Tinkering experiences in informal learning spaces can engage families in engineering practices and support learning (Pagano et al., 2020). Further, reflections after informal learning experiences can reveal and extend children’s memory and learning (Pagano et al., 2019), but reflections vary by age, culture, setting, program, and other factors (Fivush et al., 2006). We examined how the conversational structure and engineering content of families’ reflections vary across multiple museum visits and across different types of tinkering programs (e.g., open-ended vs. function-focused).
Tinkering activities designed for parents and children can foster spatial thinking, which benefits spatial skill development (Ramey et al., 2020). During tinkering activities, families may be challenged to use tools and materials to solve open-ended problems (Bevan, 2017). The problems specified by different tinkering challenges can highlight intrinsic or extrinsic spatial information (Chatterjee, 2008; Mix et al., 2018). In this project we asked, how does the spatial information highlighted by a tinkering challenge affect the quality of families’ spatial thinking?
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Naomi PolinskyElena FiegenKaitlyn HurkaCatherine HadenDavid Uttal
The tinkering process of making, testing, and iteratively redesigning projects can teach children about engineering concepts (Marcus et al., 2021; NGSS, 2013), but there is variability in how tinkering programs are designed. Storytelling may make children’s learning experiences personally meaningful and narratively organized, thereby supporting memory (Bruner, 1996). We designed multiple story-based tinkering programs and examined how the types of story characters and goals introduced in the tinkering programs would relate to the content of families’ talk in post-tinkering reflections.
In this project, we asked whether storytelling during tinkering might support children’s engagement in STEM and how that may differ across boys and girls. According to Bruner (1996), stories can help children to organize experiences by adding coherence, increasing understanding, and facilitating learning. We observed associations between story and STEM in two contexts: home and museum exhibit.
Given the important role of autonomy support in children’s motivation and learning, this study asked whether parents’ use of autonomy supportive language (vs. controlling language) was associated with children’s engagement in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in a bi-directional manner during an at-home tinkering activity.
Informal educational activities, such as tinkering, can be beneficial for children’s engineering learning (Bevan, 2017; Sobel & Jipson, 2016). Storytelling can help children organize and make meaning of their experiences (Brown et al., 2014; Bruner, 1996), thereby supporting learning. Digital storytelling, in which narratives and reflections are combined with photos and videos in order to be shared with an audience, has become a familiar, enjoyable activity for many children (Robin, 2008). We examine whether digital storytelling activities during tinkering and reflection will be related to
Informal educational activities, such as tinkering, can be beneficial for children’s engineering learning (Bevan, 2017; Sobel & Jipson, 2016). Storytelling can help children organize and make meaning of their experiences (Brown et al., 2014; Bruner, 1996), thereby supporting learning. We examine whether digital storytelling activities during tinkering and reflection will be related to more engineering talk.We also explore whether children with previous digital storytelling experience will produce higher quality narratives than children without.
Using a design-based research approach, we studied ways to advance opportunities for children and families to engage in engineering design practices in an informal educational setting. 213 families with 5–11-year-old children were observed as they visited a tinkering exhibit at a children’s museum during one of three iterations of a program posing an engineering design challenge. Children’s narrative reflections about their experience were recorded immediately after tinkering. Across iterations of the program, changes to the exhibit design and facilitation provided by museum staff corresponded
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Maria MarcusDiana AcostaPirko TouguDavid UttalCatherine Haden
When Chicago Children’s Museum (CCM) closed in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the reality of a prolonged closure soon hit home. Like all of our colleague museums, we needed to find a way to remain relevant to our community and carry out important aspects of our work.
One key initiative that needed to be sustained was our National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded research-to-practice project: TALES (Tinkering and Learning Engineering Stories)1. A partnership between CCM, Loyola University Chicago, and Northwestern University, this project studies how narrative and storytelling
But many young people face signifcant economic, cultural, historical, and/or social obstacles that distance them from STEM as a meaningful or viable option— these range from under-resourced schools, race- and gender-based discrimination, to the dominant cultural norms of STEM professions or the historical uses of STEM to oppress or disadvantage socio-economically marginalized communities (Philip and Azevedo 2017). As a result, participation in STEM-organized hobby groups, academic programs, and professions remains low among many racial, ethnic, and gender groups (Dawson 2017). One solution to
Engaging with Tinkering is a highly stimulating and complex experience and invites rich reflections from museum practitioners and teachers. "Tinkering as an inclusive approach for building STEM identity and supporting students facing disadvantage or with low science capital” presents the reflective practice process and tools designed by the "Tinkering EU: Building Science Capital for All" project aiming to understand in more depth the potential impact of using a Tinkering approach with students facing disadvantage. Using tools specifically designed to help teachers observe their students
The aim of this review of the literature is to identify what we already know about the engagement of children aged under eight in makerspaces. Given the limited literature in the area, the review takes a broader look at makerspaces for older children where relevant. This is not a systematic review; its aim is not to offer an exhaustive account of all of the research conducted in the area. Rather, this narrative review provides an introduction to key aspects of research on makerspaces and enables the identification of themes dominant in the field, and those areas where more research is needed
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Jackie MarshKristiina KumpulainenBobby NishaAnca VelicuAlicia Blum-RossDavid HyattSvanborg JónsdóttirRachael LevySabine LittleGeorge MarusteruMargrét Elísabet ÓlafsdóttirKjetil SandvikFiona ScottKlaus ThestrupHans Christian ArnsethKristín DýrfjörðAlfredo JornetSkúlína Hlíf KjartansdóttirKate PahlSvava PétursdóttirGísli ThorsteinssonUniversity of Sheffield