Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Navigating worlds of information: STEM literacy practices of experienced makers

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Making as a design-centered learning activity has recently received significant attention in education. We use literacies—how individuals use representations to learn—to explore the STEM literacy practices of experienced designers and makers. Describing makers’ representational practices in STEM contexts can inform the design of literacy supports for young makers that can encourage their use of representations to connect STEM disciplines and design practices. We interviewed experienced makers to describe one literacy practice central to design: identifying, organizing, and integrating information. Makers enacted this practice within specific making processes—e.g., designing—with the purpose of sourcing and navigating information related to their chosen problems. The research supports efforts to bridge learning while making with learning in schools by positioning STEM literacies as central practices involved in the processes of designing and making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We do not include analyses of literacies in the other processes (sharing, managing, teaching, and socializing) because the participants in this study tended to discuss their own practices and the ways representations were used in the four processes we focus on in this paper. Many acknowledged the existence of these other processes when considering their work within making spaces, shops, or other community centers with tools.

  2. For an elaborated description of the co-occurrences for all making processes and literacy practices, please see Tucker-Raymond et al. 2017.

References

  • Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies: A study of reading and writing in one community. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bevan, B., Gutwill, J. P., Petrich, M., & Wilkinson, K. (2015). Learning through STEM-rich tinkering: Findings from a jointly negotiated research project taken up in practice. Science Education, 99(1), 98–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and ’making’ in education: The democratization of invention. In J. Walter-Herrmann & C. Büching (Eds.), FabLabs: Of machines, makers and inventors. Bielefeld: Transcript Publishers. (link is external).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruna, K. R., & Gomez, K. (Eds.). (2009). The work of language in multicultural classrooms: Talking science, writing science. Routledge.

  • Burghardt, M. D., & Hacker, M. (2004). Informed design: A contemporary approach to design pedagogy as the core process in technology. The Technology Teacher, 64, 6–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese Barton, A., Tan, E., & Greenberg, D. (2017). The makerspace movement: Sites of possibilities for equitable opportunities to engage underrepresented youth in STEM. Teachers College Record, 119(6), 1–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carley, K. (1990). Content analysis. In R. E. Asher et al. (Eds.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 725–730). Elsmford, NY: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christiaans, H., & Venselaar, K. (2005). Creativity in design engineering and the role of knowledge: Modelling the expert. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 5, 217–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 214–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, M. (1998). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738–797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (1999). Design research: A disciplined conversation. Design Issues, 15(2), 5–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Oxford: Berg.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N., & Cross, A. C. (1998). Expertise in engineering design. Research in Engineering Design, 10, 141–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyson, A. H., & Genishi, C. (2005). On the case: Approaches to language and literacy research. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fosmire, M., & Radcliffe, D. F. (Eds.). (2013). Integrating information into the engineering design process. West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • French, M. (1999). Conceptual design for engineers. London: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideologies in discourses. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24(2), 105–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gravel, B. E., Tucker-Raymond, E., Kohberger, K., & Browne, K. (2015). Literacy practices of experienced makers: Tools for navigating landscapes of possibility. In Proceedings of Fablearn 2015 annual conference, Palo Alto, CA, September 26–27.

  • Gutwill, J. P., Hido, N., & Sindorf, L. (2015). Research to Practice: Observing learning in tinkering activities. Curator, 58(2), 151–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halverson, E. R. (2013). Digital art making as a representational process. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(1), 121–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Honey, M., & Kanter, D. (2013). Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hynes, M. M., & Hynes, W. J. (2017). If you build it, will they come? Student preferences for Makerspace environments in higher education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. doi:10.1007/s10798-017-9412-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • John-Steiner, V. (1997). Notebooks of the mind. Explorations of thinking (2nd ed.). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A., Buntting, C., & de Vries, M. J. (2013). The developing field of technology education: A review to look forward. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23, 191–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koen, B. V. (1988). Toward a definition of the engineering method. European Journal of Engineering Education, 13(3), 307–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think: The design process demystified. Amsterdam: Architectural Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, V. R., & Fields, D. (2013, October). A clinical interview for assessing student learning in a university-level craft technology course. Paper presented at FabLearn 2013, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.

