Learning Through STEM-Rich Tinkering: Findings From a Jointly Negotiated Research Project Taken Up in Practice

Abstract

The Maker Movement has taken the educational field by storm due to its perceived potential as a driver of creativity, excitement, and innovation (Honey & Kanter, ; Martinez & Stager, ). Making is promoted as advancing entrepreneurship, developing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce, and supporting compelling inquiry‐based learning experiences for young people. In this paper, we focus on making as an educative inquiry‐based practice, and specifically tinkering as a branch of making that emphasizes creative, improvisational problem solving. STEM‐rich tinkering activities are designed to support interdisciplinary investigations and creativity using a STEM‐rich palette of tools, concepts, and phenomena. To date, the majority of research on making has focused on analysis of makerspaces, maker communities, and design and implementation of maker activities. In this paper, we describe a study that documented dimensions of learning in tinkering programs designed for museum visitors. The study, which was jointly negotiated among a team of researchers and practitioners, led to the development of a Tinkering Learning Dimensions Framework and a publicly available video library of tinkering exemplars, both of which are being actively used by tinkering practitioners in their direct service to the public and professional development work for the field.

People, Means, and Activities: A Conceptual Framework for Realizing the Educational Potential of Makerspaces

“…ough previous empirical studies in the area of educational Makerspaces [35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] answer pertinent questions regarding the implementation and assessment in Makerspace environments, no particular work captures the meaning of Making, and more narrowly Making in educational environments. With this work, we synthesize 53 sources representing Makerspaces in informal and formal settings to propose a conceptual framework to make meaning of educational Making.…”

The Bubbler as Systemwide Makerspace: A Design Case of How Making Became a Core Service of the Public Libraries

“…The research-practice partnership has been marked by the use of meeting and dialogue as a method for engaging in jointly negotiated activity (Bevan, Gutwill, Petrich, & Wilkinson, 2015). Additionally, the research team collaborated by (a) facilitating professional development workshops with staff; (b) utilizing research findings to shape future practice; (c) holding one-on-one meetings about learning goals and assessment practices; (d) hosting a community of practice for artists and teachers to learn about maker pedagogies; and (e) providing direct input on various designs, such as the artist-in-residence program.…”

“…The drop-in times at the libraries functioned similarly to maker programs within museums where patrons are invited to tinker with available materials alongside more expert facilitators (Bevan et al, 2015;Brahms & Crowley, 2016b). This programming often took place in open library spaces to address barriers to participation that come from the literal and figurative walls that separate spaces allocated for programming, where a patron must decide to enter from open spaces.…”

Designing a Makerspace for Pre- and In-Service Teachers

“…The literature often references social constructionism as an inspiration for makerspace learning (Burke, 2015;Libow Martinez & Stager, 2013;Resnick, 2012;Stager, 2013). In particular, Bevan, Gutwill, Petrich, and Wilkinson (2014) list theorists such as Dewey, Froebel, and Papert. The activities endemic in the maker movement that complement such a philosophical perspective include self-direction, sharing, helping one another, repurposing ideas and tools, exploring, identifying problems, solving problems, seeking feedback, testing hypotheses, and applying solutions.…”