More Like this

1. Learning by Fixing and Designing Problems: A Reconstruction Kit for Debugging E-Textiles

   Lui, D. (January 2017, FabLearn '17 Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference on Creativity and Fabrication in Education)

   In this paper, we present the development of a "reconstruction kit" for e-textiles, which transforms fixed-state construction kits---maker tools and technologies that focus on the creation of semi-permanent projects---into flex-state construction kits that allow for endless deconstruction and reconstruction. The kit uses modular pieces that allow students to both solve and create troubleshooting and debugging challenges, which we call "DebugIts." We tested our prototype in an after-school workshop with ten high school students, and report on how they interacted with the kit, as well as what they learned through the DebugIt activities. In the discussion, we delve into the affordances and challenges of using these kits as both learning and assessment tools. We also discuss how our pilot and prototype can inform the design of reconstruction kits in other areas of making. 

   more » « less
2. A Redesigned Reconstruction Kit for Rapid Collaborative Debugging and Designing of E-Textiles

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3386201.3386207  

   Fields, Deborah A.; Lin, Yuhan; Jayathirtha, Gayithri; Kafai, Yasmin B. (April 2020, Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference on Maker Education (FabLearn '20))

   In this paper, we present an iteration on a “reconstruction kit” for e-textiles, a flexible-state construction kit that allows for rapid deconstruction and reconstruction of sewn, programmable circuits. The reconstruction kit was redesigned to be more modular and was tested in more computationally and spatially challenging debugging and design situations. by four pairs of˛ students familiar with e-textiles taking an introductory computer science course in a U.S. high school. Analyzing think-aloud protocols of the four sessions, we examined affordances and limitations of how student debugged and designed with the reconstruction kit and in which ways collaborative interactions were supported. 

   more » « less
3. MakerWear: A Tangible Approach to Interactive Wearable Creation for Children

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025887  

   Kazemitabaar, Majeed; McPeak, Jason; Jiao, Alexander; He, Liang; Outing, Thomas; Froehlich, Jon E. (May 2017, Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17))

   Wearable construction toolkits have shown promise in broadening participation in computing and empowering users to create personally meaningful computational designs. However, these kits present a high barrier of entry for some users, particularly young children (K-6). In this paper, we introduce MakerWear, a new wearable construction kit for children that uses a tangible, modular approach to wearable creation. We describe our participatory design process, the iterative development of MakerWear, and results from single- and multi-session workshops with 32 children (ages 5-12; M=8.3 years). Our findings reveal how children engage in wearable design, what they make (and want to make), and what challenges they face. As a secondary analysis, we also explore age-related differences. 

   more » « less
4. Exploring Teachers’ Approaches to Standards-Based Making in Elementary Classrooms

   Jocius, R. (January 2020, D. Schmidt-Crawford (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference)

   In this paper, we explore how standards-based Making activities offer opportunities for teachers to address interdisciplinary concepts and encourage students to tinker, collaborate, create, and design. This qualitative study draws on results from a two-year, NSF-funded research project that involved the integration of standards-based Mobile Maker Kits into 15 elementary schools within a suburban-rural Southern school district. Specifically, we examine teachers’ goals for using Mobile Maker Kits, as well as how the hook, brainstorm, prototype, share, synthesize framework supported them in integrating Making into their existing standards and curricula. 

   more » « less
5. WIP: Hands-On Statics in the Online “Classroom”

   Davishahl, Eric; Self, Brian P.; Fuentes, Mathew Parsons (July 2021, 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access)

   null (Ed.)

   Engineering instructors often use physical manipulatives such as foam beams, rolling cylinders, and large representations of axis systems to demonstrate mechanics concepts and help students visualize systems. Additional benefits are possible when manipulatives are in the hands of individual students or small teams of students who can explore concepts at their own pace and focus on their specific points of confusion. Online learning modalities require new strategies to promote spatial visualization and kinesthetic learning. Potential solutions include creating videos of the activities, using CAD models to demonstrate the principles, programming computer simulations, and providing hands-on manipulatives to students for at-home use. This Work-in-Progress paper discusses our experiences with this last strategy in statics courses two western community colleges and a western four-year university where we supplied students with their own hands-on kits. We have previously reported on the successful implementation of a hands-on statics kit consisting of 3D printed components and standard hardware. The kit was originally designed for use by teams of students during class to engage with topics such as vectors, moments, and rigid body equilibrium. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and shift to online instruction, the first author developed a scaled down version of the kit for at-home use by individual students and modified the associated activity worksheets accordingly. For the community college courses, local students picked up their models at the campus bookstore. We also shipped some of the kits to students who were unable to come to campus, including some in other countries. Due to problems with printing and availability of materials, only 18 kits were available for the class of 34 students at the university implementation. Due to this circumstance, students were placed in teams and asked to work together virtually, one student showing the kit to the other student as they worked through the worksheet prompts. One community college instructor took this approach as well for a limited number of international students who did not receive their kits in a timely manner due to shipping problems. Two instructors assigned the hands-on kits as asynchronous learning activities in their respective online courses, with limited guidance on their use. The third used the kits primarily in synchronous online class meetings. We found that students’ reaction to the models varied by pilot site and presume that implementation differences contributed to this variation. In all cases, student feedback was less positive than it has been for face-to-face courses that used the models from which the take home kit was adapted. Our main conclusion is that implementation matters. Doing hands-on learning in an online course requires some fundamental rethinking about how the learning is structured and scaffolded. 

   more » « less