seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from Brazil
seen from China
seen from Brazil
seen from Malaysia
seen from India
seen from Brazil
seen from Australia
seen from China
seen from Malaysia
seen from Russia
seen from India
seen from United States
seen from Indonesia
seen from Malaysia
seen from Bangladesh
seen from United States
seen from Indonesia
Journal: MaKey-MaKey and conductivity
25 August 2015
Found out today, watching the video of Jay Silver talking about the MaKey-MaKey, that “conductive” in the case of the MM is an object with a resistance of “less than about 100 MegaOhms.” So, my lemon rind with a resistance of a few kiloOhms would definitely count.
Boy, that guy has a really different definition of conductive than most people!
Journal: Materials literacy
22 August 2015
One concept in particular that has come back a few times in the last few weeks for me has been "materials literacy," that is, knowing about different types of materials and their properties. I've realized recently that so much of what we interact with these days is trompe l'oeil, and we end up not knowing about honest materials. In an email thread, I read about one man who said his 12-year-old daughter didn’t know the difference between plastic and metal. And of course, not being familiar with materials leads to a lack of confidence... like in this thread. I think one of the advantages of Tinkering activities is that it puts Tinkerers in contact with lots of different materials in a way that puts their properties to the fore, so that materials literacy is built into Tinkering activities.
Journal: Reflections on Paper Circuits and Sewn Circuits
18 August 2015
Tinkering journal prompt: Describe what you made: Paper Circuits or Sewn Circuits. What did you try and how did it work? Write down how this activity was personally meaningful for you.
After this week’s activities with paper and sewn circuits, I have a definite favorite out of the two. Surprisingly to me, I enjoyed paper circuits more than sewn circuits.
As a knitter, I thought that I would enjoy more playing with fabric as the base for my project, but in the end, I have decided that I like paper circuits more. The reason is really simple... it’s so much faster to try out different ideas with paper than with fabric. I found it long to sew the circuit in place, and the suppleness of the fabric meant that I had to be careful of not creating inadvertent short circuits. I also found the conductive thread that I have quite difficult to sew with and particularly difficult when it came to finishing off my thread. It frayed quickly and couldn’t hold a knot because it was so slippery. In the end, I had to tack down all my ends with hot glue. This created new problems when I then wanted to sew through those areas, as my needle wouldn’t pass through the glue. I did eventually create a functioning circuit with a switch, but it took quite a lot of careful planning and two days of sewing.
On the other hand, I found the paper circuits much easier to do “free-style”, even using Al foil and double-sided tape instead of copper tape. In one evening, I was able to put together three or four different circuits, refining my technique and getting faster and more confident each time.
If I were to use these activities in a classroom, I would definitely favour paper circuits over sewn circuits as a beginners’ activity. I would reserve sewn circuits as a possibility for a final project or enrichment activity or for those students motivated to keep working on circuits on their own.
Journal: Scribble Bots forum posts
Tinkering journal prompt: Record your response to this week's reflection question, as well as two or three different responses from the discussion forum in your design journal. In what ways are the responses helpful to your educational practice?
From another poster:
I also wanted to take this activity beyond scribble machines. I work with older teens who are a little more difficult to engage. As soon as I seen this activity I could already imagine them saying that its childish and for younger kids, so I would like to make it as relevant and attractive to them as possible. I experimented with old computer components and parts from a computer refurbishment warehouse. I also experimented with adding LED's to the bot which looked great, I hope that presenting the teenagers with a mixture of old computer parts will spark their curiosity.
And my response:
This makes think about taking apart an old computer printer to make a Scribble Bot. I think the irony of subverting a machine that makes very regular and precise marks on paper into another that makes really ragged and imprecise marks could be a really interesting hook for adolescent and adult tinkerers.
These comments come from this thread on the MOOC.
I really like this thread and these comments in particular, because we are all engaging with the Tinkering activities, but many of us are then tugging, shaping or adapting the activities to our own specific needs.
From another another poster:
I want to quote a sentence from the article, "testing and prototyping is more important than working with one perfect final product in mind." Hoping for a flawless finish is what hinders initiative.
and
I was in Santa Fe last weekend, browsing through a local art show. Usually, I would have said, "wow that's beautiful" and moved on. This time, I asked the artist about his process in making them. When he broke it down for me, I realized he had simply used familiar materials in an unexpected way and it didn't seem so daunting anymore. It inspired me to try it too.
And my response:
A few of the things you mentioned in your post got me thinking about how much of facilitating Tinkering and engaging in Tinkering ourselves not about instilling a new point of view or the right way to do things but that it is more about letting go and about breaking barriers. As Tinkering facilitators (in any environment), we have to get people to let go of the idea of the perfect final product and we have to break down the mental barriers that people put up, whether it's fear of failure, a self-identity that says "I'm no good at science", or even the social barriers to collaboration, like you did when you approached the artist. It's challenging because these are often long-held, deeply entrenched beliefs and it can be very disconcerting for people to let them go!
These comments come from this thread.
Journal: Reflection on Scribble Bots
9 August 2015
(Entry adapted from a forum comment on the Tinkering MOOC)
I wanted to go beyond scribbling machines and make something else. In the end, I was inspired by the bristle-bots from the Evil Mad Scientist Laboratories and I was more interested in the bots themselves rather than in the marks left behind. So, I decided that I would make a moving creature that would seem to "graze" across a table. I did this at work and a visitor named it the "Space Bunny." It was a hit with younger kids who wanted to make their own creature. Some other members of the Tinkering MOOC mentioned some scribble bots with googly eyes pasted on, and another member mentioned their son who wanted to turn his bot into an aeroplane. I think all of these examples show that giving the scribble bot some personality can be a way of enticing people (younger especially, but even me in my 30s!) to give them a go. Giving the robot a "job" to do - as in the case of the member whose robot had a magnet attached and had to pick up metal objects - could also be another avenue to explore.
Journal: Scribble Bots
7 August 2015
Some off-the-cuff observations about forming and testing hypotheses in the context of the Scribble bots activity.
Journal: How Circuit Boards spark thought
3 August 2015
Journal prompt: Make a drawing of a circuit (or two) that worked when you connected it. Make a drawing (or two) of a circuit that didn’t work when connected. What did it take for you to become more comfortable exploring circuits in this way? How much time did it take? What contributed your "aha" moments, or frustrations?
Having the nails mounted on some of the components definitely helped with holding them in place while I was working, so that helped to quickly make attachments and test them out. I do think it’s faster to iterate this way, even if the components are not very flexible in themselves (i.e. my fan can only blow horizontally now that it’s fixed in place).
I worked for what seemed to be 30 minutes, but was actually 90 by the time I got up to watch a movie. In that time, I kept trying to make a circuit in which two components with a polarity (LED and fan) were attached in parallel, in opposite directions, to one battery, and that each component would go on in turn when the DPDT switch was flicked back and forth. In the end, I managed to achieve that behaviour without adhering to my “rules” (parallel to each other, only one battery). I think I satisfied myself that what I set out to do was impossible and that I fould at least two “workarounds” that were almost as satisfying (to me).
I found that drawing circuit diagrams was necessary to advance, to try different things, and especially to avoid short circuits. Often, I would get lost in a tangle of wires and not see short circuits until I felt my battery getting hot. It was only when I sketched the diagram could I see the direct path between the two terminals of the battery. Physically, the wire tangles got in the way of seeing clearly what was attached where. In addition, the fact that attachments on one nail or on another are functionally equivalent is harder to see in reality than in a circuit diagram. One of the facilitating strategies mentioned in Week 1 is to “simplify” by clearing the space and cleaning up the circuit, but in even a mildly complicated circuit, that is not easy to do in reality, but is much easier to do in a circuit diagram. As someone who is comfortable with circuit diagrams, specifically, and with schematically arranged information, generally, I wonder if my experience is similar to others’.
