Sie sind auf Seite 1von 24

ELECTRONIC TEXTILES IN EDUCATION

Collaborative Inquiry Project

An Annotated Bibliography and Literature Review of Electronic Textiles in Education

Stephanie Kwok, Sabrina Nijjar, Kim Seto, Joel Van Sant VI, Johnny Wu

University of British Columbia

MET ETEC 532

July 29, 2018


Annotated Bibliography
Bers, M. U. (2015). “Coding as a Playground” teaches Coding as a New Literacy.

Prwithpanache. Retrieved from http://www.prwithpanache.com/client-news/coding-as-a-

playground-teaches-coding-as-a-new-literacy

This article discusses the benefits of exposing children to coding at a young age in order

to facilitate development of computational thinking and logic-based decision making

early on. It is suggested that children be introduced to coding through play via games

and activities that encourage problem-solving and creating, so that they learn to become

producers, and not just consumers. Two examples are given. In one, a student uses the

coding program Scratch Jr. to make a kitten image appear and disappear as many times as

possible, and in the second, students explore how to make a KIBO robot dance the hokey

pokey. In both examples, the children all become programmers, producers, and creators

of their own projects by using trial and error tactics combined with logic-based decision

making to achieve their goals.

Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the

development of computational thinking. Annual American Educational Research

Association Meeting, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1.1.296.6602

This article was presented at the American Educational Research Associate meeting,

Vancouver BC. The authors sole purpose of the paper was to look at how to assess

computational thinking among children. As computational thinking is becoming more

popular, there is not a common definition. Resnick and Brennan breaks the computational

2
thinking down to three main parts. Computational concepts, practices and perspectives.

They designed three different approaches to assessments, project portfolio analysis,

artifact-based Interviews, design artifacts. They found these approaches time consuming

and limited, they argue that it is ok that there is not one solid framework for assessment

but a continual conversation on how to assess. They provide six suggestions when

designing a framework for computational assessment, supporting further learning,

incorporating artifacts, illuminating the processes, checking in at multiple waypoints,

valuing multiple ways of knowing.

Fields, D., Kafai, Y., & Searle, K. (2014). Electronic Textiles as Disruptive Maker Activities in

Schools. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 532–557.

In this article, the authors discuss how Electronic Textiles and more generally the Maker

Movement, are capable of igniting an inquisitiveness within each learner because of the

freedom that it allows and the endless opportunities for learning to occur. However, with

that freedom, comes many challenges such as present-day conventions of schooling. The

authors examined high school students’ experiences making E-Textile designs over the

course of a year and they also discuss the individual experiences of these students in

order to analyze students’ engagement and learning. This article is great for our group

because it only discusses the advantages of E-Textiles but also the challenges. This is

important because we want to be able to understand both sides of this topic in order to get

a sense of the bigger picture. Furthermore, this article discusses the experiences of

students who were involved in the making and designed E-Textiles and these experiences

3
shed light on how students think about and understand technology.

Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The Maker Movement in Education. Harvard

Educational Review, 84(4), 495–504.

The Maker Movement has gained a lot of attention over the past couple of years due to its

ability to spark curiosity, innovation, and ingenuity. In this article, the authors discuss

activities of the Maker Movement and what role it can play in our education system. The

authors examine the importance of learners being able to create and how that directly

correlates with how much students are learning; this type of learning gives the student

more power over their learning and being active participants instead of passive recipients.

The Maker Movement directly relates to our group’s topic (Electronic Textiles) because

E-Textiles is part of the Do-it-yourself (DIY) movement that includes a digital

component. Furthermore, E-Textiles are about a hands-on experience that allows the

learner to explore and construct something that they are really passionate about whether it

has to do with math, social studies, arts, or science.

Kafai, Y. B., Lee, E., Searle, K., & Fields, D. (2014). A Crafts-Oriented Approach to Computing

in High School: Introducing Computational Concepts, Practices, and Perspectives with

Electronic Textiles. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 14(1), 1–20.

4
The article focuses on a study taking place in a science magnet school pre ap high school

computer class of 16 students. The students were discouraged and saw no relevance with

computer programming in their lives. The researchers introduced the class to E-textiles.

