Squishing Circuits: Circuitry Learning with Electronics and Playdough in Early Childhood
While circuitry lessons have traditionally been first introduced in late elementary school, they remain challenging conceptually for undergraduates in physics and engineering courses. Seeking to provide a higher quality and earlier introduction to circuitry learning for young children (ages 3–5), this paper investigates the affordances of utilizing the Squishy Circuits toolkit, a circuitry kit that combines circuit components and playdough, as a first introduction. Our study engaged 45 children across three nursery school classrooms in open-ended play with Squishy Circuits toolkits for seven sessions over a period of 2 weeks. Here, we focus on six children in one focal classroom in order to illustrate the concepts that children are developing during play and open exploration with the kits and a range of crafting materials. Findings indicated that the Squishy Circuits toolkit enabled children to explore concepts important to circuitry learning, including current flow, polarity, and connections. Additionally, analysis of whole class conversations before and after the circuitry explorations indicated significant gains in children’s ability to discuss circuitry concepts over the course of the study. Through individual case studies, we illustrate how children enacted these concepts through their play and how the transparency afforded by the toolkit make the big ideas of circuitry visible. This work serves to illustrate how very young children can successfully begin to engage with science topics commonly introduced in later elementary school when those topics are framed through play and discovery with transparent and malleable materials.
KeywordsCircuitry Electricity Maker education Objects-to-think-with Knowledge-in-action Play Early childhood
This study was funded by the National Science Foundation (Grant #1553398).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Conflict of Interest
Author AnnMarie Thomas co-invented Squishy Circuits, and the Squishy Circuits company has made donations to her research lab to support undergraduate research. Authors Kylie Peppler, Karen Wohlwend, Naomi Thompson, and Verily Tan declare that they each have no conflict of interest.
- Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction (Vol. 59). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Eisenberg, M., Eisenberg, A., Buechley, L., & Elumeze, N. (2006). Invisibility considered harmful: Revisiting traditional principles of ubiquitous computing in the context of education. In Wireless, mobile and ubiquitous technology in education, 2006. WMUTE’06. Fourth IEEE International Workshop on (pp. 103–110). IEEE.Google Scholar
- Johnson, S., & Thomas, A. (2010). Squishy circuits: A tangible medium for electronics education. In CHI’10 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 4099–4104). Atlanta: ACM.Google Scholar
- Kafai, Y., & Peppler, K. (2014). Transparency reconsidered: Creative, critical, and connected making with E-textiles. In DIY citizenship: Critical making and social media (p. 179). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Osborne, R. (1981). Children’s ideas about electric current. New Zealand Science Teacher, 29, 12–19.Google Scholar
- Osborne, J., Black, P., Smith, M., & Meadows, J. (1991). Primary SPACE project research report: Electricity. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.Google Scholar
- Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books Inc.Google Scholar
- Peppler, K., & Glosson, D. (2013b). Learning about circuitry with E-textiles in after-school settings. In M. Knobel & C. Lankshear (Eds.), The new literacies reader. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.Google Scholar
- Peppler, K., Gresalfi, M., Tekinbaş, K. S., & Santo, R. (2014). Soft circuits: Crafting E-fashion with DIY electronics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Peppler, K., Thompson, N., & Bender, S. (2015). “Nothing really for girls”: Examining perceived “gendered-ness” of circuitry learning toolkit. Presentation at 2015 Annual Meeting of AERA, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
- Scollon, R. (2001). Action and text: Towards an integrated understanding of the place of text in social (inter) action, mediated discourse analysis and the problem of social action. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 113–139). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Wohlwend, K. (2008). Play as a literacy of possibilities: Expanding meanings in practices, materials, and spaces. Language Arts, 86(2), 127–136.Google Scholar