What is Electronic Crafting? In order to understand this week’s essential question: How are electronics viable additions to “crafting” for today’s young person, I first had to figure out what electronic crafting is. I looked at examples like smart textiles, or e-textiles; digital eyeshadow; the Beat Glove, which creates sound that corresponds to finger tapping; the Breath Analyzer, a built in breathalyzer; the Moving Pet, a wearable thing that responds to the wearer’s outputs and helps him/her to be more aware of emotions and stress level; and the Bike Turn Signal Jacket (Einarson, 2013). I wrote in my notes next to some of these items, Why in the world would anyone want this? Then I watched the video the interactive dandelion painting (Qi, 2012), a “dynamic” “responsive” painting compiled of “programmable paint strips.” I read the directions, “Blow on the white puffs to watch the seeds disperse, generating new flowers.” But I couldn’t help but think that this reminded me of those lit up waterfall paintings you sometimes see in Chinese restaurants, and on second glance, it was nothing more than a painting covering a bunch of wires. So I watched Leah Buechley’s TEDTalk (2012), and while I still didn’t really understand what she was talking about, I did see the excitement in the faces of the young audience who had attended her talk, and I heard the music of DJ Shadow and The Cinematic Orchestra, and I realized that whatever this thing is, it is creative and hip and young people connect to it. I think I have figured out that electronic crafting is a fluid, quick, expressive, improvisational, and inexpensive way to “play and build and sketch with electronics in [a] fundamentally new way” (Buechley, 2012), a way to “tinker and create with digital technologies” (Smith, Iversen, & Hjorth, 2015). Furthermore, according to Buechley, “Anything we can do with a piece of paper and a pen we can now do with electronics.” And I thought, maybe this is the direction of the future. Why Electronic Crafting? The value in electronic crafting seems to lie in its ability to “provide students with a general understanding of the creative and complex process through which artifacts and futures emerge in processes of digital fabrication” (Smith, Iversen, & Hjorth, 2015). Currently, “[s]tudents have limited engagement with diverse materials for digital fabrication” and therefore, when asked to create in this context, “The students... found it difficult to communicate and negotiate their ideas...they lacked words for their tasks” (Smith, Iversen, & Hjorth, 2015). If 21st century skills revolve around problem solving, locating information, collaboration and communication skills, as we have so often been told, then we as teachers have the responsibility to prepare our students to communicate in the contexts of the workplaces of their futures. In addition, according to Qi & Buechley (2014), digital crafting is also accessible to more diverse communities. Digital crafting seems to be a bridge between student culture, interest, and readiness, while also “affording access to a general understanding of the postmodern society mediated by digital technology. In this respect, digital fabrication processes do not only lead to STEM competences, as often emphasized, but to a more profound understanding of self and society” (Smith, Iversen, & Hjorth, 2015). Electronic Crafting and Gender Equity One aspect of digital crafting that I find especially promising is its potential to reduce the gender gap in STEM fields. I am so lucky to teach in a school with a fab lab, but I am also painfully aware that in the last two years, since we started using the lab, there has not been a single girl enrolled in classes that use the lab. Two separate recent studies, published by Buchholz, Shively, Peppler, & Wohlwend (2014) and Apple, Smith, Moon, & Revelle (2016), try to bridge this gender gap using electronic crafting, specifically e-textiles, which emerged as the first-ever female- dominated computing field; more than 60% of e-textile designers in the wild are women (Buechley, 2013). Both cite significant value in the use of e-textiles with school aged girls to increase interest in, as well as access to, STEM subjects and activities. According to Apple et al. (2016), “The goal of this project was to engage female middle-school students in STEM thinking by bringing STEM to traditionally female domains such as sewing, crafting, fashion, and apparel design.” The results were right on target with their hopes. Buchholz et al. (2014) found that “[y]oung girls may be drawn into STEM learning through use of e-textiles” and Apple et al. (2016) found that, when middle school aged female “[s]tudents were interviewed regarding their interest in STEM activities” after completing projects that involved sewing with conductive thread, they “indicated a more positive view of STEM interest after the projects were completed.” The implications in the research written by Buchholz et al. (2014) went even deeper. They found that, when using “e-textiles, girls...took on leadership roles, planned highly technical aspects of the activities, iteratively problem solved, and worked without teacher help and assistance more frequently than their male counterparts.” This finding is in contrast with previous solutions to female STEM engagement, like having girl only days or classes, or encouraging girls to play with “boys” toys and tools, both of which, according to Buchholz et al. (2014), are problematic, positioning girls within a cultural deficit model that either presupposes that girls need to be protected because they are weak and/or that girls need to change to become more like their male counterparts.” I'm not saying that girls should only sew while boys should only build, but I am saying that if girls are responding to the sewing tools and not the building tools, they should be given opportunities to use them. This movement towards electronic crafting tools that are more appealing to girls is very important to me, and another reason that I think we need to allow access to, and opportunities for, this kind of crafting in schools for all students. In contrast to theorizing gender disparities as an inherent “lack” in girls (i.e., girls lack the skills, interest, or confidence necessary to participate equitably with male counterparts), we suggest reconceptualizing this disparity by looking at tacit expectations for cultural practices and social actors that are concretized through historical uses of tools, materials, and gendered communities of practice (Paechter, 2003). Rather than view gender as a static identity marker that defines participation in electronics and computing projects, we found that histories of materials, tools, and practices influenced which member of the dyads was implicitly granted hands-on access. In this case of e-textiles, the replacement of the traditional circuitry toolkit with new materials and tools like needles, fabric, and conductive thread ruptured traditional gender scripts around electronics and computing. ~Buchholz et al. (2014) Classroom Implications While the value in digital crafting has been proven, “[i]ntegrating digital fabrication into formal educational contexts is by no means a straightforward process” (Smith et al, 2015). However, there are inexpensive kits and homemade circuitry systems that rely on found materials that can be integrated into a classroom or lab. “As an alternative, we introduce a method in which circuits are hand-made on ordinary paper substrates, connected with conductive foil tape and off-the-shelf circuit components with the aim of supporting the durability, scalability, and accessibility needs of novice and expert circuit builders alike” (Qi & Buechley, 2014). Another challenge I foresee is buy-in and teacher training. This was the root of my initial scepticism. However, after exploring uses of digital crafting in the classroom, I began to understand a little bit more about how it can be applied in a non-STEM/STEAM class, i.e. my Language Arts room. Students can create electrified notebooks with “digital features [which] can help note-taking”; “digital crafting also offers methods for preserving the physical book form while augmenting them with electronic qualities...both preserve and guide the evolution of physical books in this increasingly electronic and digital age” (Qi & Buechley, 2014). If circuitry and crafting can keep physical books relevant, I’m all in! I was also inspired by the innovative and detailed lesson presented by Hodges (2016), using electronic crafting to make a “creation come to life” while exploring themes in Frankenstein. I have linked the project website here. According to Hodges, “My students, your students, all students- are captains of knowledge curation….and creation. What I mean by this is- their abilities extend what we can even begin to imagine.” Digital crafting allows their abilities to go beyond the limitations we set in our classrooms and schools, and expands their ability to create whatever they can imagine. References:
Apple, L. M., Smith, K. R., Moon, Z. K., & Revelle, G. (2016). Teaching Modules Using E-Textile Activities To Engage Female Middle-School Students in STEM Interest. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences J Family Consumer Sci, 108(1), 44-47. doi:10.14307/jfcs108.1.44 Buchholz, B., Shively, K., Peppler, K., & Wohlwend, K. (2014). Hands On, Hands Off: Gendered Access in Crafting and Electronics Practices. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21(4), 278-297. doi:10.1080/10749039.2014.939762 Buechley, L. (2012, November 15). How to "sketch" with electronics. -TEDTalks. Retrieved July 18, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTBp0Z5GPeI Chin, A. (2010). Tech Savvy: Technology as the New Fashion Statement. Fashion Statements, 35-42. doi:10.1057/9780230115408_5 Einarson, E. (2013, January 2). Go Bionic With These Wearable Arduino Projects. -Wired. Retrieved July 18, 2016, from http://www.wired.com/2013/01/wearable-arduinos/ Hodges, K. (2016, June 09). A tale of circuits and the canon. Retrieved July 22, 2016, from https://mshisflippin.wordpress.com/2016/06/09/a-tale-of-circuits-and-the-canon/ Qi, J. (2012). Interactive Light Painting: Pu Gong Ying Tu (Dandelion Painting). Retrieved July 18, 2016, from https://vimeo.com/40904471 Qi, J., & Buechley, L. (2014). Sketching in circuits. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '14. doi:10.1145/2556288.2557391 Smith, R. C., Iversen, O. S., & Hjorth, M. (2015, September). Design thinking for digital fabrication in education. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 5, 20-28. doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2015.10.002
4 Comments
7/23/2016 10:38:28 am
GREAT POST! Wow, never came to my mind about gender disparity. I can see it now. Crafting with textiles is (usually) a female practice, but marrying it with electronics gives it a great element of technology, which is (usually) and male practice. Like you, it never occurred to me the importance of crafting with electronics. Love the key practices table results. This marriage of crafting and electronics gives a great avenue for girls to play with electronics. And they have produced some awesome stuff!
Reply
7/23/2016 01:24:46 pm
What great resources, Camille! I was discussing this topic with my sister and was wondering about if adding this into a STEM/STEAM class would have the possibility to "hook" more girls, so it was super interesting to read that in your post! I also loved to read about the connections and ideas for your LA classroom :)
Reply
Tricia Turley
7/23/2016 09:54:40 pm
Interesting thoughts about the gender differences. When I taught computer programming classes at the high school level, out of 30 students, I had only one female. Now teaching on the elementary end, I don't feel like I see the same type of difference. Both girls and boys like to dig in to a variety of projects. I've read some in the past that there is a change, due to cultural/media factors, that happens to girls as they age that pushes this disparity, which is such a shame. However, your idea of using electronics with textiles is an interesting way to bridge that gap. Thanks for the insight!
Reply
Camille
7/24/2016 08:42:19 am
Tricia, So glad to hear that the gender gap seems to have lessened with the younger students. I am especially sensitive to it because I, as antifeminist as it is, am of the mindset that computers and electronics and science are not for me, and I am much happier in the humanities and the arts. I don't want to pass down these learned gender roles to my students, as I think eventually it will be harder to find a job without the STEM skills and interests. Good to hear things are looking up, and with the integration of e-textiles, even I am interested!
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
EDET678Emerging Technologies Archives
August 2016
Categories |