Advertisement

Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 406–417 | Cite as

Electrifying Engagement in Middle School Science Class: Improving Student Interest Through E-textiles

  • Colby Tofel-GrehlEmail author
  • Deborah Fields
  • Kristin Searle
  • Cathy Maahs-Fladung
  • David Feldon
  • Grace Gu
  • Chongning Sun
Article

Abstract

Most interventions with “maker” technologies take place outside of school or out of core area classrooms. However, intervening in schools holds potential for reaching much larger numbers of students and the opportunity to shift instructional dynamics in classrooms. This paper shares one such intervention where electronic textiles (sewable circuits) were introduced into eighth grade science classes with the intent of exploring possible gains in student learning and motivation, particularly for underrepresented minorities. Using a quasi-experimental design, four classes engaged in a traditional circuitry unit while the other four classes undertook a new e-textile unit. Overall, students in both groups demonstrated significant learning gains on standard test items without significant differences between conditions. Significant differences appeared between groups’ attitudes toward science after the units in ways that show increasing interest in science by students in the e-textile unit. In particular, they reported positive identity shifts pertaining to their perceptions of the beliefs of their friends, family, and teacher. Findings and prior research suggest that student-created e-textile designs provide opportunities for connections outside of the classroom with friends and family and may shift students’ perceptions of their teacher’s beliefs about them more positively.

Keywords

Science education Electronic textiles Maker movement DIY media Perception of science Interest 

