Yeni Nesillere Kendi Geleceklerini İnşa Etme Amacıyla Üretim Odaklı Bilişim Teknolojileri Becerilerinin Kazandırılması

Abstract

Bilişim teknolojileri araçlarını çocukların gözlemledikleri problemleri çözmek için disiplinlerarası kullanmaları yönünde farkındalık yaratmak çeşitli ülkeler için öncelikli konulardan birisidir. Günümüzde, bireyler ürünleri kendi istekleri doğrultusunda kullanmak istedikleri için, 'kendin yap' akımı yaygınlaşmaya başlamış ve teknolojinin sağladığı olanaklar sonucunda buluş kültürü doğmuştur. Bu çalışma üç boyutlu tasarımlara ilişkin uygulamalar yapmak ve çocukların üç boyutlu tasarım ve üretim aktivitelerinden sonra bu süreçlere ilişkin farkındalık kazanıp kazanmadıklarını görebilmek için onların bilişimle üretim konusundaki güncel görüşlerini ortaya çıkarmayı amaçlamaktadır. Araştırmada, Tinkercad programının kullanımı ve çocukların 3D tasarımlarının incelenmesine yönelik soruların yanıtlanması amacıyla nitel bir yöntem olan keşfedici durum çalışması kullanılmıştır. Çalışma, Ankara Büyükşehir Belediyesi Çocuk Konseyinden toplam 22 çocuğun, Autodesk firmasına ait Tinkercad 3 boyutlu tasarım ve üretim etkinliğine bir gün katılmasıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çocukların ve ebeveynlerin bilişim teknolojileri kullanım durumları, çocukların 3 boyutlu tasarımları ve farkındalık düzeyleri gibi çeşitli temalar çalışma kapsamında analiz edilmiştir. Araştırma sonuçları, çocukların bilişim teknolojilerini iletişim ve eğlence amacıyla kullanmalarına rağmen, bilişim teknolojilerinin üretim yönünün bilincinde olmadıklarını göstermektedir. Çocuklara bilgisayarlarla ve bilgisayarlaşmış cihazlarla üretim yapabilme olanağı sağlayan etkinlikler hazırlamak, bilişim teknolojilerinin potansiyel gücünü görebilmeleri açısından yararlı olacaktır.

Keywords

• kamusal alan ve bilişim,yazarlık araçları,eğitimsel konular

Furnushing New Generations with Productive ICT Skills to Make Them the Maker of Their Own Future

Abstract

Increasing awareness on children’s using ICT tools interdisciplinary to solve the problems they observe is one of the priority issues in the pursuit of several countries. Today, because individuals want to use products by their own pleasure and wishes, “do it yourself” movement has started to become common and as a result of the facilities of technology, the culture of creation was born. This study aims to find out children’s current views on production, to make implementations regarding 3D designs and to discover whether there is awareness in children’s ideas regarding production after the 3D design and production activities. Exploratory case study, a qualitative method, was used to answer the questions regarding the use of Tinkercad program and children's examination of their 3D designs.  A total of 22 children from the Child Council of Ankara Metropolitan Municipality participated in a one day 3D design and production activity with Tinkercad online design program presented by Autodesk. Several themes such as information technology use of children and their parents, children’s 3D designs and their awareness levels were analyzed. Results show that even though children use information technologies for communication and fun, they are unaware of the productive aspects of ICT. Organizing activities allowing them to produce with computers and computerized machines help children to see the potential power of ICT.

Keywords

• public spaces and computing,authoring tools,pedagogical issues

References

1. Akpınar, Y. & Altun, A. (2014). Bilgi toplumu okullarında programlama eğitimi gereksinimi. Elementary Education Online 13(1), 1-4.
2. Barniskis, S.C. (2014). Maker spaces and teaching artists. Teaching Artist Journal, 12(1), 6-14.
3. BBC. (2015). Will a robot take your job? Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34066941 on 12.09.2015.
4. Berg, B.L. (2009). Qualitative resarch methods for the social sciences, (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson, Ally&Bacon Publishing.
5. Bergson, H. (1911). Creative Evolution. Henry Holt and Company. New York.
6. Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and ‘making’ in education: The democratization of invention. FabLabs: of machines, makers and inventors, 1-21.
7. Blikstein, P. & Krannich, D. (2013). The Makers’ Movement and FabLabs in Education: Experiences, Technologies, and Research. IDC(2013), 613–616. Retrieved from: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2485884 on 03.02.2017.
8. Buehler, E., Kane S.S. & Hurst, A.(2014). ABC and 3D: Oppurtinities and Obstacles to 3D Printing in Special Education Environments. ASSETS(2014), 107-114. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2661365 on 03.02.2017.

9. Bulut, S. & Köroğlu, S. (2000). On birinci sınıf öğrencilerinin ve matematik öğretmen adaylarının uzaysal yeteneklerinin incelenmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18, 56-61.
10. Clements, D.H. (1999). ‘Concrete’ manipulatives, ‘concrete’ ideas, State Universty of New York, Buffalo, USA. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 1(1), 45-60.
11. Clements, D.H. & Mcmillen, S. (1996). Rethinking “concrete” manipulatives. Teaching Children Mathematics, 2(5), 270-279.
12. Davidson, C.N. (2012). Now you see it: How technology and brain science will transform schools and business for the 21th century paperback. USA: Penguin Books.
13. Developing National Policies in STEM Talent Development: Obstacles and Opportunities Rena F. Subotnik, Ashley M. Edmiston and Kristin M. Rayhack Science Education: Models and Networking of Student Research Training under 21. Csermely et al. (Eds.) lOS Press, 2007.
14. Dougherty, D. (2012). The maker movement. Innovations, 7(3), 11–14.
15. ET 2020 New Priorities. (2015). European education and training cooperation: New priorities. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/news/2015/0901-et2020-new-priorities_en.htm on 04.09.2015.
16. European Union Council, (2009). Council conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET 2020) (2009/C 119/02). Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52009XG0528(01)&from=EN on 04.09.2015.
17. European Commisions. (2015). New priorities for European cooperation in education and training. Draft 2015 Joint Report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the Strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET 2020). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/documents/et-2020-draft-joint-report-408-2015_en.pdf on 04.09.2015.
18. European Commision. (2014). Vassiliou urges education ministers to help kids crack the code. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-887_en.htm on 09.09. 2015.
19. Frey, C.B. & Osborne, M.A. (2013). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Oxford Martin Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology. Retrieved from http://www.futuretech.ox.ac.uk/sites/futuretech.ox.ac.uk/files/The_Future_of_Employment_OMS_Working_Paper_1.pdf on 26.09.2015.
20. Gardner, H. (2006). Five minds for the future. Harvard Business School Publishing: Massachusetts.
21. Halverson, E.R. & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495-504.
22. Hatch, J.A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in educational settings. Albany: State University of New York Press.
23. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M. & Estrada, V. (2014). 2014 NMC technology outlook for international schools in Asia: A horizon project regional report. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
24. Kan, A. (2007). Performans değerlendirme sürecine katkıları açısından yeni program anlayışı içerisinde kullanılabilecek bir değerlendirme yaklaşımı: Rubrik Puanlama Yönergeleri. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 7(1), 129-152.
25. Kim, Y. & Park, N. (2012). Development and application of STEAM Teaching Model Based on the Rube Goldberg’s Invention. In Computer science and its applications (pp. 693-698).Springer Netherlands.
26. Lacey, G. (2010). 3D printings designs to Life. Technology Education, 17. Retrieved from www.techdirections.com.
27. Levy, F. & Murnane, R.J. (2004). The new division of labor: How computers are creating the next job market: Princeton University Press.
28. Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 5(1), 4.
29. Martinez, S.L. & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom. Torrance: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.
30. Mertler, C.A. (2001). Designing scoring rubrics for your clasroom.Practical Assessment.Research and Evaluation, 7 (25).
31. Morrison, J. (2006). Attributes of STEM education: The student, the school, the classroom. TIES (Teaching Institute for Excellence in STEM).
32. National Research Council (NRC). (2010). Exploring the intersection of science education and 2lst century skills: A workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press
33. Obama, B. (2009). President Obama launches "educate to innovate" campaign for excellence in science, technology, engineering & math (stem) education. The White House: Office of the Press Secretary. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-launches-educate-innovate-campaign-excellence-science-technology-en on 10.09.2015.
34. Obama, B. (2014). Americans with 21st Century Skills Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education in the 2015 Budget.White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ Fy%202015%20STEM%20ed.pdf on 10.09.2015.
35. Papert, S. & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. Constructionism, 36, 1-11.
36. Peppler, K. & Bender, S. (2013). Maker movement spreads innovation one project at a time. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(3), 22-27.
37. Planchard, M. (2007). 3D CAD: A Plus for STEM Education. Engineering Design Graphics Journal, 71(2), 1-4.
38. Plemmons, A. (2014). Building a culture of creation. Teacher Librarian, 41(5), 12.
39. Resnick, M. & Rosenbaum, E. (2013).Designing for tinkerability. In M. Honey & D. Kanter (Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 163-181). New York: Routledge.
40. Rifkin, J. (2011). Üçüncü sanayi devrimi yanal güç, enerjiyi, ekonomiyi ve dünyayi nasil dönüştürüyor (Translated from English). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
41. Roque, R. (2015).Designing creative learning contexts. MIT Media LAB, USA. Retrieved from http://home.cc.gatech.edu/ je77/uploads/290/Roque-idc2015.pdf on 10.09.2015.
42. Schweikardt, E. & Gross, M.D. (2006). RoBlocks: a robotic construction kit for mathematics and science education. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Multimodal interfaces, Banff, Alberta, Canada.
43. Sheridan, K., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L. & Owens, T. (2014). Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 505-531.
44. Swanson, R.A. & Holton III, E.F (2005). Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
45. Şimşek, N. (2004). Yapılandırmacı öğrenme ve öğretime eleştirel bir yaklaşım. Eğitim Bilimleri ve Uygulama, 3(5), 115-139.
46. Taylor, P.C., Fraser, B.J. & Fisher, D.L. (1997).Monitoring constructivist classroom learning environments. International journal of educational research, 27(4), 293-302.
47. The Global Achievement Gap, Tony Wagner, 2008, Published by Basic Books, New york Anderson, C. (2010). The new industrial revolution. Wired magazine 18, 2.
48. Voogt, J. & Roblin. N. P. (2010). 21st Century Skills: Discussion Paper. Tech. Enschede, Netherlands: University of Twente.
49. Vossoughi, S. & Bevan, B. (2014). Making and tinkering: A review of the literature. National Research Council Committee on Out of School Time STEM. Washington, DC: National Research Council, 1-55.
50. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
51. Yin, R.K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.