Poster #2 - Problem-Solving for Toy Friends during Tinkering Promotes Storytelling and Testing Talk in Family Reflections

• In Event: Poster Session 11

Abstract

In recent years, many museums have added tinkering spaces with the goal of engaging families in engineering design practices (Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014). The tinkering process of making, testing, and iteratively redesigning projects can teach children about engineering concepts (Chao et al., 2017; Dailey et al., 2018). However, there is variability in the how museum tinkering programs are designed, such as whether there are goals presented and opportunities to tell stories. Storytelling during learning activities may make children’s experiences personally meaningful and narratively organized, thereby supporting memory (Bruner, 1996). Therefore, we designed multiple story-based tinkering programs and explored families’ storytelling and testing talk in their post-tinkering reflections. Reflections can reveal children’s initial learning from events, but also extend children’s memory by helping them consolidate new information (Pagano et al., 2019). We specifically examined how the types of story characters (toy characters vs. child as character) and types of goals/problems (specified in the challenge vs. decided by families) introduced in the tinkering programs would relate to families’ storytelling and testing talk in post-tinkering reflections.

Fifty-three families with 4-11-year-old children video-recorded reflections about their museum tinkering experience in the museum’s Story Hub exhibit. Based on the dates of their visits, families participated in one of five story-based tinkering programs (see Table 1). Two programs centered on the child as the character in the tinkering story. Cardboard Costume Adventure asked children to design a costume that would help them on an adventure of their choosing. The tinkering exhibit included an obstacle course for children to test whether their costume would stay on their body when moving. Party Hat Challenge asked children to create a hat for a party of their choice. Exhibit facilitators initiated a dance party every 15 minutes so that children could test whether their hat would stay on their head.

The other three programs provided small toy characters for families to include in their tinkering stories. Toy Playground asked families to make playground equipment of their choosing for small toy characters. Here to There challenged families to move a character from their table to the floor (e.g., by making a ramp), and families could choose to move balls, toy cars, or toy mice. Finally, Safe Travels challenged families to transport a glow-in-the-dark toy monster across a table without exposing them to light (e.g., by making a tunnel).

Consistent with past work, more families talked about testing in reflections about tinkering programs with specified goals (i.e., Safe Travels, Here to There) than in reflections about programs in which families chose their own goals, X2(1, 53) = 7.55, p < .01 (see Table 1). Reflections about tinkering programs that involved designing for toy characters (including Safe Travels, Here to There) also tended to include more character-driven storytelling than reflections about programs in which children designed for themselves. We are developing more museum tinkering programs that feature toy characters and clear goals/problems. Our final poster will explore families’ interactions during tinkering in addition to the content of their reflections after tinkering.

Authors

• Lauren C Pagano, Northwestern University
  Presenting Author

• Riley E George

• Catherine A. Haden, Loyola University Chicago

• David H. Uttal, Northwestern University