An Experimental Study Comparing Two Educational Approaches to Making With Simple Circuits

• In Event: 65.057 - The Maker Movement in Education

Abstract

In recent years, schools, museums, and other institutions have begun offering making experiences inspired by makerspaces that introduce children to making processes combining art, engineering, and new technologies (Honey & Kanter, 2013). Some experiences are focused on the creation of specific products with a step-by-step approach. Others focus more on open-ended play and design with new materials (Peppler, 2013). We discuss an experimental study investigating some learning implications of these making experience design approaches.
Thirty-six fourth grade children were randomly assigned to two groups for a 45-minute making experience at a children’s museum: 1) a classroom setting where each child was given an identical handmade kit and led by a facilitator through the steps to attach a simple circuit to a toothbrush head, a “brushbot”; 2) the museum’s makerspace setting where a facilitator briefly demonstrated similar components (i.e., battery, motor, switch) but children were encouraged to play and make something with them and additional materials in the space. Researchers documented their work process, and evolving creation. Afterwards, we measured their sense of interest in, self-efficacy, and attitudes towards the making experience and making in general and assessed their responses to open-ended written questions asking what they made and why, and envisioning what they might want to make next. While there were no between-group differences regarding interest and self-efficacy, children in the makerspace group were significantly more likely to rate making, and this particular making experience, as useful and relevant. In descriptions of what they made and why, children in the classroom condition on average wrote less and with less detail than those in the makerspace condition. In envisioning what they wanted to make next, all of the children in the makerspace condition described specific ideas of what they envisioned making next while over ¼ of the classroom-based children expressed no ideas related to making.
To elucidate these findings, thirteen children representing a range of engagement in each condition were selected for follow-up interviews about what they had made. First, we analyzed these interviews using activity sequences (Martin & Rose, 2007) to understand the schemas children brought to making. Some participants began by describing what they made and others focused on making as problem-solving. All participants narrated what one has to do to construct the object, but only about half of participants narrated purpose: why they did what they did.
Next, we used a linguistic model of agency (Konopasky & Sheridan, 2014) to analyze group differences in interviews. Despite the small sample, children in the makerspace condition were significantly more likely to show two key agency markers: first-person singular subjective pronouns to describe their working process and creations, and verbs focusing on their material actions as makers.
Overall, these findings may suggest while children find both approaches to making enjoyable, activities allowing exploration and individual design choices seem more useful and promote a greater sense of individual agency in making. Given the small sample and relatively new measures, we recommend future research exploring these preliminary findings.

Authors

• Abigail W Konopasky, George Mason University

• Kimberly Marie Sheridan, George Mason University