During the research they were guided by two questions. 1. What computational concepts

and practices were reflected in students e textile design? 2. How did students perceptions

of computing change? Based on the researchers analysis, they described how providing a

design challenge with targeted constraints and support for remixing code and circuit

designs can aid in student learning of computational concepts while also providing

opportunities for personal expression and broadened perceptions of computing. At the

end of the course, students reflections showed they had a better understanding how

computer programming contributes to their live outside of the screen. They felt more

comfortable and willing to consider computer science as a job field.

Litts, B. K., Kafai, Y. B., Lui, D. A., Walker, J. T., & Widman, S. A. (2017). Stitching Codeable

Circuits: High School Students’ Learning About Circuitry and Coding with Electronic

Textiles. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(5), 494–507.

This paper discusses a pilot e-textiles curricular unit implemented for 23 highschool

seniors. They learned how to craft and code circuits using the Lilypad Arduino, an

electronic textiles circuit construction kit. Litts et. al analysed the student’s level of

understanding of functional circuits as well as their ability to remix and design program

code for controlling such circuits. While much research has emphasized student

understanding of programming code through on-screen projects, “no studies exist that

have specifically examined K-12 students’ understandings of codeable circuit design with

5
modular electronics or electronic textiles, which have components both on and off the

screen” (p. 495). This paper also discusses the opportunities, affordances and challenges

in integrating codeable circuit design in e-textiles.

Peppler, K. (2013). STEAM-powered computing education: Using E-textiles to integrate the arts

and STEM. Computer, 46(9), 38–43.

This article discusses the use of STEAM as a means by which to bridge the gender gap in

computing education. This gender divide is thought to be rooted in the male and female

interests being stereotypically and historically linked to each of the traditional

curriculums and disciplines. For example, robotics, computer programming, and physics

typically correspond to being male interests, while sewing, quilting, knitting, and

crocheting are traditionally viewed as being stereotypically female interests. E-textiles

involve the use of electronics and circuitry as well as sewing and weaving and are a

means to bridge this gender gap - firstly by cultivating interest in the activity above all

else. An interesting note is that a greater percentage of women engaged in projects

utilizing the Lilypad Arduino, whereas men dominated projects using the traditional

Arduino, when both share the same microprocessor and programming language. The only

difference was the combination of tools/materials/processes used (sewing with fabric and

conductive thread versus soldering with insulated wire and robotic parts).

6
Peppler, K., & Glosson, D. (2013). Stitching Circuits: Learning About Circuitry Through E-

textile Materials. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(5), 751–763.

Peppler and Glosson (2013) discuss the limitations to the traditional concepts and

methods of teaching circuitry. They examine the significant gains in understanding when

youth utilize e-textiles to learn about circuitry. Participants at a Boys and Girls Club are

first given a pretest to assess their knowledge of basic circuitry and then are assigned the

task to make a simple circuit T-shirt using a LilyPad e-textiles sewing kit. The article

emphasizes the misconceptions that can arise when students use materials, such as

alligator clips, rather than specific e-textile materials. In e-textile projects, the learner is

forced to engage in the wiring and in charting the flow of electrons. Ultimately, the

transparency of open-ended tools in e-textiles gave youth the ability to gain a greater

conceptual understanding of how electricity works.

Peppler, K., & Wohlwend, K. (2018). Theorizing the nexus of STEAM practice. Arts Education

Policy Review, 119(2), 88–99.

This article discusses the recent support for the integration of Arts Education into STEM.

The idea behind STEAM (STEM + Art) is to develop new understandings in both fields

of STEM and Art in order explore new levels of creativity transcending traditional

notions of either discipline. Peppler emphasizes that STEAM should infuse arts-based

learning into engineering, for example, and “expand the potential for design through

computational flexibility” (Pepper, 2018, p. 88). This is opposed to grazing the other field

7
at a basic level by simply ‘choosing a robot’s colour’ or using technology to print out an

artwork. E-textiles and robotics are examples of merging traditional fine arts techniques

(sculpture, sewing, weaving) and electronic and digital technologies.

Resnick, M. (1998). Technologies for lifelong kindergarten. Educational Technology Research

and Development, 46(4), 43–55.

The author of Lifelong Kindergarten explores how the learning process of a kindergarten

child is just as important for all ages of today. He explains that “as children grow older,

and learn more advanced concepts, the educational focus shifts away from direct

manipulation to more abstract formal methods.” He argues that there needs to be a new

generation of computationally enhanced manipulatives materials called digital

manipulatives which are designed to change the traditional progression. Resnick believes

that Electronic Textiles (E-textiles) allows for children to learn the behavior of dynamic

systems- how patterns arise through interactions among component parts. System related

concepts tend to be taught in a more formal methods that result in high complex

mathematical abstract reasoning. Resnick argues that E-textiles are a design activity

which allows for: students to be active participants, crosses interdisciplinary curriculum,

pluralistic thinking, reflection and being mindful of others. These activities are part of the

broader educational philosophy constructionism.

Sheridan, K., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T. (2014).

Comparative Case Study of Three Makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4),

8
505–532.

In this article, three makerspaces are examined; the space, the participants, their

activities, and how learning, teaching and collaboration are arranged at each site. The

core theory driving makerspaces is constructionism, which aligns with constructivism,

the perspective of knowledge as actively constructed by learners through experience.

Design processes that happen in makerspaces are also driven by the iterative sequence:

finding a problem, drafting ideas, creating a product, reflecting and revising. This article

will prove to be helpful for readers who are interested in building their own makerspace.

While these three cases studies do not represent the full range of makerspace experiences,

the different educational approaches can still provide some insight into the designing

process for researchers and practitioners.

Tofel-Grehl, C., Fields, D., Searle, K., Maahs-Fladung, C., Feldon, D., Gu, G., & Sun, C. (2017).

Electrifying engagement in middle school science class: Improving student interest

through E-textiles. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(4), 406-417.

doi:10.1007/s10956-017-9688-y

This article compares the learning outcomes of eighth grade science students who receive

formal instruction of a traditionally formatted circuits unit (control group) and a e-textile

unit (treatment group). The researchers also examined the motivational outcomes and

student attitudes towards science. Those who in the treatment group are reported to be

9
more motivated to share their projects with others and had an overall more positive view

of science. It is also reported that there is an absence of significant differences in

achievement between the two conditions. Ultimately, this article provides us with

evidence on the benefits of hands-on science learning. This article can prove to

curriculum designers how valuable the STEM/STEAM program is especially in a time

when employment is surging in the STEM sectors.

Weng, W., Chen, P., He, S., Sun, X., & Peng, H. (2016). Smart electronic textiles. Angewandte

Chemie - International Edition, 55(21), 6140–6169.

Electronic Textiles (E-textiles) are advanced textile materials such as fabrics, yarns, and

threads, that enable digital mechanisms such as a battery and a light to be embedded in

them. These materials disregard the need for wires and hard electronics making way for

the implementation of advanced practical uses for these textiles. In this article, the

authors discuss how smart electronic textiles have the ability to promote creativity and

innovation due to its numerous functionalities such as “generation, storage, and

utilization of electricity” (p. 6151). This article directly relates to our topic and discusses

the advancements that have been made in this area which our group can further study in

order to understand how these developments have come about and why.

Literature Review

Introduction

Recent developments in digital innovations have initiated and transformed educational

practices and spaces. More and more students are being given the opportunity to be able to

10
construct something that they are really passionate about. These changes in our education system

are allowing learners to explore, investigate, and create, allowing for imagination and curiosity to

ignite within every learner. Creative thinking, problem solving, self-directed learning, and

reasoning are fundamental 21st century skills which are embedded into the arts; one of these

growing areas is electronic textiles. Electronic textiles (E-textiles) are “advanced textile materials

such as fabrics, yarns, and threads, that enable digital mechanisms, such as a battery and a light

to be rooted in them” (Went et al, 2016).

Theoretical Framework
The theory of constructionism, which was introduced by Seymour Papert, “allows

learners to construct their knowledge of various subjects through personal inquiry and creativity”

in an “atmosphere where students can make models of ideas, tools for inquiry, or invent to learn”

(Noss & Clayson, 2015). Many schools in various school districts have incorporated physical

makerspaces for learners to be able to implement this theory, collaborate with peers, explore

their interests, and build something that they desire. One of the core tenets of constructionism is

to develop an idea, and design and create an external representation of the idea; this theory fits in

with e-textiles because it allows learners to design and invent something that is tangible. The

design processes involved in e-textile projects require learners to find a problem, draft ideas,

create a product, and then reflect and revise and then test again. Through the unfolding of e-

textile projects, students engage in critical thinking and intricate problem solving. Furthermore,

this method allows the learner to concentrate on the process rather than the end product.

