Tinkering

P631:Tinkering

Something happened to me as I progressed through the institutions of schooling--  I lost my ability to play, tinker and explore.  I used to have it.  Truly, I was a maker of macramé, a player of Barbies, Lincoln logs, and model horses, outside I rode ponies, built forts, and designed haunted hikes, and games.  I’m not sure when these skills went by the wayside, but I’m certain that there wasn’t “time for it” in my schooling. The rush of life consumed me into adulthood until this moment in time, when I finally realize that I have lost my creativity and tinkering skills. Maybe tinkering hasn’t been prioritized in our culture?  Did my formal schooling somehow deprogram me? Resnick and Rosenbaum (2013) noted that despite it’s benefits, “tinkering is often undervalued in today’s society, particularly in formal education systems.  Schools tend to emphasize the value of planning, teaching students to analyze all options, develop a strategy, then carry out the plans.” (pg. 166)  I became a planner but let go of the maker in me.  

Reading about constructionism, making, and Marcos in the Tinkering Studio at the San Francisco Exploratorium (Petrick et., al., 2013), while also exploring DIY projects and 3-D printing this week, has inspired me to rethink how I spend my time, and further… rethink how children spend their time in schooling spaces.  Through this process I am thinking about ways that researchers and educators can ensure that another generation of children don’t get stripped of their curiosity and desire to design, produce and create.  Resnick and Rosenbaum (2013) contend that, “tinkering is more important todays than ever before…success in the future will depend not on what you know, or how much you know, but on your ability to think and act creatively—on your ability to come up with innovative solutions to unexpected situations and unanticipated problems. ‘ (pg. 166)

Petrick et. al., (2013)suggest that “visitors to the tinkering studio are invited to slow down, sink in, and spend time working with phenomena and materials to begin to conceive of design and make things themselves.”(pg. 51)  This idea of slowing down is important, I think.  In rethinking educational spaces, it must be noted that one of the biggest pitfalls of the standardization of curricula is the pressure it puts on teachers to rush through everything in order to “hit all the standards”.  It is no surprise that within “in-school” spaces there is a perception that there just isn’t time to slow down to tinker and explore.

I believe that the hustled pace of school and thus the tension between in-school and out-of-school learning comes from the accountability culture and the politicians need for measurable standards has driven in-school learning away from a curricula that values time to design, explore and create.  This accountability culture is in-turn defining what counts as learning in the school spaces.  Learning becomes something prescribed, that draws on facts and skills and knowledge gained that is easily measured on tests.   Resnick and Rosenbaum (2013)agree that the project-based, experiential approach to learning is, “somewhat out of favor in many of today’s education systems, with their strong emphasis on content delivery and quantitative assessment.”  Contrast this with Petrick et. al.’s definition of what learning looks like. They explain that when we see intentionality, innovations, solidarity, and engagement, “developing in the space or the learners, we know that people are on a trajectory of learning. They are drawing on their resources; they are taking risks with their ideas; they are operating on the edge of the understanding.  They are engaging in the different investigative practices of designers, scientists, artists, makers, and engineers.” Using this definition of learning to frame making or tinkering learning helps one see that it is also possible to measure learning in other ways besides quantitative assessments recommended by many educational mandates.

I went to the maker space this week to make a 3-D elephant for my daughter’s new slime business.  She loves elephants and is donating proceeds from slime sales to  Save the Elephants.  When I walked into the mill I knew nothing about 3-D printing and the task seemed daunting.  As I reflect on my process in the Mill, I realize that my elephant making process was a great example of what is involved with tinkering. Resnick and Rosenbaum (2013 ) define tinkering as, “a valid and valuable style of working, characterized by a playful, exploratory, iterative style of engaging with a problem or project.”  They explain further that tinkering involves trying out ideas, making adjustments and refinements and doing things over and over.  This somewhat explains what happened with the elephant.

To start, I chose the elephant that I wanted to print.  I decided to make it smaller than it’s original form because it was going to take too long.  So on the computer, I saved the elephant image to the SD card and then took out the card and put the card in the 3-D printer. Within the first few minutes of actual printing, we realized that the elephant may be too small to work.  Parts of it were wobbling a lot and therefore we hit the abort button.  I had to return to the computer and increase the size.  Then the next problem hit.  The elephant wasn’t stable enough on it’s back.  This caused me to hit the abort key a second time and troubleshoot.  The third attempt to 3-D print  involved changing the position of the elephant (in the computer) to lay on it’s side.  I also added scaffolding and more interior support (moving from 30% to 45%).  When I began printing this time, it seemed much sturdier and I watched as it passed over the form repeatedly.  Success after much adaptation and some failure.

Through making my 3-D elephant, I learned that I can do just about anything, even things that seem way out of my experience. I learned that it is easier to take on a completely new endeavor with the support of someone who knows his or her way around technology better than I do.  Natalie was a great resource and support system when things got hard.  I learned that 3-D printing can be a great example of tinkering, as I had to revise, restart and adapt my elephant over the course of two days. Finally, I learned how to use the 3-D printer! This project’s design meets many of  Resnicks’ and Rosenbaum’s core principles for guiding design.  3-D printing gave immediate feedback, I could see the results and the process, it was easy to get started, and easy to connect and there are multiple possibilities for explorations. 

Resnick and Rosenbaum (2013) contend that “the maker movement builds upon a broader cultural shift toward a do-it-yourself approach to life, where people take pride and pleasure in creating things personally rather than only consuming mass-produced goods.” (pg. 163) I am looking forward to continuing on this path to producing more than I consume.  In addition, I hope to continue to rethink the possibilities for making and tinkering within formal education settings.  It is a great way to push back on standardization.

Resnick, M., & Rosenbaum, E. (2013).Designing for Tinkerability

Petrich, M., Wilkinson K., & Bevan, B. (2013). It looks like fun, but are they learning? In  M. Honey & D. Kanter (Eds.), Design, Make, Play: Growing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators. New York and Abingdon, Oxon., Eng.: Routledge.