Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

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

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.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrade, H. G. (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educational Leadership,57(5), 13–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrade, H. G. (2005). Teaching with rubrics: The good, the bad and the ugly. College Teaching,53(1), 27–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banzi, M. (2009). Getting started with Arduino. Newton: O’Reilly Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bers, M. U. (2008). Blocks to robots: Learning with technology in the early childhood classroom. Amsterdam: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bevan, B., Petrich, M., & Wilkinson, K. (2014). Tinkering is serious play. Educational Leadership,72(4), 28–33.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brookhart, S. M. (2013). How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading. Alexandria: ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues,8(2), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R. (2001). Design research and the new learning. Design Issues,17(4), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1162/07479360152681056.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bull, G., & Garofalo, J. (2009). Personal fabrication systems: From bits to atoms. Learning & Leading with Technology,36(7), 10–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bull, G., & Groves, J. (2009). The democratization of production. Learning & Leading with Technology,5191(November), 36–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ching, F. D. K. (1996). Architechture: Form, space, and order. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gershenfeld, N. (2006). Unleash your creativity in a Fab Lab. http://www.ted.com/talks/neil_gershenfeld_on_fab_labs. Accessed 18 Mar 2018.

  • Goodrich, H. (1997). Understanding rubrics. Educational Leadership,54(4), 14–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman, J. L., Aschbacher, P. R., & Winters, L. (1992). A practical guide to alternative assessment. Alexandria: ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • James, P. T. (1996). Total quality management: An introductory text. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Moskal, B. M., & Leydens, J. A. (2000). Scoring rubric development: Validity and reliability. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation,7(10), 71–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things. United States: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD/Eurostat. (2005). Oslo manual: Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data (3rd ed.). Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papanek, V. (1971). Design for the real world human ecology and social change. New york: Bantam Books Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York City: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of computer. New York City: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Constructionism. Norwood: Ablex Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Popham, J. W. (1997). What’s wrong—and what’s right—with rubrics. Educational Leadership,55(2), 72–75.

    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. Newyork: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sennett, R. (2009). The craftsman. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Tjalve, E. (1979). A short course in industrial design. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Vossoughi, S., Escudé, M., Kong, F., & Hooper, P. (2013). Tinkering, learning & equity in the after-school setting. In annual FabLearn conference. Stanford University.

  • 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 

  • Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2012). The Understanding by design guide to advanced concepts in creating and reviewing units. Alexandria: ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Wortham, S. C. (2008). Assessment in early childhood education. New Jersey: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center of Distance Education Application and Research, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey

    Ahmet Çelik

  2. Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technologies, Faculty of Education, Ankara, Turkey

    Selçuk Özdemir

Authors
  1. Ahmet Çelik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Selçuk Özdemir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmet Çelik.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

figure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Çelik, A., Özdemir, S. Tinkering learning in classroom: an instructional rubric for evaluating 3D printed prototype performance. Int J Technol Des Educ 30, 459–478 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09512-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09512-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation