Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 7, Issue 1, Article 5 (June, 2006)
Beverley JANE
Online reflections about tinkering in early childhood: A socio-cultural analysis
Previous Contents Next

Discussion of study findings: categories of influence

In the present study, I analysed the e-journals by reading them in such a way as to value the trainees' subjective experiences and self-perceptions. In these e-journals the trainees identified 'categories of influence' that affected how they viewed themselves in relation to tinkering activities in the context of their childhood. They identified several categories of influence - innate, learned and role modelled - relating to their early childhood tinkering experiences.

What comes through strongly in the data is the personal nature of the responses to tinkering. It has to do with the way the trainees position themselves as people in relation to technology, which is an ontological question about the way they see the world. The question of what frames this - whether it is innate, or learnt through experience and role modelling, - is raised in the e-journal entries. These online responses showed that parents were role models for many of the trainees in their early years. They were influenced by other family members' attitudes towards tinkering. They recalled their parents' interest in, or indifference to, girls tinkering in the home environment. I have selected five examples that are 'Representative' of the many e-journal entries. Following each e-journal entry, I discuss the response using Rogoff's planes of analysis.

Female teacher trainee 1: I've asked myself a number of times why at a young age, I'd get halfway through pulling apart a telephone with my brothers and then just stop while they continued to happily dissect! I remember I would get quite frustrated when I couldn't put something back together that I'd pulled apart. I'd often hide all the bits and pieces so that I wouldn't have to look at them and neither would anyone else!

I think the desire to tinker has a lot to do with modelling. Perhaps it's not the only reason, but I think it is a predominant one. I often watched my Dad tinker away in our garage, every weekend really, but cannot recall Mum ever having done it. Maybe my reluctance to pull things apart was associated with the idea that it's 'destructive' and perhaps it was relayed to me (albeit possibly unintentionally) that a woman’s duty was to nurture and heal, not destroy!

Despite all this, I too found the exercise on tinkering liberating. I think it was because a person who was over us gave us permission to do it, but also because we knew we had to put the toy back together as well so we weren't really destroying it. If the latter is put into practice in technology classes, then it's very likely that girls will feel much more at ease to participate in tinkering sessions. Also, drawing attention to occupations where women 'tinker' might be beneficial modelling for students. (Just on the side do you know I wasn't allowed to have Barbies? Mum thought they promoted an unrealistic and negative body image...)

Using the 'personal lens' of analysis, trainee 1 reflects on her childhood experiences and recognises her feeling of frustration associated with her tinkering attempts. Her reflections are consistent with the research that cautions teachers to rethink the appropriateness of tinkering experiences for very young girls. The action of dismantling products can be viewed as deliberately breaking them. In the case of trainee 1, her reluctance to tinker arose from her perception that engaging in such a task is being destructive.

The 'interpersonal lens' shows that she contrasts her lack of persistence, with her brothers' continued interest in pulling things apart. She considers past interpersonal interactions and identifies stereotypic role models within her family: females are caring and do not break things.

A 'community/institutional lens' shows that she recognises the benefits of providing tinkering experiences for girls in the classroom. Moreover she takes this idea further, by suggesting that teachers should inform students of vocations having a tinkering component as being suitable careers for girls.

Female teacher trainee 2: I found Elaine's response to tinkering very similar to my own. I too agree that tinkering is a modelled behaviour. As a child, I grew up in a family consisting of three females and two males. The different gender roles were identified in many ways, specifically through the daily routines demonstrated in the home. My sister and I were encouraged to assist and observe my mother engaging in tasks such as cooking and cleaning. However, my brother and father would regularly participate in activities that required an examination of materials. So, tinkering with toys, cars, and so on, was a modelled and learned behaviour.

Again, similar to Elaine, I was unsure of myself as a technological learner when Norm introduced the concept of tinkering in the first tutorial. I was embarrassed when I couldn't identify certain parts of a tap. However, I was also shocked to see that I wasn't alone in my thinking, or lack of! During the last tutorial, I felt much more comfortable exploring the different structures of objects. I realise that although I wasn't exposed to tinkering during my childhood, I am, and will remain to be an investigative learner.

