Volume 14 · Number 3 · Pages 264–266
Interactive Objects in Physical Computing and Their Role in the Learning Process

Mareen Przybylla

Log in download the full text in PDF

> Citation > Similar > References > Add Comment

Abstract

Open peer commentary on the article “Maker Education: Where Is the Knowledge Construction?” by José Armando Valente & Paulo Blikstein. Abstract: The target article discusses the question of how educational makerspaces can become places supportive of knowledge construction. This question is too often neglected by people who run makerspaces, as they mostly explain how to use different tools and focus on the creation of a product. In makerspaces, often pupils also engage in physical computing activities and thus in the creation of interactive artifacts containing embedded systems, such as smart shoes or wristbands, plant monitoring systems or drink mixing machines. This offers the opportunity to reflect on teaching physical computing in computer science education, where similarly often the creation of the product is so strongly focused upon that the reflection of the learning process is pushed into the background.

Citation

Przybylla M. (2019) Interactive objects in physical computing and their role in the learning process. Constructivist Foundations 14(3): 264–266. https://constructivist.info/14/3/264

Export article citation data: Plain Text · BibTex · EndNote · Reference Manager (RIS)

References

Ackermann E. (2001) Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: What’s the difference? Future of Learning Group Publication 5(3): 438. http://learning.media.mit.edu/content/publications/EA.Piaget%20_%20Papert.pdf
Ben-Ari M. (1998) Constructivism in computer science education. In: ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 30(1): 257–261. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Martinez S. L. & Stager G. S. (2013) Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom. Constructing Modern Knowledge Press. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
O’Sullivan D. & Igoe T. (2004) Physical computing: Sensing and controlling the physical world with computers. Course Technology Press, Boston, MA. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Papert S. (1980) Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Papert S. (1991) Situating constructionism. In: Harel I. & Papert S. (ed.) Constructionism. Ablex, Norwood: 1–11. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Przybylla M. (2017) The nature of physical computing in schools: Findings from three years of practical experience. In: Proceedings of the 17th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research, Koli. ACM, New York, NY: 98–107. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Przybylla M. (2018) From embedded systems to physical computing: Challenges of the “digital world” in secondary computer science education. Doctoral Thesis, University of Potsdam. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Przybylla M. (2018) Impact of physical computing on learner motivation. In: Proceedings of the 18th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research, Koli. ACM, New York, NY: Article No. 9. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Resnick M. (1996) Distributed constructionism. In: Proceedings of the 1996 International Conference on Learning Sciences (ICLS ’96) International Society of the Learning Sciences, Evanston IL: 280–284. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Ryan R. M. & Deci E. L. (2000) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25(1): 54–67. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Stager G. S. (2009) A constructionist approach to robotics. In: Santos E. R., Miletto E. M. & Turcsanyi-Szabo M. (eds.) Education and technology for a better world. WCCE: 1–12. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Stager G. S. (2014) Outside the Skinner box: Can education technology make a course correction? Independent School Magazine 74(2) https://www.nais.org/magazine/independent-school/winter-2015/outside-the-skinner-box/

Comments: 0

To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.