  • Leu, D.J., Forzani, E., Rhoads, C., Maykel, C., Kennedy, C., & Timbrell, N. (2015). The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Rethinking the reading achievement gap. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(1), 1–23. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. doi:10.1002/rrq.85. Available at: http://www.edweek.org/media/leu%20online%20reading%20study.pdf.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, T. (2006). Design and inquiry: Bases for an accommodation between science and technology education in the curriculum. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 43(3), 255–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Sage.

  • Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (1995). Analyzing social settings. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER). doi:10.7771/2157-9288.1099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom. Torrance: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Incorporated: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moses, R. P., & Cobb, C. E. (2001). Radical equations: Math literacy and civil rights. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. Washington: Authors.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemorin, S. (2016). The frustrations of digital fabrication: An auto/ethnographic exploration of 3D ‘Making’ in school. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. doi:10.1007/s10798-016-9366-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards. Accessed: http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards.

  • Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (1995). Engineering design: A systematic approach. London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S., & Harel, I. (Eds.). (1991). Constructionism. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peppler, K. (2010). Media arts: Arts education for a digital age. Teachers College Record, 112(8), 2118–2153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peppler, K., Halverson, E., & Kafai, Y. B. (Eds.). (2016). Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environments (Vol. 1). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrich, M., Wilkinson, K., & Bevan, B. (2013). It looks like fun, but are they really learning? In M. Honey & D. E. Kanter (Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 50–70). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quintana, M. G. B., Pujol, M. C., & Romaní, J. R. (2012). Internet navigation and information search strategies: how do children are influenced by their participation in an intensive ICT project. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(4), 513–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, M., & Rosenbaum, E. (2013). Designing for tinkerability. In M. Honey & D. E. Kanter (Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 163–181). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheridan, K., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T. (2014). Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 505–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Street, B. (2003). What’s “new” in new literacy studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5(2), 77–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tate, W. (2001). Science education as a civil right: Urban schools and opportunity-to-learn considerations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 1015–1028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker-Raymond, E., Gravel, B., Wagh, A., & Wilson, N. (2016). Making it social: Considering the purpose of literacy to support participation in making and engineering. Journal of Adult and Adolescent Literacy, 60(2), 207–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker-Raymond, E., Gravel, B. E., & Kohberger, K. (2017). Source code and a screwdriver: STEM literacy practices in fabricating activities among experienced adult makers. Journal of Adult and Adolescent Literacy, 60(6), 617–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varelas, M., & Pappas, C. C. (Eds.). (2013). Children's ways with science and literacy: Integrated multimodal enactments in urban elementary classrooms. Routledge.

  • Vossoughi, S., & Bevan, B. (2014, October). Making and tinkering: A review of the literature (pp. 1–55). National Research Council Committee on Out of School Time STEM. Accessed: http://www.sesp.northwestern.edu/docs/publications/1926024546baba2b73c7.pdf.

  • Wardrip, P. S., & Brahms, L. (2015). Learning practices of making: developing a framework for design. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on interaction design and children. New York: ACM.

  • Wardrip, P. S., & Brahms, L. (2016). Taking making to school. In K. Peppler, E. Halverson & Y. B. Kafai (Eds.), Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environments (Vol. 1, pp. 97–106). Routledge.

  • Wilson, V., & Harris, M. (2003). Designing the best: A review of effective teaching and learning in design and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13, 223–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, A. A., Smith, E., & Householder, D. L. (2014). Using disciplinary literacies to enhance students engineering design activity. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 57(8), 676–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Paula Hooper and Amon Millner for offering thoughtful critiques that pushed our thinking on this work. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Number DRL-1422532. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tufts University, 12 Upper Campus Road – Paige Hall, Medford, MA, 02155, USA

    Brian E. Gravel & Kaitlin Kohberger

  2. TERC, 2067 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, 02140, USA

    Eli Tucker-Raymond

  3. Lesley University, 29 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA

    Kyle Browne

Authors
  1. Brian E. Gravel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eli Tucker-Raymond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kaitlin Kohberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kyle Browne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian E. Gravel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gravel, B.E., Tucker-Raymond, E., Kohberger, K. et al. Navigating worlds of information: STEM literacy practices of experienced makers. Int J Technol Des Educ 28, 921–938 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9422-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9422-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation