Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
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.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
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.
Andrade, H. G. (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educational Leadership, 57(5), 13–18.
Andrade, H. G. (2005). Teaching with rubrics: The good, the bad and the ugly. College Teaching, 53(1), 27–30.
Banzi, M. (2009). Getting started with Arduino. Newton: O’Reilly Media.
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.
Bers, M. U. (2008). Blocks to robots: Learning with technology in the early childhood classroom. Amsterdam: Teachers College Press.
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.
Bevan, B., Petrich, M., & Wilkinson, K. (2014). Tinkering is serious play. Educational Leadership, 72(4), 28–33.
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.
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.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Brookhart, S. M. (2013). How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading. Alexandria: ASCD.
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511637.
Buchanan, R. (2001). Design research and the new learning. Design Issues, 17(4), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1162/07479360152681056.
Bull, G., & Garofalo, J. (2009). Personal fabrication systems: From bits to atoms. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(7), 10–12.
Bull, G., & Groves, J. (2009). The democratization of production. Learning & Leading with Technology, 5191(November), 36–37.
Ching, F. D. K. (1996). Architechture: Form, space, and order. Hoboken: Wiley.
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.
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.
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.
Herman, J. L., Aschbacher, P. R., & Winters, L. (1992). A practical guide to alternative assessment. Alexandria: ASCD.
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.
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.
James, P. T. (1996). Total quality management: An introductory text. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
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.
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.
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.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. In G. Weidenfield & Nicholson Ltd. (Eds.), The science of the concrete. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Moskal, B. M., & Leydens, J. A. (2000). Scoring rubric development: Validity and reliability. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(10), 71–81.
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.
Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things. United States: Basic Books.
OECD/Eurostat. (2005). Oslo manual: Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data (3rd ed.). Paris: OECD Publishing.
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.
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.
Papanek, V. (1971). Design for the real world human ecology and social change. New york: Bantam Books Inc.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York City: Basic Books.
Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of computer. New York City: Basic Books.
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.
Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Constructionism. Norwood: Ablex Publishing.
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.
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.
Popham, J. W. (1997). What’s wrong—and what’s right—with rubrics. Educational Leadership, 55(2), 72–75.
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.
Sennett, R. (2009). The craftsman. New Haven: Yale University Press.
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.
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.
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.
Tjalve, E. (1979). A short course in industrial design. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
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.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2012). The Understanding by design guide to advanced concepts in creating and reviewing units. Alexandria: ASCD.
Wolf, K., & Stevens, E. (2007). The role of rubrics in advancing and assessing student learning. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 7(1), 3–14.
Wortham, S. C. (2008). Assessment in early childhood education. New Jersey: Pearson.
Yükçü, S., & Atağan, G. (2009). Etkinlik, etkililik ve verimlilik kavramlarının yarattığı karışıklık. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 23(4), 1–13.
- Tinkering learning in classroom: an instructional rubric for evaluating 3D printed prototype performance
- Springer Netherlands
International Journal of Technology and Design Education
Print ISSN: 0957-7572
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-1804
BorgWarner, dSpace, FEV, Valeo Logo/© Valeo, TE Connectivity Corporation/© TE Connectivity Corporation, Smalley, AVL List GmbH/© AVL List GmbH