Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Characterizing Students’ 4C Skills Development During Problem-based Digital Making

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

Abstract

Amid the maker movement, educators are proposing various making activities with programmable artifacts to prepare students for coping with the challenges in the twenty-first century. Today, the “4C” skills—critical thinking, creativity, communication, and collaboration—are regarded as significant learning outcomes in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics education; however, few researchers have investigated the adoption of problem-based learning in K-12 programming education for developing students’ 4C skills. A case study was conducted in a “digital making” camp in which 54 upper elementary and lower secondary school students (10–14 years old) were engaged in harnessing a block-based programming tool, Scratch, to conduct various problem-solving tasks. Through triangulating multiple sources of qualitative data (including lesson plans, classroom field notes, videotaped lesson records, student solutions/artifacts, and post-intervention interviews), together with the microgenetic learning analysis, this study characterizes students’ 4C skills development in the process of problem-based digital making. We found that the problem-based digital making environment supported the students’ development of (a) critical thinking in the form of critical modeling and critical data handling; (b) creativity in the form of creative explorations, creative solutions, and creative expressions; and (c) communication and collaboration in the form of communicative scaffolding and collaborative debugging. Complementary evidence-based suggestions for scaffolding problem-based digital making activities are suggested.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: What’s the difference. Future of Learning Group Publication, 5(3), 438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akcaoglu, M. (2014). Learning problem-solving through making games at the game design and learning summer program. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(5), 583–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berland, M., & Wilensky, U. (2015). Comparing virtual and physical robotics environments for supporting complex systems and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(5), 628–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbonell-Carrera, C., Saorin, J. L., Melian-Diaz, D., & De la Torre-Cantero, J. (2019). Enhancing creative thinking in STEM with 3D CAD modelling. Sustainability, 11(21), 6036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charlton, P., & Avramides, K. (2016). Knowledge construction in computer science and engineering when learning through making. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 9(4), 379–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chounta, I. A., Manske, S., & Hoppe, H. U. (2017). “From making to learning”: Introducing Dev Camps as an educational paradigm for Re-inventing Problem-based Learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. M., & Mahboobin, A. (2017). Scaffolding to support problem-solving performance in a bioengineering lab–A case study. IEEE Transactions on Education, 61(2), 109–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cui, Z., & Ng, O. (2021). The interplay between mathematical and computational thinking in primary students’ mathematical problem-solving within a programming environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(5), 988–1012. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120979930

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutumisu, M., Adams, C., & Lu, C. (2019). A scoping review of empirical research on recent computational thinking assessments. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(6), 651–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demartini, C., & Benussi, L. (2017). Do Web 4.0 and industry 4.0 imply education X. 0?. IT Professional, 19(3), 4–7.

  • Dohn, N. B. (2020). Students’ interest in Scratch coding in lower secondary mathematics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(1), 71–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eberbach, C., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Jordan, R., Taylor, J., & Hunter, R. (2021). Multidimensional trajectories for understanding ecosystems. Science Education, 105(3), 521–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fazio, L. K., & Siegler, R. S. (2013). Microgenetic learning analysis: A distinction without a difference. Human Development, 56(1), 52–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fields, D., Vasudevan, V., & Kafai, Y. B. (2015). The programmers’ collective: Fostering participatory culture by making music videos in a high school Scratch coding workshop. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(5), 613–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gadhamshetty, V., Shrestha, N., & Kilduff, J. E. (2016). Project-based introduction to an engineering design course incorporating microbial fuel cells as a renewable energy technology. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 142(3), 05016001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geng, J., Jong, M. S. Y., & Chai, C. S. (2019). Hong Kong teachers’ self-efficacy and concerns about STEM education. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 28(1), 35–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godhe, A. L., Lilja, P., & Selwyn, N. (2019). Making sense of making: Critical issues in the integration of maker education into schools. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 28(3), 317–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, P., & Care, E. (Eds.). (2014). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills: Methods and approach. Springer.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. A. (Eds.). (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academies Press.

  • Hu, C. C., Yeh, H. C., & Chen, N. S. (2020). Enhancing STEM competence by making electronic musical pencil for non-engineering students. Computers & Education, 150, 103840.

  • Hu, W., & Guo, X. (2021). Toward the development of key competencies: A conceptual framework for STEM curriculum design and a case study. Frontiers in Education, 6, 684265.

  • Ke, F., Clark, K. M., & Uysal, S. (2019). Architecture game-based mathematical learning by making. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(1), 167–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, A. (2020). Boundary crossing pedagogy in STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, K. Y., Yu, K. C., Hsiao, H. S., Chang, Y. S., & Chien, Y. H. (2020). Effects of web-based versus classroom-based STEM learning environments on the development of collaborative problem-solving skills in junior high school students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30(1), 21–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litts, B. K., Lewis, W. E., & Mortensen, C. K. (2020). Engaging youth in computational thinking practices through designing place-based mobile games about local issues. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(3), 302–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin-Beltrán, M. (2014). “What do you want to say?” How adolescents use translanguaging to expand learning opportunities. International Multilingual Research Journal, 8(3), 208–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, J. L., Dantzler, J., & Coleman, A. N. (2015). Science in action: How middle school students are changing their world through STEM service-learning projects. Theory into Practice, 54(1), 47–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, O. (2016). Comparing calculus communication across static and dynamic environments using a multimodal approach. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 2(2), 115–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-016-0014-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, O., & Cui, Z. (2021). Examining primary students’ mathematical problem-solving in a programming context: Toward a computationally enhanced mathematics education. ZDM Mathematics Education, 53, 847–860. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01200-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, O., & Ferrara, F. (2020). Towards a materialist vision of ‘learning as Making’: The case of 3D Printing Pens in school mathematics. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18, 925–944. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10000-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, O., Liu, M., & Cui, Z. (2021). Students’ in-moment challenges and developing maker perspectives during problem-based digital making. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1967817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, O., & Tsang, W. K. (2021). Constructionist learning in school mathematics: Implications for education in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. ECNU Review of Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531120978414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owens, A. D., & Hite, R. L. (2020). Enhancing student communication competencies in STEM using virtual global collaboration project-based learning. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1–27.

  • Ozkan, G., & Topsakal, U. U. (2019). Exploring the effectiveness of STEAM design processes on middle school students’ creativity. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 1–22.

  • Papert, S. (1996). A word for learning. In Y. Kafai & M. Resnick (Eds.), Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking and learning in digital world (pp. 9–24). Mahwan, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. A. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic books.

  • Parnafes, O., & diSessa, A. A. (2013). Microgenetic learning analysis. Human Development, 56(1), 5–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent. Grossman Publishers.

  • Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 579–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richard, G. T., & Giri, S. (2019). Digital and physical fabrication as multimodal learning: Understanding youth computational thinking when making integrated systems through bidirectionally responsive design. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 19(3), 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860.

  • Silber-Varod, V., Eshet-Alkalai, Y., & Geri, N. (2019). Tracing research trends of 21st-century learning skills. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 3099–3118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stylianides, A. J., & Stylianides, G. J. (2013). Seeking research-grounded solutions to problems of practice: Classroom-based interventions in mathematics education. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45(3), 333–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, H., & Collins, A. (2018). How failure is productive in the creative process: Refining student explanations through theory-building discussion. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 30, 54–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Laar, E., Van Deursen, A. J., Van Dijk, J. A., & De Haan, J. (2017). The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 577–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Virtanen, A., & Tynjälä, P. (2019). Factors explaining the learning of generic skills: A study of university students’ experiences. Teaching in Higher Education, 24(7), 880–894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, Y., Hadad, R., Tang, X., & Lin, Q. (2020). Correction to: Improving and assessing Computational Thinking in Maker activities: The integration with Physics and Engineering learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(2), 215–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The work described in this paper was fully supported by Research Grants Council (Hong Kong), General Research Fund (Ref. No. 14603720).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong

    Xiaojing Weng, Zhihao Cui, Oi-Lam Ng, Morris S. Y. Jong & Thomas K. F. Chiu

Authors
  1. Xiaojing Weng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zhihao Cui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Oi-Lam Ng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Morris S. Y. Jong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Thomas K. F. Chiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oi-Lam Ng.

Ethics declarations

Ethical and Consent Statement

The study reported in this paper has obtained ethical approval by the Survey and Behavioral Research Ethics Committee, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. The participants have provided consent to participate in the study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Weng, X., Cui, Z., Ng, OL. et al. Characterizing Students’ 4C Skills Development During Problem-based Digital Making. J Sci Educ Technol 31, 372–385 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-09961-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-09961-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation