Physical Computing for STEAM Education:Maker-Educators’ Experiences in an Online Graduate Course

Yu-Chang HsuYu-Hui ChingSally Baldwin

Boise State UniversityUnited States

hsu@boisestate.edu yu-huiching@boisestate.edusallyjbaldwin@gmail.com

Abstract: This research explored how K-16 educators learned physical computing, and developed as maker-educators in an online graduate course. With peer support and instructor guidance, these educators designed maker projects using Scratch and Makey Makey, and developed educational maker proposals with plans of teaching the topics of their choice in STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics) through physical computing. Educators were positive about the real-world impact of their course maker projects and experiences, and highly valued the support and sense of maker community in this online course.

Keywords: coding, online graduate course, physical computing, problem solving, STEAM education

Introduction Maker movement refers to making activities that leverage programming and physical computing (e.g., microcontrollers and robotics) that create interactive experiences of sensing and controlling the physical world with computers (O’Sullivan & Igoe, 2014). There are three critical components of the maker movement—makers, makerspaces, and making activities. To engage in making activities, interested individuals (makers) utilize STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics) knowledge to create artifacts through sewing, welding, robotics, painting, printing, and building (Peppler & Bender, 2013). Inspired by the works of Dewey, Piaget, and Montessori, the maker movement emphasizes active learning and constructivism (Martinez & Stager, 2013). Papert’s pioneering work in Logo programming, which encouraged children to learn through playing, exploring, experimenting, creating, and problem solving with technology, also established the foundation of the maker movement (Gershenfeld, 2007; Harvard Educational Review Editorial Board, 2014).

Making and Physical Computing

The activities of making can lead to digital and physical artifacts. The coding portion generates computational applications that can stand on their own, such as animation, drawing, and interactive simulation (e.g., through Scratch coding). Also, coding activities generate interface (e.g., through Scratch coding) or commands (e.g., through Arduino coding) that allow makers and players to interact with physical devices and artifacts such as sensors, gears, servo motors, and robots consisting of more complicated parts. While being engaged in making, people can explore concepts or physical phenomena such as forces and motion, electricity and magnetism, or resonance (Bevan, Gutwill, Petrich, & Wilkinson, 2015). People involved in making often take on different roles as mathematicians, scientists, or designers through which they leverage STEAM knowledge, skills, and practices to solve the problems they encounter (Martin, 2015). Software (e.g., Arduino coding platform) and programmable hardware (e.g., microcontroller boards, expansion boards, and sensors) are often used in making to engage students in prototyping, hands-on learning, and problem solving (Brown, 2015; Kostakis, Niaros, & Giotitsas, 2015). This helps students gain computational and technological literacy (Kafai, Fields, & Searle, 2014; Kafai & Peppler, 2014). As makers, students work to negotiate between their ideas and physical phenomena (hence associated constraints) in making activities (Bevan et al., 2015) to create their own projects. Students take ownership of their making processes and also their maker projects where they invest personal time and exercise autonomy, control, and creativity (Kafai et al., 2014; Martin, 2015). Making encourages students to share ideas and projects, and to embrace failure as a

positive function of progress (Martin 2015). In making education, adults usually serve as facilitators or learning partners by modeling, asking questions, collaborative play, and explaining how things work (Brahms, 2014; Gutwill, Hido, & Sindorf, 2015). In addition, making encourages students to be active problem solvers instead of being passive consumers of technology (Kafai et al., 2014).

