The Story

There are several ways to solve engineering design problems. Among known methods, researchers have argued for tinkering as one of the authentic practices for solving engineering design problems (Berland, 2016). Researchers have also emphasized the value of multiple ways of knowing and learning, what they refer to as “epistemological pluralism”, as some ways are authentic to some students (Turkle & Papert, 1990). Tinkering is one such helpful tool in one’s problem-solving toolbelt. For some, it might be their primary tool and for others, a tool for specific circumstances. 

Tinkering has been used in some contexts, such as in hackathons for developing new solutions, or in design thinking workshops. In such contexts, tinkering is typically emergent or incidental if the right combinations of people and the environment come together. The focus in such scenarios has been on developing or learning new technologies or processes (Hielscher & Smith, 2014) and not on tinkering itself. In addition, a plethora of tinkering kits have emerged along with instruction manuals and pre-defined models, but  lack open-ended problems and scaffolds to support learners. Instead, these kits depend on the excitement towards using new technology  and assume problem-solving behaviors like tinkering will emerge as the learners keep engaging or playing with the kits. The manual and model-based approach does not trigger or question the ability of what can be done with the components, limiting them to build the specified models. There is merit in designing a learning environment to nurture tinkering as a problem-solving strategy for engineering design problems, which is our research objective. 

In this research, we  use design-based research (DBR) as a methodology which allows us to address dual goals simultaneously: one through designing and refining a learning environment and the second by coming up with a theoretical understanding of how learners tinker (Puntambekar, 2018). Within the DBR iterations, we used the conjecture mapping approach, which helped us map the features of our learning environment to the learning processes they mediate and how these processes come together to produce a desired outcome (Sandoval, 2014). 

In the first iteration, we focused on exploring tinkering and how it can be used for problem-solving. Then we identified factors influencing the tinkering processes. We designed a pedagogy Xpreseve (to be read as expressive), that operationalizes tinkering for problem-solving in engineering design. We used Xpreseve as the basis of our learning environment named “Tinkery 1.0” (an adaptation of the idea of a nursery that nurtures plants by providing them with a conducive environment to grow), designed in the context of solving problems in robotics. 

The components of Tinkery 1.0 are an ordered set of open-ended problems with multiple possible solutions, the resources, which in our context are the Lego Mindstorms kit, many scaffolds and the various roles a mentor assumes. The Xpreseve pedagogy orchestrates the activities in the learning environment. 

Further, in the first cycle, we conducted a study with Tinkery 1.0 and analyzed our study data through the lens of interactions between the participants and the various components of Tinkery 1.0. Analysis of these interactions provided evidence of the design conjectures and helped us discover emergent challenges. The second DBR iteration focused on understanding and addressing the challenges, by revising the learning environment, which led to Tinkery 2.0. 

In the second cycle, we conducted another study with Tinkery 2.0 in which the data analysis focused on interactions and actions performed by the participants when solving problems. This analysis provides evidence to support the modified design and theoretical conjectures. Evidence for the conjectures suggests that Tinkery nurtures tinkering in learners when solving engineering design problems.

This research work contributes to the existing knowledge of the design and development of learning environments, specifically in activity design, scaffolding, pedagogy and the role of a mentor for nurturing thinking to solve problems in engineering design. These contributions support learners' agency for tinkering to happen. Regarding tinkering as an individual activity, there has been a lack of recommendations on the pedagogy and role of the mentor. Hence this research also fills that gap contributing towards the gaps in the design and use of tinkering kits. We also discuss the importance of making one’s idea tangible as an aid to performing epistemic action to uncover challenges which reduce complexity. Further, through manipulation of these tangible ideas, learners perform pragmatic actions to achieve the goal of solving the problems. Research in collaborative environments on making and tinkering can use these to analyze the dialogue between participants and the actions that follow as they share physical representations of ideas. These contributions have implications for researchers working with tinkering from the point of view of learning science, maker space, creative problem solving and engineering education under the broad umbrella of educational technology.