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick F, BouJaoude S, Duschl R, Lederman NG, Mamlok-Naaman R, Hofstein A et al (2004) Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Sci Educ 88(3):397–419. doi: 10.1002/sce.10118
  2. Archer L, DeWitt J, Osborne J, Dillon J, Willis B, Wong B (2010) “Doing” science versus “being” a scientist: examining 10/11-year-old schoolchildren’s constructions of science through the lens of identity. Sci Educ 94:617–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archer L, DeWitt J, Osborne J, Dillon J, Willis B, Wong B (2012) Science aspirations, capital, and family habitus: how families shape children’s engagement and identification with science. Am Educ Res J 49:881–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aschbacher PR, Li E, Roth EJ (2010) Is science me? High school students' identities, participation and aspirations in science, engineering, and medicine. J Res Sci Teach 47(5):564–582Google Scholar
  5. Baser M (2006) Effects of conceptual change and traditional confirmatory simulations on pre-service teachers’ understanding of direct current circuits. J Sci Educ Technol 15(5–6):367–381. doi: 10.1007/s10956-006-9025-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Basu SJ, Barton AC (2007) Developing a sustained interest in science among urban minority youth. J Res Sci Teach 44(3):466–489. doi: 10.1002/tea.20143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beggs JM, Bantham JH, Taylor S (2008) Distinguishing the factors influencing college students’ choice of major. Coll Stud J 42(2):381–394Google Scholar
  8. Bevan B, Gutwill JP, Petrich M, Wilkinson K (2015) Learning through STEM-rich tinkering: findings from a jointly negotiated research project taken up in practice. Sci Educ 99(1):98–120. doi: 10.1002/sce.21151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blikstein P (2008) Travels in Troy with Freire: technology as an agent for emancipation. In: Noguera P, Torres CA (eds) Social justice education for teachers: Paulo Freire and the possible dream. Sense, Rotterdam, Netherlands, pp 205–244Google Scholar
  10. Blikstein P (2010) Connecting the science classroom and tangible interfaces: the bifocal modeling framework. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences-Volume 2 (pp. 128–130). International Society of the Learning SciencesGoogle Scholar
  11. Blikstein P (2013) Digital fabrication and ‘making’ in education: the democratization of invention. In: Walter-Herrmann J, Büching C (eds) FabLabs: of machines, makers and inventors. Transcript Publishers, Bielefeld, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  12. Blikstein, P., & Krannich, D. (2013). The makers’ movement and FabLabs in education: experiences, technologies, and research. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 613–616). ACM, New York, USA. Doi  10.1145/2485760.2485884
  13. Bowler L (2014) Creativity through “maker” experiences and design thinking in the education of librarians. Knowledge Quest 42(5):58–61Google Scholar
  14. Brahms L & Crowley K (2017) Learning to make in the museum: the role of maker educators. In K. Peppler, E. Halverson, & Y. Kafai (Eds). Makeology in K-12, higher, and informal education: the maker movement and the future of learning. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Buechley L (2010) Questioning invisibility. Computer 43(4):84–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Buechley L, & Hill BM (2010) LilyPad in the wild: how hardware’s long tail is supporting new engineering and design communities. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM conference on designing interactive systems (pp. 199–207). New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  17. Buechley L, Peppler K, Eisenberg M, Kafai Y (eds) (2013) Textile messages: dispatches from the world of e-textiles and education, 2 ed ition edn. Peter Lang Publishing Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013) Employment projections: 2012–2022 summary. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.toc.htm
  19. Calabrese Barton A, Kang H, Tan E, O’Neill TB, Bautista-Guerra J, Brecklin C (2013) Crafting a future in science: tracing middle school girls’ identity work over time and space. Am Educ Res J 50(1):37–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chambers SK, Andre T (1997) Gender, prior knowledge, interest, and experience in electricity and conceptual change text manipulations in learning about direct current. J Res Sci Teach 34:107–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Taylor & Francis Group, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering, and Technology Development (2000) Land of plenty: diversity as America’s competitive edge in science, engineering and technology. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/cawmset0409/cawmset_0409.pdf
  23. Chang K-E, Liu S-H, Chen S-W (1998) A testing system for diagnosing misconceptions in DC electric circuits. Comput Educ 31(2):195–210. doi: 10.1016/S0360-1315(98)00030-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Costa VB (1995) When science is “another world”: relationships between worlds of family, friends, school, and science. Sci Educ 79:313–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dabney KP, Tai RH, Almarode JT, Miller-Friedmann JL, Sonnert G, Sadler PM, Hazari Z (2012) Out-of-school time science activities and their association with career interest in STEM. International Journal of Science Education, Part B 2(1):63–79. doi: 10.1080/21548455.2011.629455 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Denson CD, Stallworth C, Hailey C, Householder DL (2015) Benefits of informal learning environments: a focused examination of STEM-based program environments. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research 16(1):11–15Google Scholar