Using a 'personal plane' of analysis, trainee 2 categorises herself as a person who learns by investigating. In the tutorial tinkering with toys activity, she felt unsure of herself, and ill at ease due to her inability to name the components of a household tap that she used regularly in her home environment.

An 'interpersonal plane' of analysis reveals that she was surprised to find out that others in her tutorial group also lacked an understanding of how some things work. This lens also shows that as a child she was restricted by the interpersonal interactions in her family, where tinkering was considered a male activity. This is consistent with Rogoff's (2003, p. 74) view that "gender differences appear to be nurtured by differences in the tasks assigned".

Female teacher trainee 3: In response to Jean and her tinkering question as to whether it is learned, innate or modelled, when I was younger every gadget that broke mum would give to me to pull apart and have a fiddle and an explore. I would then attempt to put it back together again. I am female, my dad was not interested in these kinds of activities, and my brother was too busy playing war and my sister was playing house with the neighbours. The tinkering that I did was not modelled and I did not have any real contact with anyone who would have taught me. (I asked my mum and she agreed).

When I was sitting in class the other day and was 'allowed' to pull apart a toy the interest was still there. I found it quite amazing that so few people had actually 'tinkered' as a child. I did not develop any great skills from my five years of tinkering and was interested in the fact that I was still unable to put a basic toy back together after being let loose on it.

My next-door neighbour (also female) and I would tinker for hours on things we found in her garage/shed/under her house. Neither of us had a model to observe and copy; we both chose tinkering instead of dolls. My experience was not a learned action nor was it modelled.

Female teacher trainee 4: At home I can remember participating in more tinkering. I was a very curious child, always wanting to know how things worked, similar to many children now. I would ask mum, "How does a toy work?" and mum being mum and knowing everything would give me an answer. But that didn't satisfy my curiosity, out would come the tools, and apart would come the toys (or sometimes more expensive household appliances). I would run in, "Look mum, it makes this noise because of this!" or "This is how it moves!" I was so interested in how things worked that I would spend the weekends in the shed with Dad while he pulled apart his motorbike and put it back together. "That’s this Dad? What does it do?" etc. was always being asked by myself. It drove Dad up the wall, but it started satisfying my desire to pull things apart to see how they worked.

When applying the 'personal plane' of analysis, in contrast to trainees 1 and 2, the childhood experiences of trainees 3 and 4 reveal that their interest in tinkering comes from their individuality and seems to be innate. These two examples of participation show that this interest in tinkering did not diminish with maturity.

The 'interpersonal plane' of analysis shows that for trainee 3 the social interactions involving tinkering with family members included her mother, whose continual encouragement for her to tinker acted like a catalyst. As a child she also spent a lot of time with her girlfriend next door, tinkering in the shed, garage or under the house.

A 'community lens' shows the 'shed' an Australian cultural icon, was also the place where trainee 4 questioned her father about how things work, while she watched him fix his motorbike.

Female teacher trainee 5: I also agree that tinkering can be a valuable learning tool in a technology classroom, but have some issues. I think that as an introductory tool it has potential, only if students are prepared to then investigate what they have found in the appliances. Also from participating in the lesson on tinkering I was too scared by the prospect of having to put the object back together to actually pull it apart! This was the response of some others in my group who were too scared of breaking the objects. This is just a result of how I was raised - not to touch things that are not mine, and to be careful with other's things.

There is also the feeling that I am not capable of putting things back together, even simple mechanics, as I have very little experience in the past and do not like doing things that I'm not good at.

The 'personal plane' of analysis shows that trainee 5 believes her current fear of tinkering stems from her childhood experiences. She feels that not having tinkered as a young girl, has contributed to her lack of confidence in her ability to disassemble a toy and then reassemble it.

When using the 'interpersonal plane' it is evident that guided participation interactions involving tinkering, appeared to be absent in her childhood, and family values strongly influence her approach to tinkering.

It is to be noted that for some of these examples, the community plane was not productive in this analysis.

Copyright (C) 2006 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 7, Issue 1, Article 5 (June, 2006). All Rights Reserved.