and tinkerers. McGraw Hill Professional.Google Scholar
- M. Honey, and D. E. Kanter. (Eds.). 2013. Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of stem innovators. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- J. Howell, C. Tofel-Grehl, D. A. Fields, and G. J. Ducamp. 2016. E-textiles to teach electricity: An experiential, aesthetic, handcrafted approach to science. In Williams, C. (Ed.). Teacher Pioneers: Visions from the Edge of the Map. Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press, 232--245.Google Scholar
- S. Joshua and J. Dupin. 1987. Taking into account student conceptions in instructional strategy: An example in physics. Cognition and Instruction, 4(2), 117--135.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Y. Kafai, D. Fields, and K. Searle. 2014. Electronic textiles as disruptive designs: Supporting and challenging maker activities in schools. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 532--556.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Y. B. Kafai, E. Lee, K. Searle, D. Fields, E. Kaplan, and D. Lui. 2014. A crafts-oriented approach to computing in high school: Introducing computational concepts, practices, and perspectives with electronic textiles. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(1), 1. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. D. Knight. 2004. Five easy lessons: Strategies for successful physics teaching.Google Scholar
- L. Liégeois, G. E. Chasseigne, S. Papin, and E. Mullet. 2003. Improving high school students' understanding of potential difference in simple electric circuits. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1129--1145.Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. K. Litts, Y. B. Kafai, D. A. Lui, J. T. Walker, and S. A. Widman. 2017. Stitching Codeable Circuits: High School Students' Learning About Circuitry and Coding with Electronic Textiles. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1--14.Google ScholarCross Ref
- L. C. McDermott and P. S. Shaffer. 1992. Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part I: Investigation of student understanding. American journal of physics, 60(11), 994--1003.Google Scholar
- P. Mulhall, B. McKittrick, and R. Gunstone. 2001. A perspective on the resolution of confusions in the teaching of electricity. Research in Science Education, 31(4), 575--587.Google ScholarCross Ref
- National Research Council. 2012. A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- R. Osborne and P. Freyberg. 1985. Learning in Science. The Implications of Children's Science. Heinemann Educational Books, Inc.Google Scholar
- S. Papert and I. Harel. 1991. Situating constructionism. Constructionism, 36(2), 1--11.Google Scholar
- M. C. Periago, and X. Bohigas. 2005. A study of second-year engineering students' alternative conceptions about electric potential, current intensity and Ohm's law. European Journal of Engineering Education, 30(1), 71--80.Google ScholarCross Ref
- K. A. Searle and Y. B. Kafai. 2015. Boys' Needlework: Understanding Gendered and Indigenous Perspectives on Computing and Crafting with Electronic Textiles. In ICER, 31--39. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. A. Searle, C. Tofel-Grehl, and V. Allan. 2016. The E-Textiles Bracelet Hack: Bringing Making to Middle School Classrooms. In Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference on Creativity and Fabrication in Education. ACM. (2016, October), 107--110. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. M. Sheridan, E. R. Halverson, B. K. Litts, L. Brahms, L. Jacobs-Priebe, and T. Owens. 2014. Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 505--531.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Shipstone. 1985. Electricity in Simple. Children's ideas in science, 33.Google Scholar
- C. Tofel-Grehl, D. Fields, K. Searle, C. Maahs-Fladung, D. Feldon, G. Gu, and C. Sun. 2017. Electrifying engagement in middle school science class: improving student interest through e-textiles. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1--12.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. Tofel-Grehl and K. Searle. 2017. Critical Reflections on Teacher Conceptions of Race as Related to the Effectiveness of Science Learning. Journal of Multicultural Affairs, 2(1), 4.Google Scholar
- Ü. Turgut, F. Gürbüz, and G. Turgut. 2011. An investigation 10th grade students' misconceptions about electric current. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 1965--1971.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Weintrop, E. Beheshti, M. Horn, K. Orton, K. Jona, L. Trouille, and U. Wilsensky. 2015. Defining computational thinking for math and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25, 127--147.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Sustaining Making in the Era of Accountability: STEM Integration Using E-Textiles Materials in a High School Physics Class
Recommendations
The E-Textiles Bracelet Hack: Bringing Making to Middle School Classrooms
FabLearn '16: Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference on Creativity and Fabrication in EducationIn this paper, we present an electronic textiles project called the "bracelet hack" that is intended to facilitate the introduction of making activities into classrooms. The project's design significantly decreases the costs and amount of classroom time ...
Stitching the Loop with Electronic Textiles: Promoting Equity in High School Students' Competencies and Perceptions of Computer Science
SIGCSE '19: Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science EducationMany efforts of curricula design have concentrated on expanding participation in K-12 CS education by introducing innovative approaches but few have focused on addressing longstanding equity issues through their choices of culturally relevant materials ...
The Power of Analogies in Introductory CS Education (Abstract Only)
SIGCSE '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science EducationTo convey abstract concepts to students with little to no computing background, faculty members often adopt real world analogies to make CS concepts more relatable. Existing work on the power of analogies in CS education [1-2] has looked into the ...
Comments