  27. DeWitt J, Osborne J, Archer L, Dillon J, Willis B, Wong B (2013) Young children’s aspirations in science: the unequivocal, the uncertain and the unthinkable. Int J Sci Educ 35:1037–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dixon C & Martin L (2014) Make to relate: Narratives of, and as, community practice. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual International Conference of the Learning Sciences (Volume 3, pp. 1951–1952). Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  29. Dorph R & Cannady M(2014) Making the future: promising evidence of influence. Lawrence Hall of Science & Cognizant. Retrieved from http://www.cognizant.com/SiteDocuments/Cognizant-making-the-future.pdf
  30. Dougherty D (2013) The maker mindset. In: Honey M, Kanter DE (eds) Design, make, play: growing the next generation of stem innovators. Routledge, New York, pp 7–11Google Scholar
  31. Engelhardt PV, Beichner RJ (2004) Students’ understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits. Am J Phys 72(1):98. doi: 10.1119/1.1614813 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fields DA, Searle KA, Kafai YB (2016) Deconstruction kits for learning: students’ collaborative debugging of electronic textile designs. In: FabLearn ’16, Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference on Creativity and Fabrication in Education, ACM, New York, p 82–85Google Scholar
  33. Ford M (2008) Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Sci Educ 92(3):404–423. doi: 10.1002/sce.2026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fredette NH, Clement JJ (1981) Student misconceptions of an electric circuit: what do they mean? J Coll Sci Teach 10:280–285Google Scholar
  35. George R (2006) A cross-domain analysis of change in students’ attitudes toward science and attitudes about the utility of science. Int J Sci Educ 28(6):571–589. doi: 10.1080/09500690500338755 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gibson HL, Chase C (2002) Longitudinal impact of an inquiry-based science program on middle school students’ attitudes toward science. Sci Educ 86(5):693–705. doi: 10.1002/sce.10039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gilmartin SK, Li E, Aschbacher P (2006) The relationship between interest in physical science/engineering, science class experiences, and family contexts: variations by gender and race/ethnicity among secondary students. J Women Minorities Sci Eng 12(2–3):179–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gonzalez N, Moll LC, Amanti C (eds) (2005) Funds of knowledge: theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  39. Hall C, Dickerson J, Battsis D, Kauffmann P, Bosse M (2011) Are we missing opportunities to encourage interest in STEM fields? J Technol Educ 23(1):32–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Halpern R (1999) After-school programs for low-income children: promises and challenges. Future Child 9(3):81–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Halverson ER, Sheridan KM (2014) The maker movement in education. Harv Educ Rev 84(4):495–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Harackiewicz JM, Rozek CS, Hulleman CS, Hyde JS (2012) Helping parents to motivate adolescents in mathematics and science an experimental test of a utility-value intervention. Psychol Sci 0956797611435530Google Scholar
  43. Hidi S (1990) Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Rev Educ Res 60:549–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hidi S, Harackiewicz JM (2000) Motivating the academically unmotivated: a critical issue for the 21st century. Rev Educ Res 70(2):151–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Honey M, Kanter DE (eds) (2013) Design, make, play: growing the next generation of STEM innovators. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Howell J, Tofel-Grehl C, Fields DA, Ducamp GJ (2016) E-textiles to teach electricity: an experiential, aesthetic, handcrafted approach to science. In: Williams C (ed) Teacher pioneers: visions from the edge of the map. ETC. Press, Pittsburgh, pp 232–245Google Scholar
  47. Jack BM, Lin HS (2014) Igniting and sustaining interest among students who have grown cold toward science. Sci Educ 98(5):792–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kafai YB, Fields DA, Searle KA (2014a) Electronic textiles as disruptive designs in schools: supporting and challenging maker activities for learning. Harvard Educ Rev 84(4):532–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kafai YB, Lee E, Searle KA, Fields DA, Kaplan E, Lui D (2014b) A crafts-oriented approach to computing in high school. ACM Trans Comput Educ 14(1):1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kafai YB, Searle KA, Martinez C, Brayboy B (2014c) Ethnocomputing with electronic textiles: culturally responsive open design to broaden participation in computing in American indian youth and communities. In: Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education. ACM, New York, p 241–246Google Scholar
  51. Katehi L, Pearson G, Feder M (eds) (2009) Engineering in K-12 education: understanding the status and improving the prospects. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  52. Kong X, Dabney KP, Tai RH (2014) The association between science summer camps and career interest in science and engineering. International Journal of Science Education, Part B 4(1):54–65. doi: 10.1080/21548455.2012.760856 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Langdon D, McKittrick G, Beede D, Khan B, & Doms M (2011) STEM: good jobs now and for the future. U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington, DC: Economics and Statistics Administration. Retrieved from http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/reports/documents/stemfinaljuly14.pdf.
  54. Liégeois L, Mullet E (2002) High school students’ understanding of resistance in simple series electric circuits. Int J Sci Educ 24(6):551–564. doi: 10.1080/09500690110066520 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Liu CC, Falk JH (2014) Serious fun: viewing hobbyist activities through a learning lens. International Journal of Science Education, Part B 4(4):343–355. doi: 10.1080/21548455.2013.824130 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lovell E & Buechley L (2010) An e-sewing tutorial for DIY learning. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 230–233). Barcelona, Spain. ACMGoogle Scholar
  57. Martin L (2015) The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-college Engineering Education Research 5(1). doi: 10.7771/2157-9288.1099
  58. Martin L & Dixon C (2013) Youth conceptions of making and the Maker Movement. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. New York, USA. Retrieved from https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/422054/DigiFab_IDC2013/Papers/IDC_2013_Martin_Dixon.pdf
  59. Miller PH, Blessing JS, Schwartz S (2006) Gender differences in high-school students’ views about science. Int J Sci Educ 28(4):363–381. doi: 10.1080/09500690500277664 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Moll LC, Amanti C, Neff D, Gonzalez N (1992) Funds of knowledge for teaching: using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Pract 31:132–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. National Center for Education Statistics (2014) NAEP Questions Tool. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ITMRLSX/search.aspx?subject=science
  62. National Institute on Out-of-School Time (2001) Fact sheet on school-age children's out-of-school time [online]. National Institute on Out-of-School Time, Wellesley, MA Retrieved from: http://www.niost.org/fact_sheet_01.pdf .
  63. NGSS Lead States (2013) Next generation science standards: for states, by states. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  64. National Research Council (2012) A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  65. National Science Board (2010) Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators: identifying and developing our nation’s human capital. Arlington, VA. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2010/nsb1033.pdf
  66. National Science Board (2016) Science and engineering indicators 2016. National Science Foundation, Arlington, VAGoogle Scholar
  67. National Science Foundation & National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (2013) Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2013. Special Report NSF 13–304. Arlington, VA. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/
  68. Navarro RL, Flores LY, Worthington RL (2007) Mexican American middle school students' goal intentions in mathematics and science: a test of social cognitive career theory. J Couns Psychol 54(3):320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Norris A (2014) Make-her-spaces as hybrid places: designing and resisting self constructions in urban classrooms. Equity & Excellence in Education 47(1):63–77. doi: 10.1080/10665684.2014.866879 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Osborne R (1981) Children’s ideas about electric current. N Z Sci Teach 29:12–19Google Scholar
  71. Osborne R (1983) Modifying children’s ideas about electric current. Research in Science and Technology Education 1:73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Osborne J, Black P, Smith M, Meadows J (1991) Primary SPACE project research report: electricity. Liverpool University Press, LiverpoolGoogle Scholar
  73. Peppler K, Glosson D (2013) Stitching circuits: learning about circuitry through e-textile materials. J Sci Educ Technol 22(5):751–763. doi: 10.1007/s10956-012-9428-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Perkins D & Grotzer T (2005) Dimensions of causal understanding: the role of complex causal models in students' understanding of science. Studies in Science Education, 117–165Google Scholar
  75. Pesman H, Eryilmaz A (2010) Development of a three-tier test to assess misconceptions about simple electric circuits. Journal of Educational Research 103(3):208–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Petrich M, Wilkinson K, Bevan B (2013) It looks like fun, but are they learning? In: Honey M, Kanter D (eds) Design, make, play: growing the next generation of STEM innovators. Routledge, New York, pp 50–70Google Scholar
  77. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2010) Prepare and inspire: K-12 education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) for America’s future. Report to the President. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-stemed-report.pdf
  78. Qi J (2014) Circuit stickers. http://www.circuitstickers.com
  79. Roque R, Rusk N, Beck L, MIT Media Lab, & Chen X (2014) Family creative learning: engaging parents and children as learning partners in creative technology workshops. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual International Conference of the Learning Sciences (Volume 3, pp.1623–1624)Google Scholar
  80. Schiefele U, Krapp A, Winteler A (1992) Interest as a predictor of academic achievement: a meta-analysis of research. In: Renninger KA, Hidi S, Krapp A (eds) The role of interest in learning and development. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale NJ, England, pp 183–212Google Scholar
  81. Searle KA, Kafai YB (2015a) Boys’ needlework: understanding gendered and Indigenous perspectives on computing and crafting with electronic textiles. In: Proceedings of the eleventh annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research, ACM, New York, p 31–39Google Scholar
  82. Searle KA, Kafai YB (2015b) Culturally responsive making with American Indian girls: Bridging the identity gap in crafting and computing with electronic textiles. In: Proceedings of Gender and Information Technology 2015. ACM, New York, p 9–16Google Scholar
  83. Searle KA, Fields DA, Lui D, Kafai YB (2014) Diversifying high school students' views about computing with electronic textiles. In: Proceedings of International Computing Education Research, ACM, New York, p 75–82Google Scholar
  84. Searle KA, Fields DA, Kafai YB (2016) Crafting high-low tech identities with electronic textiles: complicating relationships between gender and technology. In: Peppler K, Halverson E, Kafai YB (eds) Makeology: makers as learners, vol 2. Routledge, New York, pp 72–84Google Scholar
  85. Sencar S, Eryilmaz A (2004) Factors mediating the effect of gender on ninth-grade Turkish students’ misconceptions concerning electric circuits. J Res Sci Teach 41:603–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sheridan K, Halverson ER, Litts B, Brahms L, Jacobs-Priebe L, Owens T (2014) Learning in the making: a comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harv Educ Rev 84(4):505–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sjaastad J (2012) Sources of Inspiration: the role of significant persons in young people's choice of science in higher education. Int J Sci Educ 34(10):1615–1636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sleeter CE, Grant CA (1991) Mapping terrains of power: student cultural knowledge versus classroom knowledge. In: Sleeter C (ed) Empowerment through multicultural education. State University of New York Press, Albany, NYGoogle Scholar
  89. Sneider C (2012) Core ideas of engineering and technology. Science Teacher 79(1):32–36Google Scholar
  90. Spradley JP (1979) The ethnographic interview. Waveland Press, Inc., Long Grove, ILGoogle Scholar
  91. Stokes PD (2008) Creativity from constraints: what can we learn from Motherwell? from Modrian? from Klee? J Creat Behavr 42(4):223–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Subotnik RF, Tai RH, Rickoff R, Almarode J (2009) Specialized public high schools of science, mathematics, and technology and the STEM pipeline: what do we know now and what will we know in 5 years? Roeper Review 32(1):7–16. doi: 10.1080/02783190903386553 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Tai RH, Liu CQ, Maltese AV, Fan X (2006) Planning early for careers in. Science 312(5777):1143–1144. doi: 10.1126/science.1128690 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Tan LM, Laswad F (2009) Understanding students’ choice of academic majors: a longitudinal analysis. Acc Educ 18(3):233–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Tan E, Calabrese Barton A, Kang H, O'Neill T (2013) Desiring a career in STEM‐related fields: how middle school girls articulate and negotiate identities‐in‐practice in science. J Res Sci Teach 50(10):1143–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Tang M, Fouad NA, Smith PL (1999) Asian Americans' career choices: a path model to examine factors influencing their career choices. J Vocat Behav 54(1):142–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center (2011) TIMSS 2011 assessment. Lynch School of Education, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MAGoogle Scholar
  98. Tobias S (1994) Interest, prior knowledge, and learning. Rev Educ Res 64(1):37–54. doi: 10.3102/00346543064001037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Tofel-Grehl C, Fields DA (2015) Sewing up science: a craft based approach for teaching electricity and circuits. Sci Teach 82(8):45–49Google Scholar
  100. Turner SL, Steward JC, Lapan RT (2004) Family factors associated with sixth‐grade adolescents' math and science career interests. Career Dev Q 53(1):41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Vossoughi S & Bevan B (2014) Making and tinkering: a review of the literature. Commissioned paper by the committee on successful out-of-school STEM learning. Retrieved from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/BOSE/CurrentProjects/DBASSE_086842
  102. Weibert A, Marshall A, Aal K, Schubert K, & Rode J (2014) Sewing interest in e-textiles: analyzing making from a gendered perspective. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive System (pp. 5–24). Vancouver, Canada. ACM, New York, NYGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Colby Tofel-Grehl
    • 1
    Email author
  • Deborah Fields
    • 1
  • Kristin Searle
    • 1
  • Cathy Maahs-Fladung
    • 1
  • David Feldon
    • 1
  • Grace Gu
    • 1
  • Chongning Sun
    • 1
  1. 1.Utah State UniversityLoganUSA

Personalised recommendations