Halverson and Sheridan (2014) found that when students are given the freedom to choose their

tools and craft materials, students are able to better reflect their interests and identities and put

more energy and creativeness into their assignments. Students want to be able to experiment with

11
various media and invent something that they have created from start to finish and electronic

textiles allows for this to occur in an organic way. When students are given the “opportunity to

express themselves through their learning, connections are created between in-school and out-of-

school experiences, making the learning more relevant and engaging” (Weng et al, 2016). With

e-textiles, students figure out how to implement practical uses for different types of fabrics,

yarns, threads, and circuits and incorporate ways to use digital mechanisms within those textiles,

promoting creativity and innovation. Students that are active in making tangible objects in the

real world through electronic textiles, are able to come to their own conclusions through hands-

on learning with materials and choosing new relationships with knowledge.

Students as Producers versus Consumers

The nature of the 21st century school and work environment suggests that educators

should prepare students to be thinkers, problem solvers, collaborators and producers of

knowledge. The paradigm shift from a teacher-centred approach to student-centred learning

(SCL) has encouraged students to take greater responsibility for their own learning processes

(Kang, Hahn & Chung, 2015). Unlike traditional pedagogical structures where the learning

process and final product is heavily directed through step-by-step instruction, in SCL students

are provided with the opportunity to freely construct their own knowledge by choosing what and

how to study. Students serve as co-partners to their teachers, rather than as audience members

who simply absorb information (Tomlinson, 2015).

With the widespread growth of the Internet, multimedia and emergent technology,

educational choices and access to information has opened up more opportunities to engage in this

construction of knowledge (Kang, Hahn & Chung, 2015). Tomlinson (2015) contends that such

12
technology allows students to carve out their own trajectory and identity online, making them

producers and content makers.

E-textiles is an example of an emerging technology that situates the learner as the creator.

The creator must engage in a series of logical and creative decisions within the three intersecting

domains: coding, circuitry and crafting (Kafai, Fields & Searle, 2014). According to Peppler

(2010), computer coding plays a central role in the design of e-textiles. One must write a series

of computational steps or algorithms to facilitate the interactions between the textile’s

movements, appearance, the wearer and/or the outside world (Peppler, 2010). Ferreira (2013)

contends that there is a perceived lack of creativity and expression in computer coding. She

argues that traditionally, the mind-set of a computer science student is focused on passively

receiving instructed rules, knowledge and goals. Countering this, she asserts that computer

science is in fact “the most active field, where new knowledge…continually emerge[s]; it is “an

arena where creative people display their talent” (p. 1447).

E-textiles extends beyond the screen into the physical world. The recent advances of arts

education in classrooms and its coupling with STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and

Mathematics) has opened up doors for new mediums of creativity. This comes as a relief to

many arts educators and novice learners who do not embrace coding as an expressive medium

(Peppler and Wohlwend, 2017). The physical manipulation and interactivity encompassed in the

weaving and sewing of textiles and electronic parts opens up a new platform for creative

decision making. Learners can truly depart from parroting teachers’ instructions by expressing

themselves freely and artistically. This is reminiscent of traditional artistic processes, such as

sculpting, carving and moulding (Peppler and Wohlwend, 2017).

13
Increasing Agency in Problem Solving through using E-textiles

Problem solving skills are a crucial component of 21st century competencies that are

expected in order to be successful in school, work, and in life. Most project-based learning

activities involving programming and code require students to navigate complex problems and

algorithms. E-textiles provide a variety of advantages in this context. On the surface we can see

its aesthetic appeal and novelty to engage with learners. As we move past the superficial, there

are many unique affordances of learnings. As Toefl-Grehl et. al (2017) describe, e-textile’s

transparency into computing and circuitry allows students to visualize the connections between

coding and their effects. Peppler and Glosson (2013) describe how the traditional toolkits used

for learning circuitry often limit the kind of mistakes that can be made. The number of materials

and terminals typically found in these kits are also often constrained. In comparison, because e-

textile kits are more open-ended, users are forced to brainstorm and problem solve with their

circuits. Through deeper investigation into these kits and the e-textile creation process, we found

that “students’ use of uninsulated thread that is continuous rather than alligator clips which are

provided with insulation in a predetermined length facilitates more varied encounters with

common conceptual challenges, involving current flow and short circuits” (Toefl-Grehl et. al.,

2017, p. 409). The complex relationship between cutting, sewing, foundations of conductivity

and resistance, circuitry and coding all become part of a problem-solving process in e-textiles.

Conceptual misconceptions would be often be challenged, allowing for more opportunities to

discuss and troubleshoot. In this process, students become active participants instead of passive

learners. Through the various stages of constructing, learners will develop and apply a higher

degree of agency in their problem-solving skills.

14
E-textiles and Gender

In recent years, there has been growing support for the implementation of arts education

into STEM fields. The newly amended STEAM model (STEM and Art) explores new

understandings in both areas of STEM and the arts in order to traverse new levels of creativity

and transcend traditional perceptions of both disciplines. The contemporary Maker movement

and DIY (Do-It-Yourself) culture have also been growing in popularity due to their “celebration

of innovation, creativity, and community engagement across a wide array of genres” (Buchholz,

2014, p. 278). These shifts in education share the common goal of broadening participation,

particularly by women, through the introduction of innovative, cross-disciplinary technologies

(Peppler, 2013, p. 38). One of the most promising features of e-textiles is its potential to

transform education by bridging the gender gap stereotypically observed in STEM fields. It is,

according to Buchholz, the “first female-dominated computing community, [providing]

inspiration for overcoming long-standing cultural divides in classrooms” (2014, p. 278).

This existing gender divide is thought to be rooted in the male and female interests being

stereotypically and historically linked to each of the traditional curriculums and disciplines. For

example, electronics, engineering, and robotics activities typically correspond to being male

interests, while sewing, quilting, knitting, and crocheting are traditionally viewed as being

stereotypically female interests. In hopes of addressing this gender disparity, alternative

materials integrating electronics and crafting processes have been created by lead designers,

which include, but are not exclusive to (1) paper computing (integrating paper, conductive paint,

and electronics), (2) squishy circuits (combines conductive Play-Doh and electronics) and (3) e-

textiles (Buchholz, p. 279). E-textiles, which involve the use of electronics and circuitry as well

as sewing and weaving processes, are the current frontrunner in bridging the gender divide -

firstly by cultivating interest in the activity above all else.

15
Buechley and Mako-Hill’s study (2010) was first to document the potential of e-textiles

for diversifying participation. In reviewing Arduino – a popular robotics toolkit, they discovered

that female designers made up less than 1% of users. Additionally, 85% of Arduino projects

posted upon major photo and video platforms (YouTube, Flickr, Vimeo, etc.) were created by

men (Buechley & Mako-Hill, 2010). With the emergence of e-textiles, the opposite trend has

been observed with the Lilypad Arduino, where 60% of e-textile designers are women, and 65%

of Arduino Lilypad projects uploaded online were created by women (Buechley, 2013; Buechley

& Mako-Hill, 2010). What is interesting to note is that both the traditional Arduino and Lilypad

Arduino use the same hardware and are programmed with the same software. Their only

difference is their designs, where the Lilypad Arduino has been modified to be easily sewn to

garments and textiles. However, it is this small difference that has resulted in the drastic changes

affecting creative processes, production, and products (i.e., sewing with fabric and conductive

thread versus soldering with insulated wire and robotic parts).

In a study observing gender interactions between student pairs creating electronic hand

puppets, Buchholz (2014) concluded that the girls in the groups took up sewing and crafting

processes more frequently or for longer periods than their male counterparts and took more

initiative in guiding and directing the actions of their partners (p. 294). The boys in the groups

remained engaged and willing to work on the project, but took a more hands-off approach. In a

second project that they worked on independently, gender differences in efficiency were also

observed. Overall, female students completed their projects quicker, while male students took

longer and required more teacher assistance. It was concluded from these studies that the females

were more successful as they engaged in practices “historically embedded within communities of

practice with gendered histories” (p. 294).

16
Effectively, this research has demonstrated that gender scripts are socially situated within

tools, materials, and practices, and not absolutely fixed within subject matter specifically. “These

tools and materials bear traces of their histories of cultural use and access, communicating

gendered scripts that invite participants to perform masculinities and femininities in socially

recognized ways […] that contribute to differential participation for boys and girls” (Buchholz,

2014, p.281). The STEAM nature of e-textile design and construction are thus effective due to

the fact that they integrate tools, materials, practices, and products coded for girls, encouraging

them to engage in computing that is linked to their own creative interests.

Interdisciplinary Learning

E-textiles is merging the physical and digital together. The unification of these two

worlds allow students to explore different subject matters and concepts. E-textiles require

understanding in fields like coding, circuitry and sewing. Inquiry questions will arise as students

navigate around the complexities of each content area. A research study that followed a class of

high school AP computer science students focused on their inquiry during a e-textile design

project. Some of the questions that were formed were, “How do the electrons move through the

circuit? Where are the positive and negative ends of the components? If I use a 9v battery, will it

light up the LED or will it burn out?” (Kafai et. al., 2014).

E-textiles are powerful learning manipulatives because they bring the concepts of

dynamic systems into play with external artifacts. A dynamic system is a system or process in

which motion occurs, or includes active forces, as opposed to static conditions with no motion or

activity involved. For example, traditional manipulatives such as a light bulb, wire and battery

generally do not help students gain a comprehensive understanding of how various components

17
interact (Resnick, 1998). In contrast, e-textiles allow sensors and data collecting tools to be

integrated into textiles, giving students a better understanding of dynamic systems.

Computational thinking is an important skill for the 21st century. Wing (2006) describes

computational thinking as the “ability to engage in problem solving, designing systems, and

understanding human behavior.” Brennan and Resnick (2012) explain that students activate

computational concepts when they program their textile design with loops, sequences, conditions

and operations. Computational practices are when students are remixing, testing, debugging their

designs. Students engage in computational perspectives when they question, reflect, express,

connect while referring to differing world views within their projects (2012). E-textile design is

a robust activity that crosses many different concepts and theories.

Assessing the development of computational thinking with E-textiles

Assessing e-textiles is a complex process. At the end of the project the final artifact

should not be the primary assessment piece. Rather, the learning processes that the student

undergoes should be the focal point of assessment. In Brennan and Resnick's study, a group of

student' interactions with microcircuit boards, e-textile design, and programming were closely

examined. (2012) The study assessed computational concepts, practices and perspectives.

Concepts were assessed by looking at the code the students were using within their microcircuit

boards. Students were given a starter code to begin with, but the design task was to complete the

code by programming the ports onto their Lilypad and demonstrate how they harnessed the code

to activate input output. Sequences were assessed by studying the circuit diagram they first drew

on paper and comparing it to their finished

18
project.

(Kafai et al., 2014)

Researchers assessed perspectives by asking the students questions regarding their

projects. Overwhelmingly, the common theme that emerged was that the students “developed a

more realistic, personally relevant, and expansive perspectives of computing in the process of

making their e-textiles artifact” (Kafai et. al., 2014).

Brennan and Resnick (2012) argues that there is no perfect way of assessing

computational thinking within e-textiles design; however, they suggest six ways that can assist

with the assessment.

1. Supporting further learning by contextualizing the assessment and make the

assessment meaningful to the student.

2. Incorporating artifacts because it helps reveal the process in which the student went

through when creating their project.

3. Illuminating processes by allowing creators to record their thinking through different

avenues such as notes in a design journal, audio or video reflection and allow them to

share those processes publicly.

19
4. Checking in multiple times. Since e-textiles is not a binary project, the assessment

should look at where a learner has been, is currently going and where they might go.

5. Valuing multiple ways of knowing. Is the learner able to critique their own design

and look at other designs and explain what is happening? Being able to explain the

theories and concepts behind the energy flows in a complete circuit show more

comprehensive understanding than labelling a circuit.

6. Including multiple viewpoints. Assessment should embrace multiplicity of viewpoints,

engaging self, peer, parent, teacher and researcher assessments as possible and

appropriate. (Brennan & Resnick, 2012)

Summary

Education continues to progress towards a modern approach of learning with redesigned

curriculum that focuses on student centered learning, constructionist frameworks and process

oriented assessment. Studies of e-textiles in school settings have shown that this medium does

not only embody these elements, but it also has unique affordances that separates itself from

other coding based mediums. The unique and complex interaction between coding electronic

circuitry, cutting, stitching and sewing allows for increased agency in problem solving. This also

has been recognized as the main factor in bridging the gap in terms of engagement from female

students. The complexity and open-ended nature of e-textiles drive forward inquiry projects that

require students to depart from traditional forms of learning and memorization. It is the

challenges that one encounters during the process of making these designs that help build a more

comprehensive understanding of programming, circuitry and artistry. E-textiles unite the tangible

and manipulatable with the world of digital coding. It engenders new forms of creative

production and directs educational and professional fields into new directions.

20
21
References
Bers, M. U. (2015). “Coding as a Playground” teaches Coding as a New Literacy. Prwithpanache.

Retrieved from http://www.prwithpanache.com/client-news/coding-as-a-playground-teaches-

coding-as-a-new-literacy

Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of

computational thinking. Annual American Educational Research Association Meeting,

Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1.1.296.6602

Buechley, L. (2013). LilyPad Arduino: E-textiles for everyone. In L. Buechley, K. A. Peppler, M.

Eisenberg, & Y. B.

Buechley, L., Peppler, K., & Eisenberg, M. (2013). Select Textile Messages: Dispatches From the

World of e-Textiles and Education. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Buechley, L., & Mako-Hill, B. (2010). LilyPad in the wild: How hardware’s long tail is supporting

new engineering and design communities. In Proceedings of the Conference on Designing

Interactive Systems (pp. 199–207). New York, NY: ACM Press.

Buchholz, B., Shively, K., Peppler, K., & Wohlwend, K. (2014). Hands on, hands off: Gendered

access in crafting and electronics practices. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21(4), 278-297.

doi:10.1080/10749039.2014.939762

Ferreira, D. J. (2013). Fostering the creative development of computer science students in

programming and interaction design doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.05.312

Fields, D. A. H. A. (n.d.). Electronic Textiles as Disruptive Maker Activities in Schools, 84(4), 532–

557.

Fields, D. A., Kafai, Y., Promoting Equity in Teaching and Learning with Electronic Textiles in

Exploring Computer Science. Equity & Excellence in Education, 51(1), 21–35.

Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The Maker Movement in Education. Harvard Educational

Review, 84(4), 495–504.

22
Higginson, W. (2017). From Children Programming to Kids Coding: Reflections on the Legacy of

Seymour Papert and Half a Century of Digital Mathematics Education. Digital Experiences

in Mathematics Education, 3(2), 71–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-017-0030-3

Kafai, Y. B., Lee, E., Searle, K., & Fields, D. (2014). A Crafts-Oriented Approach to Computing in

High School: Introducing Computational Concepts, Practices, and Perspectives with

Electronic Textiles. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 14(1), 1–20.

Kang, M., Hahn, J., & Chung, W. (2015). Validating a technology enhanced student centered

learning model. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 26(3), 253.

Litts, B. K., Kafai, Y. B., Lui, D. A., Walker, J. T., & Widman, S. A. (2017). Stitching Codeable

Circuits: High School Students’ Learning About Circuitry and Coding with Electronic

Textiles. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(5), 494–507.

Mackrell, K., & Pratt, D. (2017). Constructionism and the space of reasons. Mathematics Education

Research Journal, 29(4), 419–435.

Peppler, K. (2013). STEAM-powered computing education: Using E-textiles to integrate the arts and

STEM. Computer, 46(9), 38–43.

Peppler, K., & Glosson, D. (2013). Stitching Circuits: Learning About Circuitry Through E-textile

Materials. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(5), 751–763.

Peppler, K., & Wohlwend, K. (2018). Theorizing the nexus of STEAM practice. Arts Education

Policy Review, 119(2), 88–99.

Resnick, M. (1998). Technologies for lifelong kindergarten. Educational Technology Research and

Development, 46(4), 43–55.

Sheridan, K., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T. (2014).

Comparative Case Study of Three Makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 505–

532. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.brr34733723j648u

23
Tofel-Grehl, C., Fields, D., Searle, K. & Maahs-Fladung, C. (2017). Electrifying engagement in

middle school science class: Improving student interest through E-textiles.Journal of Science

Education and Technology, 26(4), 406-417.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2015). Teaching for excellence in academically diverse classrooms. Society,

52(3), 203-209. doi:10.1007/s12115-015-9888-0

Weng, W., Chen, P., He, S., Sun, X., & Peng, H. (2016). Smart electronic textiles. Angewandte

Chemie - International Edition, 55(21), 6140–6169.

Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Springer Thinking in Levels: A Dynamic Systems Approach to

Making Sense of the World Thinking in Levels: A Dynamic Systems Approach to Making

Sense of the World. Source: Journal of Science Education and Technology Journal of

Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3–19.

Wing, J. 2006. Computational thinking. Commun. ACM49, 33–35.

24