Supporting making online: the role of artifact, teacher and peer interactions in crafting electronic textiles

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to report changes when a classroom-based makerspace moved from face-to-face to an online setting. Design/methodology/approach To better understand changes in teaching maker activities, as they move from face-to-face to online contexts, the authors analyzed video and interview data from six weeks of an introductory computer science high school classroom (38 youth) that was implementing an electronic textiles unit, shifting to asynchronous online teaching and learning during the March 2020 state-wide school closure because of the pandemic. The authors analyzed field notes and videos of face-to-face and online interactions between the teacher and his students in learning to craft and code their electronic textiles projects. Findings The analysis revealed changes in the role of physical and code artifacts, in improvising teaching, and channels for communication between the teacher and students. Research limitations/implications This study discusses the implications for future pedagogical design and research efforts, as the authors continue to engage youth and work toward designing equitable learning opportunities with maker activities online. Originality/value In maker activities such as electronic textiles, youth design, sew and program circuits to make personalized three-dimensional, textile artifacts. However, nearly all research on supporting and teaching making has been conducted in face-to-face settings.

The Outbreak of the COVID-19 Pandemic and its Social Impact on Education: Were Engineering Teachers Ready to Teach Online?

“…In this type of teaching, although the teacher provides videos or audios in which the concepts are explained, the doubts that the students may have must be resolved to a great extent by themselves, because the teacher will not be available during the explanation of the concepts [ 22 ]. Careful preparation of this material is therefore very important, in the absence of real-time meetings between the teacher and the students during the explanation, so that the students can understand the concepts as they are addressed [ 52 ].…”

“…Students were asked whether they felt the teachers were concerned about their understanding of the concepts (statement 14) and whether the teachers had checked their understanding (statement 15). These are two common shortcomings in asynchronous online teaching [ 52 ], mainly due to the absence of direct contact between the teacher and the student [ 22 ]. In online teaching, the teacher must continuously monitor student learning to adapt it to their needs as they arise [ 23 ].…”

“…The tutorial schedule, once defined, had to be communicated to students during the first week of online teaching. These actions were intended to support students, because their learning throughout the course unit in asynchronous online teaching depends largely on their motivation and interest [ 51 ], which will be greater if they feel that the teacher cares about them and is actively involved in their learning [ 52 ].…”

“… The profile of the teacher on each selected course unit had to fit an almost standard one: a specialized teacher with regard to the content of the course unit, with knowledge of new technologies and capable of developing course unit activities online [ 53 ]. In addition, the F2F teaching methodology of the teachers had to be similar, so that any effect of the teacher on the comparison between F2F and online teaching could be disregarded [ 52 ]. Students of as many ages as possible should participate.…”

“…Their profiles had to fit the one indicated above and the participating teachers had to teach their F2F classes in a similar way, considering such aspects as time dedicated to both theoretical and practical concepts, class methodology, group work, and workload of the qualification. In this way, the students’ perceptions of both F2F and online teaching could be compared on all the selected course units [ 52 ]. A comparative process between the available teachers was conducted, to select suitable course units, based on the prior knowledge of the authors, the evaluation surveys from previous years on teaching activity administered to students, and the teaching quality evaluation grade obtained by each teacher of the University of Burgos (DOCENTIA program [ 54 ]).…”