Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to PATT38 - DESIGN FUTURES: Combining Design Thinking and Maker Education in elementary education across Europe
Similar to PATT38 - DESIGN FUTURES: Combining Design Thinking and Maker Education in elementary education across Europe (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
PATT38 - DESIGN FUTURES: Combining Design Thinking and Maker Education in elementary education across Europe
- 1. DESIGN FUTURES: Combining Design Thinking and Maker Education in elementary education across Europe Annemiek Veldhuis Aakash Johry Tilde Bekker Ina Conkic Emer Beamer Georgia Safouri Ioanna Gaferi Silvia Remotti Madalina Bouros PATT38 2021
- 2. Introduction Maker Education Design Thinking (Design Based Learning) Aim PATT38 2021 (Thijs et al., 2014) (Harel & Papert, 1991)
- 3. Introduction Maker Education Design Thinking (Design Based Learning) Definitions PATT38 2021 (Kröper et al. 2001)
- 4. Introduction Maker Education Design Thinking (Design Based Learning) Definitions PATT38 2021 (Lundberg & Rasmussen, 2018)
- 5. Maker Education Design Thinking (Design Based Learning) + PATT38 2021 Introduction Aim (Martinez & Stager, 2013) (Smith et al, 2015)
- 6. 1. What are the challenges of implementing a formal DT and ME program for students 8 to 12 in different socio-culteral contexts? PATT38 2021 Research Questions Introduction
- 7. PATT38 2021 Core-beliefs Introduction Be-greifbarkeit Imagineering Self-efficacy (Katterfeldt & Schelhowe, 2015)
- 8. PATT38 2021 Core-beliefs Introduction Be-greifbarkeit: To make connections between the abstract and concrete (Maker Education). (Katterfeldt & Schelhowe, 2015)
- 9. PATT38 2021 Core-beliefs Introduction Be-greifbarkeit: To make connections between the abstract and concrete (Maker Education). Imagineering: To invent and create yet unknown products that relate to personal life worlds (Design Thinking). (Katterfeldt & Schelhowe, 2015)
- 10. PATT38 2021 Core-beliefs Introduction Be-greifbarkeit: To make connections between the abstract and concrete (Maker Education). Imagineering: To invent and create yet unknown products that relate to personal life worlds (Design Thinking). Self-efficacy: To gain the confidence to contribute to the world. “The personal belief of having the power to produce desired effects (Bandura & Locke, 2003; p. 87) which has a positive effect on motivation and performance (Bandura, 1997).” (Katterfeldt & Schelhowe, 2015)
- 11. 1. What are the challenges of implementing a formal DT and ME program for students 8 to 12 in different socio-culteral contexts? 2. What is the impact of a formal DT and ME program on these student’s collaboration and creativity self-efficacy? PATT38 2021 Research Questions Introduction
- 13. Design Requirements Multi-stakeholder perspective Student Teacher Parent School board School associations Policy makers
- 14. Design Requirements Multi-stakeholder perspective Student Teacher Parent School board School associations Policy makers
- 15. Design Requirements 41 teachers Semi-structured Interviews Teachers • Training for teachers • Support reflective learning in students • Both students and teachers need to develop 21st century skills • Special attention to field research, making, and presenting
- 17. Design Requirements 41 teachers Semi-structured Interviews Teachers • Training for teachers • Support reflective learning in students • Both students and teachers need to develop 21st century skills • Special attention to field research, making, and presenting
- 18. Design Requirements Students 34 students Workshop: - Current curriculum - Positive experiences - Preferences for a new curriculum
- 19. Design Requirements Students 34 students Workshop: - Current curriculum - Positive experiences - Preferences for a new curriculum - Interactive activities, such as games. - Collaboration - Activities outside the classroom - Focus on making with both simple making materials combined with more complex technologies
- 22. Curriculum structuur 9 LESSONS 45 MINUTES LESSON STRUCTURE Game (optional) Learningactivity (1 or 2) Reflection (at school or as homework) (55 minutes with the game) 1 2 3 Design Structure PATT38 2021
- 25. Clean Energy No Poverty PATT38 2021 Design Themes
- 33. Design PATT38 2021 (Biesta, 2008; Biesta, 2010)
- 40. REFLECTION WORKSHEET REFLECTION LOGBOOK COMPETENCY- ASSESSMENT COMPETENCY- ASSESSMENT RUBRICS FEEDBACK PATT38 2021 Design Assessment (Rolfe, 2013)
- 41. Design
- 44. Theoretical underpinning PATT38 2021 Design Process (Nessler, 2018)
- 45. PATT38 2021 Theoretical underpinning Design Process
- 46. PATT38 2021 Theoretical underpinning Curricular Spiderweb (Van den Akker, 2013)
- 47. PATT38 2021 Theoretical underpinning Curricular Spiderweb (Van den Akker, 2013) (Veldhuis et al., 2021)
- 48. Learning objective What should the students know / do / feel? Learning activities How will the students learn? Assessment activities How will the achievement of the learning objectives be measured? PATT38 2021 Theoretical underpinning Constructive Alignment (Biggs, 1996)
- 49. PATT38 2021 Theoretical underpinning DT and ME Curriculum Blueprint (Veldhuis et al., 2021)
- 51. Study 30 elementary school teachers 700 students (approx.) aged 8 - 12 Participants PATT38 2021
- 52. Study Triangulated Mixed-methods study Study Design PATT38 2021
- 53. Study Teacher: • Experience • Challenges of implementation Variables PATT38 2021
- 54. Study Teacher: • Experience Questionnaire Difficulty Enjoyment Focus Group • Challenges of implementation Diary Focus Group Research instruments PATT38 2021
- 55. Study Student: • Experience • Impact on collaboration and creativity self-efficacy Variables PATT38 2021
- 56. Study Student: • Experience Questionnaire difficulty enjoyment clarity content with learning Interviews • Impact on collaboration and creativity self-efficacy Creative self-efficacy Scale (Beghetto, 2006) Teamwork scale for youth (Lower et al., 2015) Interviews PATT38 2021 Research instruments
- 58. “It is really impressive that children desire a change, and they are eager to try to make it happen, at least, at the ideation level. So, our role here was to strengthen and support their imagination.” (Teacher 3, RO) “The students started taking actions fast - for example, they turned down the lights and unplugged electronics in the household.” (Teacher 1, NL) PATT38 2021 Preliminary Results Experience: Impact
- 59. “The topic of energy was a bit difficult for some students - they were more used to recycling and we had to spend more time with them to explain [the topic].” (Teacher 2, RO) “…specifically defining the problem - they all worked on the energy [topic] and [the] kids had a hard time to say what the problem was since they did not have a good understanding of fossil fuels.” (Teacher 2, NL) PATT38 2021 Preliminary Results Difficulties: Topic
- 60. “I really liked the ‘We research’ and ‘We make’ phases - those where the ones in which the kids had the best time. And we even got feedback from parents who liked to be interviewed by their kids.” (Teacher 3, RO) “The process was really nice, the way the project was structured. I was able to include it in some of the other classes: we let the students fill in their journals during communication [class].” (Teacher 4, RO) PATT38 2021 Preliminary Results Experience: connections
- 61. Future work Data analysis Quantitative analysis: ANOVA Descriptive statistics Qualitative analysis: Thematic analysis
- 62. Future work Follow-up project Enable teachers to create their own Design Thinking and Maker Education projects based upon the Design Futures method. Enable teachers to embed learning goals from their national curriculum within these projects.
- 63. PATT38 2021 www.designfutures.eu Combining Design Thinking and Maker Education in elementary education across Europe Annemiek Veldhuis, Aakash Johry, Tilde Bekker, Ina Conkic, Emer Beamer, Georgia Safouri, Ioanna Gaferi, Silvia Remotti, Madalina Bouros
Editor's Notes
- Thank you so much, Noora. My name is Annemiek Veldhuis, I am from Eindhoven University of Technology. Today I will present the research that we are doing within the Design Futures project, an European project that is aimed to combine Design Thinking and Maker Education in elementary education.
- So why do we want to implement DT and ME education in elementary education? Because these pedagogical processes can support students with developing the necessary skills to thrive in the complex context of the 21st century. They nurture 21st-century skills through creative, making processes. So through these processes, students are enabled to discover knowledge, instead of receiving it passively.
- Design Thinking in education, also known as Design-based Learning) is a step-based process that aims to help students with dealing with complex problems through supporting critical problem understanding and the creation of various solutions.
- ME is a type of project-based learning where students learn new technical concepts and skills through the production of physical objects.
- And these pedagogies can be combined as they both involve ideating, creating, and reflecting on experience. By introducing them in early childhood education, we hope that students can develop their creative, collaborative, and making skills. However, there are still few implementations of DT and ME in formal, elementary education.
- Therefore, we set out to find what the challenges are of implementing these pedagogies in elementary education in different socio-cultural contexts,
- Moreover, we take inspiration from the core beliefs of the TechKreativ workshops by the The “Digital Media in Education” research group of the Universität Bremen: Be-greifbarkeit, Imagineering and self-efficacy.
- Begreifbarkeit refers to making connections between the abstract and concrete through tangibility and body interaction. We have chosen electronic circuits through analogue electronics to be the abstract concept to become begreifbar.
- Imagineering refers to inventing and creating yet unknown products that relate to the personal life worlds. We aim to brigde the gap between the educational context and the outside world by having students try to solve a problem that society is currently facing. For this we selected the UN’s Sustainable development goals, These are broad enough, so the students are able to define their own sub-problem within the topic and because they are so general, they are relevant to the students’ own community.
- Lastly, in constructionist understanding of education, the experience of self-efficacy is the basis for personal development. It refers to the students’ personal belief of having the power to produce desired effects. The impact of Design Thinking and Maker Education activities on the students’ self-efficacy is therefore a core indicator of its success.
- Therefore, our second question revolves around the impact is of these pedagogies on the students’ collaboration and creativity self-efficacy.
- To find answers to these questions we designed an educational program, the Design Futures program. And we tested it with elementary schools in 4 European countries: Greece, Romania, Italy and the Netherlands.
- When designing an educational program, you have to take stakeholders at different levels into account.
- To get design requirements, we gathered the perspectives from three levels: school board, teachers, and students.
- We interviewed 41 teachers over the 4 countries. First we found that we needed to provide training for teachers
- The level of acquaintance and experience with DT and ME differs a lot across the countries. The teachers in the Netherlands have more experience as these methods have been given more attention by policy makers. While Italy and Greece have centralized education systems and thus they don’t have much flexibility for adopting new practices.
- The teachers also expressed the need for reflective learning in students, the development of 21st century skills in both teachers and students, and special attention to field research, making and presenting as those seems to be the most challenging for students.
- To gain insights from the student perspective we hosted workshops with 34 students. The workshop consisted out of three parts: getting insight in the students’ experience of the current curriculum, their positive experiences, and preferences for a new curriculum.
- In all countries student’s mention that they want to include more interactive activities in their curriculum and they mentioned to prefer or have positive experiences with collaborative work. All students mentioned that they would prefer to have activities outside of the classroom and they want to focus on making with a preference for both simple making materials combined with more complex technologies
- Based on these requirements, we designed the Design Futures program. The main components of the program are: the lessonplan, a teacher’s training workshop and manual, a student reflection booklet and other assessment materials.
- The lessonplan consists out of step-by-step guidelines for implementing the program.
- The program consists out of 9 lessons of 45 to 55 minutes.
- It takes the students through a process of 6 designphases.
- In the first lesson, they get a design brief and get accainted with the technology that they will us: in this case, electronic components.
- The two themes that were selected for this pilot are Clean Energy and No Poverty
- While working in teams the students research the topic and they define a sub-problem.
- Which they try to solve through design.
- The students use the basic electronic components in the creation of a mock-up of their design,
- which they then evaluate
- and present to their peers.
- Tools that are provided to the teachers are: premade presentations, premade worksheets and a maker kit, which includes the various basic electronic components.
- Before the pilot, teachers are trained through a workshop. They are given a training manual with the theoretical background, and they can find training videos on the projects’ website.
- Because often, what is valued in education is to a large part determined by what is measured. So we also provide the teacher with assessment materials.
- These materials can be used for the teacher to assess themselves, assess the students or for the students to evaluate themselves.
- We provide self-reflection materials based on Gibbs’ reflective model for teachers,
- And competency assessment tools based on Pierce et al’s competencies for facilitators.
- Moreover, we support summative assessment through an assessment rubrics that assesses the students’ final prototype, reflections and end-presentation,
- And we support formative assessment through a guide with feedback prompts for every project phase related to different learning levels.
- The student's self-assessment is based on ipsative assessment, which is supported through competency self-assessment
- and self-reflection based on Rolfe’s 3 question model.
- This self-assessment is done in a reflection booklet
- The students evaluate themselves based on four competencies: collaboration, research, creativity and making.
- The students reflect on their learning after key lessons and at the end of the project.
- We took a theory inspired approach to designing this program. First for the design process, we took the double diamond model as starting point. The diverging and converging elements of this model represent different thinking modes.
- Divergent Thinking: is a way of thinking that focuses on the exploration of different alternatives. It encourages students to explore options and be open to new input. Convergent Thinking: is a mindset that focuses on the evaluation and selection of the best alternatives, in order to move forward and make progress in the design process. These two ways of thinking are therefore the building blocks of the entire process and are alternated to help students move from problem to solution in a structured way.
- On which we based our design process. In this diagram, you can see how the double diamond is embedded within the process.
- A tool that we used to reflect on the internal consistency and balance of the various components of the educational program is the Curricular Spiderweb. It consists out of 10 components that are integral to curriculum design.
- We found that in other DT and ME practices the stated Aims and Objectives, Learning activities, and Assessment Activities often weren’t connected and learning objectives were only occasionally assessed. To be able to create a consistent program that can be implemented in a formal educational setting each component of the program needs to be balanced and aligned with each other.
- The theory of constructive alignment therefore states that a deliberate alignment between the planning of learning activities, the learning outcomes, and the way these learning outcomes are assessed needs to be made.
- Learning objectives are statements that quantifiably specify what students will know or be able to do as a result of a learning activity. When defining these learning objectives, the growth of the students’ development needs to be taken into account. We used the Bloom Taxonomy to provide a systematic way of describing how a student’s performance grows in complexity when mastering
- The teaching methods we choose need to engage students in activities that are likely to require them to perform in the way nominated in the curriculum objectives.
- In deciding the assessment tasks, it is necessary to judge the extent to which they embody the target performances of understanding, and how well they lend themselves to evaluating individual student performances. As Design Thinking and Maker Education activities are full of change and only few methods for assessment of Design Thinking/Maker Education processes are know, we decided to look at multiple forms of assessment.
- We focused on three types of assessment: Summative assessment, which is mainly used to compare students and report progress through tests or assessment rubrics. Formative assessment which can be rsed to gain insight into learners' knowledge and skills to guide instruction. And ipsative assessment which can be used to activate students to become owners of their learning. Through, for example competency self-assessment or self-reflection.
- To assure this alignment we took these aspects together to compose the DT and ME Curriculum Blueprint, which we used underlying framework for constructing our educational program.
- We implemented the program in the 4 countries.
- 30 elementary school teachers are involved and approximately 700 students ages 8 to 12.
- To answer our research questions, we have taken a triangulated mixed-method approach. And we collect data from both the teacher and the student perspective.
- For the teacher, we look at their experience and the challenges they faced when implementing the program.
- To do that, we gather data through questionnaires, an implementation diary and focus groups with the teachers per country.
- For the students, we are interested in their experience and the impact of the program on their collaboration and creativity self-efficacy
- For these we use questionnaires with scales for difficulty, enjoyment, clarity, and contentless with learning, post-program interviews and pre- and post program self-efficacy scales to gather data.
- We are still gathering data as COVID has delayed our study. However, I would like to share some preliminary insights with you. But first, I have some students who want to share their work with you.
- This is data from the student experience questionnaire of one school. Surprisingly, students enjoyed the we learn phase the most. But this might be the novelty effect.
- The first reflections from the teachers that we have received showed that they have seen that their students became more aware of the societal problems around them which altered their behavior.
- However, the topic was difficult for the students. In order for a design project to work with children, the topic has to be something that is close to their experiences.
- The teachers did enjoy the process. Some of them could connect parts of it to other courses, others connected it with the environment outside of school.
- For future work, we are of course waiting for all the data to come in so we will be able to do the entire data analysis.
- Lastly, we are looking to create a follow up project in which we aim to enable teachers to create their own DT and ME projects based upon the Design Futures method and enable them to embed learning goals from their national curriculum within these projects.
- Thank you for listening. You can follow the progress of the project on our website on which you can also download all the designed materials.