STEAM Knowledge and Skills in Making Activities

As making involves creating artifacts, play, and problem solving, it usually requires knowledge from more than one subject domain. Oftentimes, making involves learning and working with technologies, utilizing knowledge in various STEM disciplines (e.g., programming, electric circuit, physics, trigonometry, etc.). In addition to applying STEM knowledge, makers also strive to create aesthetically pleasing projects so that the maker projects are attractive and fun to play with for intended participants (Kafai et al., 2014), which means arts in general and various formats are important in creating successful and engaging maker projects. The integration of arts in making processes and maker projects is important as it may help makers communicate information about their creation and may encourage audiences to be more receptive about the project. Adding arts to STEM also helps attract and retain students as well as helps to combine aesthetic and analytical modes of thinking (Bequette & Bequette, 2012). When participating in maker projects, students have valuable authentic opportunities to apply and practice their knowledge and skills in STEAM by working toward individual or common goals shared among collaborators (Harvard Educational Review Editorial Board, 2014; Sousa & Pilecki, 2013). While making activities themselves present rich learning opportunities for students, maker projects carefully planned and developed by K-16 educators can be used as teaching and learning tools that allow for interactive and active learning of virtually unlimited topics for their students, such as the examples discussed later in this study (e.g., principles of matters, calculating objects’ traveling speed, multiplication, programming and robotics, etc.).

Maker Educator Education

Educators can learn more about making in a variety of ways (Hsu, Baldwin, & Ching, 2017). Universities offer face-to-face courses (e.g., Carnegie Mellon University, 2016; New York University, 2015). There are online courses available, for example, Stanford University offers a self-paced course focused on design thinking and the future of making (Stanford Design School, 2016). Educators can also learn more about making through professional development activities. In these activities, educators learn more about makerspaces (Oliver, 2016), may be exposed to specific activities and skill sets (e.g., woodworking, electronics, robotics) or learn about the link of making to curriculum (Oliver, 2016). There are many resources available with suggestions for setting up makerspaces (e.g., Maker Education Initiative, 2012; Sheridan et al., 2014). Educators may also choose to visit community makerspaces, learn from Maker Faires, or find resources on the Internet (e.g., Resources for Maker Education compiled by Edutopia). Educators are interested in this topic—over 7,000 educators took part in the Exploratorium museum’s Fundamentals of Tinkering massive open online course (Bevan et al., 2015). This study contributes to maker educator education by providing empirical research on K-16 educators learning about making in a formal graduate-level course.

Research Purpose and Research Questions

This study seeks to examine the K-16 educators’ STEAM topics of interests, target learners, and maker projects. The study also aims to explore K-16 educators’ perceptions regarding their experiences and development as makers and maker educators throughout an online graduate course, including the impact of their educational maker projects in life and work, course peer feedback, potential barriers of online settings for the curriculum requiring physical setup, tinkering, and demonstration. The research questions (RQ’s) of this study are the following:

1. How did K-16 educators enrolled in the online graduate course integrate STEAM teaching and learning into their maker projects and educational maker proposals?

2. What were K-16 educators’ perceptions regarding their experiences and development as makers and maker educators throughout this online graduate course?

Research MethodCourse Design and Research Context

The first author developed an online graduate course on maker technology for STEAM education during summer 2015 and taught the 16-week course in fall 2015. This course is offered through an educational technology master’s program in a northwestern state university in the United States. A total of 12 graduate students (6 male and 6 female K-16 educators) were enrolled in and completed this course hosted on the Moodle learning management system. During the first three weeks, the educators read and discussed maker movement, projects, and theoretical foundations for integrating maker technologies into STEAM education. During the following four weeks, the educators learned Scratch programming by creating projects that involved creating drawings, simulations, and games in which STEAM learning was integrated. After establishing programming skills, the K-16 educators explored the features of Makey Makey and developed three projects (one project per week) that integrated Scratch and Makey Makey to help teach STEAM concepts. Makey Makey is an electronic invention tool kit that uses a circuit board, alligator clips, and a USB cable to send closed-loop electrical signals (e.g., a keyboard stroke or mouse click) to a computer. The kit allows users to connect everyday conductive objects (e.g., fruits, jello, Play-Doh etc.) to computer programs (Wikipedia, 2017). For the final maker portfolio, each student created an interactive website that included the individual’s overview of his/her maker portfolio structure, maker project demonstration (i.e., description, screenshots/streaming video, and direct URL’s to Scratch and/or Makey Makey projects), VoiceThread tutorial on one of selected projects, an educational maker project proposal unified under one theme for a target audience, and his/her own final reflection.

Data Collection and Analysis

To learn about the K-16 educators’ interest in STEAM topics and maker projects, the authors collected secondary data including their coursework and artifacts. The authors also examined the educators’ participation in weekly discussion forums where they initially shared projects and provided constructive feedback to peers’ work in the learning community. In addition, anonymous feedback regarding this maker course was collected through the university’s course evaluation system.Thematic analysis was applied to examine the learners’ forum discussion, maker journal entries, final reflection in the maker portfolio, and course evaluation feedback for emerging themes related to our research questions. According to Braun and Clarke (2006), thematic analysis can be used for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns within data. As a method, it allows researchers to minimally organize and describe the data set in detail. They defined a theme as a unit of analysis that “captures something important about the data in relation to the research question, and represents some level of patterned response or meaning within the data set” (p. 82). In addition, the authors also examined the following sources of data generated by the educators taking this course: maker projects, educational maker proposals (i.e., a curriculum unit plan on three mini-maker projects unified under one subject theme to teach STEAM concepts/content), and VoiceThread tutorials that explained the production of a maker project of one’s choice. The examination of the aforementioned artifacts also complemented the analysis of other data sources, and allowed us to conduct triangulation for data validation that helps answer the research questions.

Results and DiscussionsResearch Question 1: How did K-16 educators enrolled in the online graduate course integrate STEAM teaching and learning into their maker projects and educational maker proposals?

Maker Projects: Integrating Scratch and Makey Makey

From Weeks 8 to 10, K-16 educators were tasked to create three educational maker projects to teach STEAM content using the Scratch applications (drawing, game, and/or simulation) they had created along with a Makey Makey board. They were free to choose topics of interest but were also recommended to consider the upcoming educational maker proposal assignment with which they would unify their maker projects under one broader

STEAM topic. Figure 1 shows the development screen (both the interface and block codes) of a Scratch simulation that helps students learn about the principles of matter. The letters of “Heat” and “Cool” are clickable buttons allowing learners to interact with the simulation to see the impact of increasing/decreasing temperature on matter (in this case, water/ice).

Figure 1. “Principles of Matter” Simulation.

In addition, the Makey Makey board, serving an external interface, can be connected to the computer via a USB cable, and to conductive materials (e.g., Play-Doh, fruits, etc.) via alligator clips to form a closed-loop electrical circuit. With computer keys (e.g., letters, upward or downward arrow) paired with the simulation’s virtual buttons, learners can interact with the simulations through the external input consisted of conductive materials (see Figures 2 and 3 for the hardware setup for interacting with the “Principles of Matters” simulation).

Figure 2. Makey Makey board connected to computer via a USB cable and to external input via alligator clips.

Figure 3. External input consisted of Play-Doh and tin foil strips for simulation control connected to the Makey Makey board via alligator clips.

Figure 4 shows a screenshot of the set-up of a “Scratch+Makey Makey” project by another maker educator in this course. This screenshot demonstrates the hardware setup for measuring the speed of a metal ball traveling through a plastic duct. The contact points at the beginning and end of the travel path were connected to a Scratch program to allow recording of contact at different times for calculating the speed of the metal ball.

Figure 4. A screenshot showing the hardware setup for measuring the speed of a traveling object.

Educational Maker Proposals, STEAM Topics, and Target Learners

The K-16 educators enrolled in this course developed educational maker proposals that included three proposed mini-maker projects unified under one topic, which they chose to teach and design. Among 12 proposals, seven were targeted at elementary school students, while others focused on kindergartners, high school students, and adult learners. The topics of choice included mathematics (e.g., multiplication, division, addition), programming (e.g., Scratch and simulation), physics (e.g., motion and states of matters), color and shapes identification and differentiation. While the sample size of this study is small, the descriptive analysis shows the majority of K-16 educators enrolled in this course either worked in or were interested in maker education at the elementary education level and in STEM education. It is encouraging and interesting to see that the K-16 educators comprehend the potential of using maker projects to teach foundational STEM subjects such as mathematics and physics, and applied STEM subjects such as programming (by guiding students to create maker projects using Scratch and Makey Makey). This is supported by other research. For example, Jones, Smith, and Cohen (2017) found that 82 preservice and early career K-12 teachers expressed interest in implementing maker activities in their classrooms, preceiving the alignment of maker education with the instructional strategies encouraged in their teacher preparation training (e.g., problem-based learning, hands-on learning), after participating in a maker workshop. It is also worth noting that in our study, one teacher thoughtfully proposed and developed sequenced mini-projects that allowed kindergartners to learn about and experience the basics of art including color, shapes, and music notes. Kindergartners who cannot yet read music notes or letter keys can now play music by using the physical keyboard made with Play-Doh keys of paired colors and/or shapes to interact with a virtual keyboard created with the Scratch program (see Figure 5).

Figure 5. A full set-up of connected Scratch program on a laptop, a Makey Makey board, color Play-Doh keys, and color “sheet music” for playing “Mary Had a Little Lamb.”

Research Question 2: What were K-16 educators’ perceptions regarding their experiences and development as makers and maker educators throughout this online graduate course?

To explore and learn about the adult learners’ experiences in this course and their development as makers and maker educators, the authors analyzed weekly discussion forum postings (project posting, peer reviews and feedback), maker design journal postings, and anonymous course evaluation. The following are the themes evidenced through the adult learners’ discourse throughout this course.

Real-world Impact of the Online Maker Education Course

One educator indicated in her maker design journal the maker projects and experiences helped connect her and her sons.

I can honestly say that beyond creating some awesome projects, we (my sons and I) all benefited by bonding thought this shared experience.

Another educator reflected on his journal during Week 9 of this course, and provided an explicit example of how one of his maker projects led his daughter to comment on how she enjoyed it and the scientific knowledge she has gained from “playing” it.

The controller design also acts as an accommodation device for English language learners and students with dyslexia because it is color-coded to eliminate confusion and help them focus on the concepts being taught. I hadn't really thought of the Makey Makey in this way before until I created this lesson and noticed that it was easier for my daughter to use the custom controller than the keyboard when interacting with the simulation. Incidentally, I received the best feedback a maker/educator father could receive from his daughter when she said "Daddy this is fun, my favorite is liquid because it can change to either a gas or a solid. Can I play again tomorrow?"

The touching feedback from the educator’s daughter presented the encouragement that a father and maker educator would be proud of and cherish highly. It also showed the bonding that is developed through the interaction interfaced by the product created through physical computing. In addition, it shows the potential and powerful learning experiences a maker project could have for STEAM education.

Another benefit educators mentioned is the value of such projects to accommodate learners with a diverse range of needs and development levels in the contexts of integrated STEAM topics. This valuable characteristic of maker projects was echoed by another educator while discussing her project.

The Makey Makey on the other hand I thought of as a more fun, interactive version of a keyboard. We used it to connect existing Scratch programs to things like fruit, foil, or candy. … but I did not see how Makey Makeys could be used to strengthen classroom instruction. …I now realize that it's a powerful learning tool that can make computers more visual, intuitive, and accessible to a variety of leaners. … By connecting the Makey Makey to touch pads that I designed, I was able to add pictures to help young students understand what buttons did regardless of if they could read or write or were comfortable using a keyboard and mouse. The project I designed incorporated math, music, and technology, showing its potential multidisciplinary applications.

The K-16 educators benefited from sharing their projects and communicating with peers. Makers develop connections by sharing and participating in creating together (Kafai & Peppler, 2014). Part of the suggested makerspace manifesto is “We share what we make, and help each other make what we share…. We help one another do better” (Hlubinka et al., 2012). Sharing was described by participants in the course:

I can only remember a handful of times throughout my MET program that I shared my work with others. In this course, however, I often shared my projects with family members and friends. I felt accomplished when I completed these projects, and I knew others would enjoy using them much more so than reading through my grad school papers. In this small change, I can see the promise and excitement surrounding the Maker Movement. When people make something, they feel a sense of achievement and ownership unlike the feeling that comes from finishing an essay or test. They experiment, tinker, play, engage, collaborate, question, revise, and ultimately learn much more. I am inspired by what I've accomplished this semester and am so excited to bring these projects and many more to my students. 

An unexpected consequence of this process, however, was the great feeling of satisfaction and accomplishment I felt when sharing the makers' experience with others.

Learning from Peers: The In-Class Online Maker Community

Sharing ideas and projects encouraged students to foster relationships (Peppler & Bender, 2013) and engage in collaborative work (Harvard Educational Review Editorial Board, 2014; Hsu & Ching, 2013). As a result, a community formed of students working together to share knowledge (Foster, Lande, & Jordan, 2014). This is in part based on the maker idea of continual improvement or “plussing” (Hlubinka et al., 2012). The K-16 educators enrolled in this course described their collaborative experience quite positively—“The feedback that we get from our classmates is incredibly helpful.”

The educators felt their maker projects improved due to valuable peer feedback and inspiration from peers’ work.I know I personally have been able to create better programs and products based on the suggestions I havegotten from my peers.

For example, I had a pretty weak rubric in my original Educational Maker Proposal, but because of some the feedback that I got, I rewrote that section and it is now, in my opinion, more detailed and complete. An unexpected consequence of this process, however, was the great feeling of satisfaction and accomplishment I felt when sharing the makers' experience with others. … I also shared this maker experience with my classmates by getting feedback on my projects as well as being able to see amazing examples of creativity as I viewed their projects.

Educators also considered the collaborative experiences helped them achieve common leanring goals and personalfulfillment.

Such collaboration and sharing of experiences leads to lessons that go beyond many of the learning goals that are most commonly established. I personally found this class and my maker experiences to be very fulfilling. I achieved great satisfaction and pride in the projects that I created. I can see now that the

students in our schools need more opportunities to create and make their own technology-based projects so they can experience the same rewards that I did, and I plan to help promote this idea in any way that I can.

No Noticeable Barriers of Online Learning Environment for Physical Computing

The adult learners did not express trouble or hindrance of the online learning process and environment for a curriculum that requires demonstrating and communicating about physical setup and tinkering. It is likely that the educators taking in this course were seasoned online learners as a result of being enrolled in an online graduate program. Also, the physical set-up of the Makey Makey board with Scratch programs and other conductive materials were clearly explained through screenshots, short screencasts, or VoiceThread tutoriasl. When there was confusion, the discussion and follow-up questions among peers usually helped solve the problem.

Conclusion and Implications

This research describes how K-16 educators integrated STEAM teaching and learning into making projects and instructional plans to teach STEAM subjects. The method of teaching making to the educators involved hands-on activities to engage in making, in an effort to “learn by doing.” Educators researched and developed physical computing skills to a level that they were able to complete a project and experience the challenges and opportunities of making. It is challenging to balance breadth and depth when developing a curriculum that could potentially head in various directions, due to the virtually unlimited possibilities of maker education and maker technologies. Providing a course that offers an overview of the various maker tech possibilities would not allow educators to build expertise in software and hardware that could sufficiently help them establish confidence and competency in starting their own curriculum. Focusing on a specific combination of programming tools and hardware could lead educators to consider a course being limited. However, the latter has the advantage of providing a good set of tools and experiences that helped K-16 educators go through a systematically choreographed curriculum and progressively strengthen their abilities, which led to developing confident maker educators who can embark on their own journey in maker education. The experience of success will allow the new maker educators to model the curriculum and scaffolding to encourage and develop future generations of makers engaged in STEAM learning and education.

References

Bequette, J. W., & Bequette, M. B. (2012). A place for art and design education in the STEM conversation.  Art Education, 65(2), 40-47.

Bevan, B., Gutwill, J. P., Petrich, M., & Wilkinson, K. (2015). Learning through stem‐rich tinkering: Findings from a jointly negotiated research project taken up in practice. Science Education, 99(1), 98-120.

Brahms, L. J. (2014). Making as a learning process: Identifying and supporting family learning in informal settings (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (3582510).

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

Brown, A. (2015). 3D printing in instructional settings: Identifying a curricular hierarchy of activities. TechTrends, 59(5), 16-24. doi:10.1007/s11528-015-0887-1

Carnegie Mellon University (2016). Integrative design, arts & technology network. Retrieved from http://ideate.cmu.edu/undergraduate- programs/physical-computing/.

Foster, C., Lande, M., & Jordan, S. (2014). An ethos of sharing in the maker community. Proceedings of the 2014 American Society for Engineering Education (DEED Division).

Gershenfeld, N. (2007). Fab: The coming revolution on your desktop–from personal computers to personal fabrication. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.

Gutwill, J. P., Hido, N., & Sindorf, L. (2015). Research to practice: Observing learning in tinkering activities. Curator: The Museum Journal, 58(2), 151-168.

Harvard Educational Review Editorial Board. (2014). The maker movement in education: Designing, creating, and learning across contexts. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 492-494. Retrieved from http://hepg.org/her-home/issues/harvard-educational-review-volume-84-number-4/herarticle/symposium

Hlubinka, M., Dougherty, D., Thomas, P., Chang, S., Hoefer, S., Alexander, I., & McGuire, D. (2013). Makerspace playbook: School edition. Retrieved from Maker Media website: http://makerspace. com/wpcontent/uploads/2013/02/MakerspacePlaybook-Feb2013. pdf.

Hsu, Y. -C., & Ching, Y. -H. (2013). Mobile app design for teaching and learning: Educators’ experiences in an online graduate course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(4), 117-139.

Hsu, Y.-C., Baldwin, S., & Ching, Y.-H. (2017). Learning through making and maker education. TechTrends(61),6, 589-594. doi:10.1007/s11528-017-0172-6

Jones, W. M., Smith, S., & Cohen, J. (2017). Preservice teachers' beliefs About using maker activities in formal K–12 educational settings: A multi-institutional study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 1-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2017.1318097

Kafai, Y. B., Fields, D. A., & Searle, K. A. (2014). Electronic textiles as disruptive designs: Supporting and challenging maker activities in schools. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 532–556.

Kafai, Y. B., & Peppler, K. A. (2014). Transparency reconsidered: Creative, critical and connected making with e-textiles. In M. Boaler & M. Ratto (Eds.), DIY citizenship: Participatory practices of politics, culture and media (pp. 300- 310). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press

Kostakis, V., Niaros, V., & Giotitsas, C. (2015). 3D printing as a means of learning: An educational experiment in two high schools in Greece. Telematics and Informatics, 32(1), 118-128. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2014.05.001

Maker Education Initiative (2012). High school makerspace tools and materials. Retrieved from: http://makered.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Makerspace-High-School-Makerspace-Tools-And-Materials-April-2012.pdf

Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 5(1), 30–39. doi:10.7771/2157-9288.1099.

Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom. Torrance, CA: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.

New York University (2015). ITP physical computing. Retrieved from https://itp.nyu.edu/physcomp/O’Sullivan, D., & Igoe, T. (2014). Physical computing: Sensing and controlling the physical world with computers.

Boston, MA: Thomson Course Technology.Oliver, K. M. (2016). Professional development considerations for makerspace leaders, part one: Addressing

“what?” and “why?”. TechTrends, 60(2), 160-166.Peppler, K., & Bender, S. (2013). Maker movement spreads innovation one project at a time. Phi Delta Kappan,

95(3), 22-27.Sheridan, K., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T. (2014). Learning in the

making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 505-531.Sousa, D. A., & Pilecki, T. (2013). From STEM to STEAM: Using brain-compatible strategies to integrate the arts.

Thousand Oaks: Corwin.Wikipedia (2017). Makey Makey. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makey_Makey.