Advertisement

Tinkering learning in classroom: an instructional rubric for evaluating 3D printed prototype performance

  • Ahmet ÇelikEmail author
  • Selçuk Özdemir
Article

Abstract

This study aims at alternatively assessing the 3D-printed prototype performances showed by young pupils during tinkering activities, as well as developing an instructional rubric that can be evaluated in line with the requirements of tinkering learning. In this direction, a draft rubric has been created by literature review and 3D product observation. In order to ensure the validity of it, a study group consisting of nine fifth grade students have also been observed during a tinkering activity and expert opinions have been sought for it. According to the results, an analytical and general-type instructional rubric has been developed, which includes definitions about 17 performance indicators under 7 criteria and whose internal consistency, scope, appearance, language validity has been ensured at a certain level. The teachers of the primary or secondary schools wanting to perform in-class tinkering activity with 3D printers can feedback to the 3D printed prototype performance of their students rapidly purposefully and effectively by using this rubric.

Keywords

3D printer Formative feedback Tinkering Instructional rubric 3D printed prototype 

Notes

References

  1. Anderson, R. S. (1998). Why talk about different ways to grade? The shift from traditional assessment to alternative assessment. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1998(74), 5–16.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.7401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrade, H. G. (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educational Leadership, 57(5), 13–18.Google Scholar
  3. Andrade, H. G. (2005). Teaching with rubrics: The good, the bad and the ugly. College Teaching, 53(1), 27–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banzi, M. (2009). Getting started with Arduino. Newton: O’Reilly Media.Google Scholar
  5. Berry, R. Q., Bull, G., Browning, C., Thomas, C. D., Starkweather, K., & Aylor, J. H. (2010). Preliminary considerations regarding use of digital fabrication to incorporate engineering design principles in elementary mathematics education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 10(2), 167–172.Google Scholar
  6. Bers, M. U. (2008). Blocks to robots: Learning with technology in the early childhood classroom. Amsterdam: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bevan, B. (2017). The promise and the promises of making in science education. Studies in Science Education, 53(1), 75–103.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1275380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bevan, B., Petrich, M., & Wilkinson, K. (2014). Tinkering is serious play. Educational Leadership, 72(4), 28–33.Google Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. Bloxham, S., Boyd, P., & Orr, S. (2011). Mark my words: The role of assessment criteria in UK higher education grading practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(6), 655–670.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075071003777716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  12. Brookhart, S. M. (2013). How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading. Alexandria: ASCD.Google Scholar
  13. Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1511637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buchanan, R. (2001). Design research and the new learning. Design Issues, 17(4), 3–23.  https://doi.org/10.1162/07479360152681056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bull, G., & Garofalo, J. (2009). Personal fabrication systems: From bits to atoms. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(7), 10–12.Google Scholar
  16. Bull, G., & Groves, J. (2009). The democratization of production. Learning & Leading with Technology, 5191(November), 36–37.Google Scholar
  17. Ching, F. D. K. (1996). Architechture: Form, space, and order. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Dickens, M., Jordan, S. S., & Lande, M. (2016). Parents and roles in informal making education: Informing and implications for making in museums. In ASEE’s 123rd annual conference & exposition. New Orleans.Google Scholar
  19. Dochy, F., Gijbels, D., & Segers, M. (2006). Learning and the emerging new assessment culture. In L. Verschaffel, F. Dochy, M. Boekaerts, & S. Vosniadou (Eds.), Instructional psychology: Past, present and future trends. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  20. Eisenberg, M. (2013). 3D printing for children: What to build next? International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 1(1), 7–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJCCI.2012.08.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gershenfeld, N. (2006). Unleash your creativity in a Fab Lab. http://www.ted.com/talks/neil_gershenfeld_on_fab_labs. Accessed 18 Mar 2018.
  22. Goodrich, H. (1997). Understanding rubrics. Educational Leadership, 54(4), 14–17.Google Scholar
  23. Herman, J. L., Aschbacher, P. R., & Winters, L. (1992). A practical guide to alternative assessment. Alexandria: ASCD.Google Scholar
  24. Honey, M., & Kanter, D. E. (2013). Introduction. In D. E. Kanter & M. Honey (Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators. Newyork: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ito, H. (2015). Is a rubric worth the time and effort? Conditions for success. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 10(2), 32–45.Google Scholar
  26. James, P. T. (1996). Total quality management: An introductory text. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  27. Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 130–144.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2007.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Khalid, H. M., & Helander, M. G. (2004). A framework for affective customer needs in product design. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 5(1), 27–42.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922031000086744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Khalid, H. M., & Helander, M. G. (2006). Customer emotional needs in product design. Concurrent Engineering, 14(3), 197–206.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1063293X06068387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lévi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. In G. Weidenfield & Nicholson Ltd. (Eds.), The science of the concrete. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Moskal, B. M., & Leydens, J. A. (2000). Scoring rubric development: Validity and reliability. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(10), 71–81.Google Scholar
  32. Nemorin, S. (2017). The frustrations of digital fabrication: An auto/ethnographic exploration of ‘3D Making’ in school. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(4), 517–535.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9366-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things. United States: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  34. OECD/Eurostat. (2005). Oslo manual: Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data (3rd ed.). Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  35. Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129–144.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Panadero, E., & Romero, M. (2014). To rubric or not to rubric? The effects of self-assessment on self-regulation, performance and self-efficacy. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(2), 133–148.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2013.877872.Google Scholar
  37. Papanek, V. (1971). Design for the real world human ecology and social change. New york: Bantam Books Inc.Google Scholar
  38. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York City: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  39. Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of computer. New York City: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  40. Papert, S. (2000). What’s the big idea? Toward a pedagogy of idea power. IBM Systems Journal, 39(3.4), 720–729.  https://doi.org/10.1147/sj.393.0720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Constructionism. Norwood: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  42. Petrich, D. D., Wilkinson, K., & Bevan, B. (2013). It looks like fun, but are they learning? In M. Honey & D. E. Kanter (Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators. Newyork: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. (M. Cook, Trans.). New York, NY: International Universities Press, Inc.  https://doi.org/10.1037/11494-000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Popham, J. W. (1997). What’s wrong—and what’s right—with rubrics. Educational Leadership, 55(2), 72–75.Google Scholar
  45. 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. Newyork: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Sennett, R. (2009). The craftsman. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Stevens, D. D., & Levi, A. J. (2013). Introduction to Rubrics: An assessment tool to save grading time, convey effective feedback, and promote student learning. Virginia: Stylus Publishing.Google Scholar
  48. Talke, K., Salomo, S., Wieringa, J. E., & Lutz, A. (2009). What about design newness? Investigating the relevance of a neglected dimension of product innovativeness. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(6), 601–615.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00686.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tierney, R., & Simon, M. (2004). What’s still wrong with rubrics: Focusing on the consistency of performance criteria across scale levels. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9(2), 1–10.Google Scholar
  50. Tjalve, E. (1979). A short course in industrial design. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  51. Vossoughi, S., & Bevan, B. (2014). Making and tinkering: A review of the literature. http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_089888.pdf. Accessed 3 Dec 2017.
  52. Vossoughi, S., Escudé, M., Kong, F., & Hooper, P. (2013). Tinkering, learning & equity in the after-school setting. In annual FabLearn conference. Stanford University.Google Scholar
  53. Washor, E., & Mojkowski, C. (2013). Making their way in the world Creating a Generation of Tinkerer-Scientists. In M. Honey & D. E. Kanter (Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators. Newyork: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2012). The Understanding by design guide to advanced concepts in creating and reviewing units. Alexandria: ASCD.Google Scholar
  55. Wolf, K., & Stevens, E. (2007). The role of rubrics in advancing and assessing student learning. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 7(1), 3–14.Google Scholar
  56. Wortham, S. C. (2008). Assessment in early childhood education. New Jersey: Pearson.Google Scholar
  57. Yükçü, S., & Atağan, G. (2009). Etkinlik, etkililik ve verimlilik kavramlarının yarattığı karışıklık. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 23(4), 1–13.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center of Distance Education Application and ResearchGazi UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Computer Education and Instructional TechnologiesFaculty of EducationAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations