research-article

Facilitating Online Distributed Critical Making: Lessons Learned

Authors:

Alissa N. Antle,

Alexandra Kitson,

Zoe Dao-Kroeker,

John Desnoyers-Stewart,

Katrien JacobsAuthors Info & Claims

FabLearn Europe / MakeEd 2021: FabLearn Europe / MakeEd 2021 - An International Conference on Computing, Design and Making in Education

Article No.: 9, Pages 1 - 9

https://doi.org/10.1145/3466725.3466759

Published: 27 August 2021 Publication History

Abstract

The global pandemic has brought numerous challenges for educators who take a maker-centered approach, whose instruction involves direct engagement with materials through collaborative and exploratory social interactions. Many educators have found creative ways to address the obstacles of being remote. However, inciting critical reflection through making, already difficult during in-person settings, has become an even greater challenge in remote settings. This paper reports on the lessons learned from a two-week online afterschool maker workshop where participants worked on a maker project being in remote locations, while engaged in critical reflections on ethical implications of biowearable devices. The results showed preliminary evidence that participants were able to produce a prototype and engaged in critical reflection on the ethical issues of biowearables. We also found that while online environments offer limited social cues and flexibility, access to multiple communication channels enabled just-in-time facilitation for critical reflection.

References

[1]

Edith K Ackermann. 2011. Perspective-taking and object construction: Two keys to learning. In Constuctionism in Practice: Designing, Thinking, and Learning in a Digital World, Yasmin Kafai and Mitchel Resnick (eds.). Routledge, New York, NY, 25–37.

[2]

John R. Anderson, Lynne M. Reder, and Herbert A. Simon. 1996. Situated learning and education. Educational researcher 25, 4 (1996), 5–11.

[3]

Alissa N. Antle and Alexandra Kitson. In Press. 1,2,3,4 Tell me how to grow more: A position paper on children, design ethics and biowearables. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction (In Press). Retrieved from http://antle.iat.sfu.ca/wp-content/uploads/IJCCI-S-21-00012_Antle_PrePrint.pdf

[4]

Alissa N. Antle, Alexandra Kitson, Yumiko Murai, John Desnoyers-Stewart, Yves Candau, Azadeh Adibi, Katrien Jacobs, and Zoe Dao-Kroeker. In Press. Opportunities and scaffolds for critical reflection on ethical issues in an online after school biowearable workshop for youth. In FabLearn ’21, ACM, Rorschach, Switzerland. Retrieved from http://antle.iat.sfu.ca/wp-content/uploads/AntleKitson_FabLearn2021_WIP_Postprint.pdf

[5]

Bronwyn Bevan. 2017. The promise and the promises of making in science education. Studies in Science Education 53, 1 (January 2017), 75–103.

[6]

Bronwyn Bevan, Joshua P. Gutwill, Mike Petrich, and Karen Wilkinson. 2015. Learning through STEM-rich tinkering: Findings from a jointly negotiated research project taken up in practice. Science Education 99, 1 (2015), 98–120.

[7]

Paulo Blikstein. 2013. Digital fabrication and ‘Making’ in education: The democratization of invention. In FabLab, Julia Walter-Herrmann and Corinne Büching (eds.). transcript Verlag, Bielefeld.

[8]

Karen Ann Brennan. 2013. Best of both worlds: Issues of structure and agency in computational creation, in and out of school. PhD Thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Digital Library

[9]

David Cavallo. 2000. Emergent design and learning environments: Building on indigenous knowledge. IBM Syst. J. 39, 3.4 (2000), 768–781.

Digital Library

[10]

Edward P. Clapp, Jessica Ross, Jennifer O. Ryan, and Shari Tishman. 2016. Maker-centered learning: Empowering young people to shape their worlds. John Wiley & Sons.

[11]

Zoe Minh-Tam Dao-Kroeker, Alexandra J. Kitson, Alissa N. Antle, Yumiko Murai, and Azadeh Adibi. In Press. Designing Bio-Tech Ethics Cards: Promoting critical making during an online workshop with youth. In Proceedings of Interactive Design and Children Conference. Retrieved from http://antle.iat.sfu.ca/wp-content/uploads/DAOKRO1.pdf

[12]

Michael Eisenberg. 2013. 3D printing for children: What to build next? International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 1, 1 (January 2013), 7–13.

[13]

Kath Fisher. 2003. Demystifying critical reflection: Defining criteria for assessment. Higher Education Research & Development 22, 3 (November 2003), 313–325.

[14]

Joshua P. Gutwill, Nina Hido, and Lisa Sindorf. 2015. Research to practice: Observing learning in tinkering activities. Curator: The Museum Journal 58, 2, 151–168.

[15]

Erica Rosenfeld Halverson. 2012. Participatory media spaces: A design perspective on learning with media and technology in the twenty-first century. In Games, Learning, and Society: Learning and Meaning in the Digital Age, Constance Steinkuehler, Kurt Squire and Sasha Barab (eds.). Cambridge University Press.

[16]

Erica Rosenfeld Halverson and Kimberly Sheridan. 2014. The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review 84, 4, 495–504.

[17]

Idit Harel and Seymour Papert. 1991. Constructionism. Ablex Publishing.

[18]

Gayithri Jayathirtha, Deborah Fields, Yasmin B. Kafai, and Joseph Chipps. 2020. Supporting making online: the role of artifact, teacher and peer interactions in crafting electronic textiles. Information and Learning Sciences 121, 5/6 (January 2020), 381–390.

[19]

Yasmin Kafai. 2006. Constructionism. In Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.

