Final Report For Fablab Assignment: Art 4365 Technology In Art Education

U T A with star in the center, used when staff photo is unavailable

by Martin Wallace
June 22 2017

Note: I'm posting this on behalf of Dr. Amanda Alexander who participated in our Spring 2017 Maker Literacies pilot with her course Art 4365 Technology in Art Education.

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Students come through my art education courses in cohorts of 15 on average. They are in four of my courses for an entire year. This means that I build relationships with them and get to know them pretty well. While in my courses, they begin in the fall semester observing K-12 classrooms.

When students begin my spring Technology in Art Education course, they have already had 2-3 courses with me and have observed K-12 classrooms quite extensively. With that said, I created the FabLab assignment around their experiences observing K-12 classrooms. The assignment asked: Thinking about Maker Spaces and the DIT community, how might teachers working in K-12 classrooms solve problems by generating ideas or using the tools of Maker communities? How could a 3D printer be used in teaching and learning? How might one “make” instead of “buy”?

We began the assignment by having Morgan Chivers as a guest speaker. We discussed the history and general background of how Maker spaces came about. We talked about what these spaces are and why they are growing in popularity. We also discussed DIY, DIT, and design thinking. Morgan showed the students various videos so that they could have a visual reference as to what happens in a Maker space or how a 3D printer functions. He gave a tutorial on Tinkercad showing students how to manipulate 3D objects in the program. He then gave us a tour of the UTA FabLab so that students could ask questions and learn more about the equipment available.

I split the students into four teams. On March 21, I had them work in their teams to brainstorm and make a list of classroom problems that they had observed. Once they had a list, they were to narrow down and choose one (as a team) that they felt they could solve using the FabLab. They were to turn in a one-page proposal on the various problems they listed along with the one that they choose. They were to also propose a solution to this problem.

On April 4, students were to present their pilot solutions for feedback. Morgan came back to the class to discuss their ideas. Students had sketches and/or Tinkercad files, and as a class, we discussed each team’s solution. This was an important step. I believe the feedback helped students to iterate their solutions and rethink how they could be successful.

The final presentation was on April 11. I requested that they turn in notes, sketches, and 3D modeling software files. I wanted rough drafts and notes of their entire design process thinking. I wanted to see that they had tested their objects and reworked them using an iterative process. With the presentations, I used a rubric, and scored them mostly thinking about the three Maker competencies of problem solving, communication, and collaboration.

TEAM 1

Problem: An elementary art teacher kept losing pencils and consistently had to replace them.

Solution: UTA students decided to design a porcupine pencil holder in Tinkercad and 3D print it (Figure 1). The holder included eight holes for pencils. The idea was that students sitting in clusters of eight could each have a color-coded holder in the middle of their cluster of seats. The teacher would assign each student a number, and that number would correspond to the pencil that they use for class. If a pencil goes missing, the teacher would know who the pencil belonged to and that student would need to find or replace it.

Porcupine pencil holder.

Figure 1. Porcupine pencil holder.

TEAM 2

Problem: An elementary art teacher needed a more developed system for classroom management and behavior.

Solution: UTA students used wood, found objects, golf tees, and 3D printing to develop a reward garden, which included a points system (Figure 2). Each color within the flower indicated different points (purple, red and blue). UTA students broke down various types of behaviors and allotted 1-7 points depending on the type of behavior. The teacher could use the garden to reward students by giving them points in turn building their garden. Points and pieces could also be taken away for bad behavior. Each art class would have a garden, which means that the teacher might have six or seven different gardens in their classroom if they have that many periods/groups of students visiting their classroom each day.

 

Reward garden.

Figure 2. Reward garden.

TEAM 3

Problem: A middle school teacher was having issues with paintbrush messiness.

Solution: UTA students used the idea of a salad spinner and tweaked it into a paintbrush cleaner (Figure 3). They brainstormed ways to actually tweak a salad spinner but in the end, decided to 3D print the entire contraption. A student or teacher could insert paintbrushes through the lid and crank the handle. The contraption would have soapy water inside, so when the handle is cranked, the cleaner spins to clean out the paintbrushes.

Paintbrush cleaner.

Figure 3. Paintbrush cleaner.

TEAM 4

Problem: A middle school teacher was having issues with student behavior.

Solution: UTA students decided to create a reward system for positive behavior with the “wheel of success” (Figure 4). The wheel was 3D printed and customizable for teachers to tweak it depending on classroom culture. If a student reflects positive behavior, he/she is able to spin the wheel for the ability to earn prizes or other goodies.

 

Wheel of success.

Figure 4. Wheel of success.

CONCLUSION

Each team was able to solve the K-12 problem that they observed as best they could considering time constraints. From reading their reflection papers and using a rubric, it was clear that the three maker competencies: problem solving, collaboration, and communication were met. One team had some issues with communication, which put them behind on the collaboration, but in the end, they were able to develop a workable solution. With more time, each team could continue to iterate the process for even better outcomes. In the end, each team returned their solution to the teacher with whom they observed. The teachers were the final say on whether or not the solution was a good one.

After this course assignment, UTA students have discussed how they feel more confident using FabLab tools and understanding maker spaces as well as design thinking. Considering the maker movement is only growing in popularity across the U.S. and in schools, it is important for college students to learn about the iterative process and tools to make them more competitive, competent art teachers.

Add new comment

Restricted HTML

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a href hreflang> <em> <strong> <cite> <button> <blockquote cite> <code> <ul type> <ol start type> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <h2 id> <h3 id> <h4 id> <h5 id> <h6 id>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.