From Integrated Making to Integrating Expertise: Reflecting on an Researcher-Practitioner Partnership Around Tangible and Embodied STEAM

• In Event: Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships for Developing and Assessing Informal STEM Learning Experiences

Abstract

Objectives and Perspectives: This poster explores the initial stages of a research practice partnership (RPP) with a federal TRiO program to provide more opportunities to younger learners through an integrated computer science, engineering, crafting and arts curriculum, which has been iteratively developed through a five-year, design-based research (DBR) project (Author, 2019; Author, 2015; Author, 2018; Author et al., 2019). This project has focused on bidirectionally responsive design (BRD), which involves creating integrated multimodal systems with simultaneous digital and physical responsiveness (Author, 2015); this was initially achieved through combining Scratch game design, wearable/e-textile circuit design with the Lilypad Arduino, and physical computing with the MakeyMakey.

Past research has explored how learners engage in designing tangible, embodied and integrated systems through digital and physical tools with different socio-material affordances, which have been found to implicitly invite and scaffold diverse participation from underrepresented groups, and encourage complex systems understanding (e.g., Author, 2019). Through the RPP, we redesigned the curriculum to be more novice friendly to meet the needs of younger learners with emerging maker tools, such as Circuit Playground Express (CPE), an e-textile microcontroller which works with MakeCode (a block-based coding environment) and easily interfaces with Scratch to better facilitate the design of integrated systems.

Methods: Following Henrick et al (2017), I first describe the process and challenges related to establishing relationships with a local branch of Upward Bound, which serves a significant portion of the state and some of its highest-poverty and lowest performing rural and urban districts. Second, I provide detailed cases from two workshops, one before (2018) and one after (2019) the RPP was established to describe how the redesigned curricula has shaped individual and collaborative practices and understanding.

Results and Significance: The RPP came to fruition directly after the 2018 workshop in part because of positive student feedback, and because I wanted to establish more opportunities for underrepresented learners. The directors and I first developed a mini-workshop that served all 200-250 students (across grades 10-12), then designed a summer program specifically for rising 9th graders (n=15), who have not previously been served by UB. We committed to creating sustainable pipeline where prior students would eventually become mentors and curriculum developers. Some of the challenges stemmed around our communication and the loss of experienced support staff.

Findings from the two curricula cases suggest that utilizing newer tools provide both new opportunities and challenges. CPE significantly simplifies the design process because it includes LEDs and sensors directly on the board. This has assisted in rapid prototyping and immediate mastery experiences, which helps aid the comprehension and engagement of the younger, inexperienced STEM learners. It also enables more integrated feedback with the keyboard and mouse, eliminating the need to add the MakeyMakey, which made prior integration unnecessarily complex. However, some of the extensions oversimplify the circuit design and coding process, and can be confusing for novice learners. Future iterations will consider how the curriculum adequately scaffolds understanding, and better integrates practice partners.

Author

• Gabriela T. Richard, The Pennsylvania State University