[20]

Kung Jin Lee, Wendy Roldan, Tian Qi Zhu, Harkiran Kaur Saluja, Sungmin Na, Britnie Chin, Yilin Zeng, Jin Ha Lee, and Jason Yip. 2020. The show must go on: A conceptual model of conducting synchronous participatory design with children online. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Association for Computing Machinery.

[21]

Kylie Peppler, R. Mishael Sedas, and Maggie Dahn. 2020. Making at home: Interest-driven practices and supportive relationships in minoritized homes. Education Sciences 10, 5 (May 2020), 143.

[22]

Sadhana Puntambekar and Janet L. Kolodner. 2005. Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 42, 2 (2005), 185–217.

[23]

Matt Ratto. 2011. Critical making: Conceptual and material studies in technology and social life. The Information Society 27, 4 (July 2011), 252–260.

Digital Library

[24]

Mitchel Resnick and Eric Rosenbaum. 2013. Designing for tinkerability. In Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators, Margaret Honey and David E. Kanter (eds.). 163–181.

[25]

Chad Schwartz. 2016. Critical making: Exploring the use of making as a generative tool. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy 13, 3 (September 2016), 227–248.

[26]

Kimberly Sheridan, Erica Rosenfeld Halverson, Breanne Litts, Lisa Brahms, Lynette Jacobs-Priebe, and Trevor Owens. 2014. Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review 84, 4 (December 2014), 505–531.

[27]

José Armando Valente and Paulo Blikstein. 2019. Maker education: Where is the knowledge construction? Constructivist Foundations 14, 3 (July 2019), 252–262.

[28]

Shirin Vossoughi and Bronwyn Bevan. 2015. Making and tinkering: A review of the literature. National Research Council Committee on Out of School Time STEM.

[29]

Robert K. Yin. 2011. Applications of case study research. Sage Publications.

Cited By

Yang SDortheimer JSprecher AYang Q(2024)When design workshops meet chatbots: Meaningful participation at scale?International Journal of Architectural Computing10.1177/14780771241253440Online publication date: 30-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.1177/14780771241253440
Bucchetti VRossi MTolino UVerrotti di Pianella BVisconti P(2023)Communication Design for Welfare, the Challenge of Preserving Human Interactions in Remote Participation. Rethinking and Redefining Collaborative Activities for a Virtual EnvironmentMultidisciplinary Aspects of Design10.1007/978-3-031-49811-4_45(475-484)Online publication date: 31-Dec-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49811-4_45
Delcourt CCharmaraman LDurrani SGu QXiao L(2022)Innovating Novel Online Social Spaces with Diverse Middle School GirlsProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3491102.3517576(1-16)Online publication date: 29-Apr-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3491102.3517576
Show More Cited By

Facilitating Online Distributed Critical Making: Lessons Learned
1. Applied computing
  1. Education

Recommendations

“There are a LOT of moral issues with biowearables” ... Teaching Design Ethics through a Critical Making Biowearable Workshop
IDC '22: Proceedings of the 21st Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference

There has been an increasing focus on teaching youth about design ethics as part of technical literacy. Biowearables are an emerging technology in which devices worn on children's bodies are used to track, monitor and provide feedback about their ...
Designing Biotech Ethics Cards: Promoting Critical Making During an Online Workshop with Youth
IDC '21: Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference

There are ethical concerns surrounding how youth interact with biowearable technology and the potential effects it has on their psychological and physiological health. We need to give youth the tools to critically reflect and explore ethical issues ...
Opportunities and Scaffolds for Critical Reflection on Ethical Issues in an Online After School Biowearable Workshop for Youth
FabLearn Europe / MakeEd 2021: FabLearn Europe / MakeEd 2021 - An International Conference on Computing, Design and Making in Education

The rapid adoption of biowearables, such as smartwatches, raises ethical issues as youth are increasingly being tracked, monitored and given feedback on a growing number of measures. To address this pressing need, we investigated how to support youth to ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

FabLearn Europe / MakeEd 2021: FabLearn Europe / MakeEd 2021 - An International Conference on Computing, Design and Making in Education

June 2021

148 pages

ISBN:9781450389891

DOI:10.1145/3466725

Copyright © 2021 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 27 August 2021

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Funding Sources

SFU Innovates
NSERC
SSHRC

Conference

FabLearn Europe / MakeEd 2021

FabLearn Europe / MakeEd 2021: FabLearn Europe / MakeEd 2021 - An International Conference on Computing, Design and Making in Education

June 2 - 3, 2021

St. Gallen, Switzerland

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 14 of 35 submissions, 40%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

4
Total Citations
View Citations
115
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)31
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 14 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Yang SDortheimer JSprecher AYang Q(2024)When design workshops meet chatbots: Meaningful participation at scale?International Journal of Architectural Computing10.1177/14780771241253440Online publication date: 30-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.1177/14780771241253440
Bucchetti VRossi MTolino UVerrotti di Pianella BVisconti P(2023)Communication Design for Welfare, the Challenge of Preserving Human Interactions in Remote Participation. Rethinking and Redefining Collaborative Activities for a Virtual EnvironmentMultidisciplinary Aspects of Design10.1007/978-3-031-49811-4_45(475-484)Online publication date: 31-Dec-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49811-4_45
Delcourt CCharmaraman LDurrani SGu QXiao L(2022)Innovating Novel Online Social Spaces with Diverse Middle School GirlsProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3491102.3517576(1-16)Online publication date: 29-Apr-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3491102.3517576
Arima SAssilmia FMaekawa MOkawa K(2022)Lessons Learned: Design of Online Video Co-creation Workshop for ESDComputer Supported Education10.1007/978-3-031-14756-2_26(536-559)Online publication date: 21-Aug-2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14756-2_26

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents