This paper presents a study of developing computational thinking (CT) practices through digital fabrication activities, such as creating tangible artefacts with digital tools. The aim of the study was to explore the potential of digital fabrication activities for developing CT practices. We investigated three cases of school visits where the students engaged in digital fabrication activities in Fab Lab Oulu, northern Finland. Based on the perspectives of the teachers who participated in the activities and facilitators who ran the activities, we identified that digital fabrication activities have the potential to develop CT practices, especially formulating problems in order to use a computer for assistance, thinking logically, and implementing possible solutions efficiently and effectively. The findings suggested that the nature of digital fabrication activities, such as frequent use of computers and complex problem-solving, encouraged development of CT practices. However, we also uncovered the possibility that CT is not being adequately defined by the teachers and facilitators.

1. Developing Computational
Thinking Practises through Digital
Fabrication Activities
Megumi Iwata, Kati Pitkänen, Jari Laru & Kati Mäkitalo
University of Oulu, Finland

2. University of Oulu6/13/2019 Replace footertext if needed2
Where are we from?

3. University of Oulu
Introduction
6/13/2019 Replace footertext if needed3

4. University of Oulu
Why digital
fabrication as a
context of the
study?
1. As CT is considered as a thought
process to support understanding
problems and formulating solutions
effectively (Wing, 2010), digital
fabrication may be an environment to
apply abstract thought processes into
practice
2. STEM-rich digital fabrication activities
take place around design and
engineering practices, typically
integrating digital tools (Bevan, 2017).
Hu (2011) maintained that solving STEM
problems may foster a person’s CT
ability.
3. As CT combines mathematical and
engineering thinking (Wing, 2006),
STEM-based digital fabrication activities
may provide opportunities to apply CT
into practice.
6/13/2019 Replace footertext if needed4
”Computational thinking is the though
processes involved in formulating
problems and their solutions so that the
solutions are represented in a form tht can
be effectively carried out by information
processing agent” (Wing 2010)

5. University of Oulu
CT in
educational
contexts
‒ Kafai (2016) argued that CT in K-12 contexts is
social and includes creative practices. (making)
‒ Making is described as “a class of activities
focused on designing, building, modifying, and/ or
repurposing material objects, for playing or useful
ends, oriented toward making a “product” of some
sort that can be used, interacted with, or
demonstrated” (Martin 2015, p. 31).
‒ Montero (2018) stated that hands-on digital
fabrication activities are beneficial to introduce CT,
rather than through programming alone, since such
activities reduce the negatively biased perception
toward “programming” or “coding”.
‒ Digital fabrication activities motivate children to
build personally meaningful artefacts in STEM-rich
environments and may involve opportunities to
develop CT practices in the process.
6/13/2019 Replace footertext if needed5

6. University of Oulu
Aim
Aim is to explore the potentials of developing
CT practises through digital fabrication
activities
6/13/2019 Replace footertext if needed6

7. University of Oulu
Methods
6/13/2019 Replace footertext if needed7

8. University of Oulu
Context: Fab Lab Oulu
6/13/2019 Replace footertext if needed8
‒ Fab Lab Oulu, established in 2015 at
the University of Oulu, northern
Finland, has arranged digital
fabrication activities for school
visitor groups since 2016.
‒ Fab Labs are a type of makerspaces
offering digital fabrication facilities
(Cavalcanti, 2013).

9. University of Oulu
• In this study, we focus on three
cases of school visits where
students from 7th to 9th grades
engaged in digital fabrication
activities by creating physical
artefacts in Fab Lab Oulu in
October and November 2016
• In all the three cases, the
activities were run by two
facilitators working in Fab Lab
Oulu.
• The facilitators’ main role was to
provide instructions on the basic
operations of the facilities and
digital tools and to help the
pupils when they had problems
in the process.
• The school teachers’ role was
mainly to observe the activities
and general schedule
management
Participants

10. University of Oulu
Data Collection
6/13/2019 Replace footertext if needed10
‒ We collected data through two semi-structured focus group interviews (e.g., Morgan, 1997;
Puchta & Potter, 2004).
FOCUS GROUP I: Teachers + Facilitators as a observers
• the interviewees were three teachers from two schools (School A and School C), who
participated in the activities with their students (see Table 1).
• Discussion followed the questions regarding their observations and experiences of the digital
fabrication activities, (e.g., which aspects in Fab Lab activity were meaningful for the
students’ CT process?).
FOCUS GROUP II: Facilitators
• The interview questions regarded their perspectives and experiences during the activities
(e.g. how was CT seen in the activities?), as well as observation of the focus group interview I
with the teachers (e.g., what did you notice in teachers' answers, what are lacks/
shortcomings of educationalists?). The interviews were recorded in video and audio.

11. University of Oulu
Data Analysis
6/13/2019 Replace footertext if needed11
‒ We collected data through two semi-structured focus group interviews (e.g., Morgan, 1997;
Puchta & Potter, 2004).
FOCUS GROUP I: Teachers + Facilitators as a observers
• the interviewees were three teachers from two schools (School A and School C), who
participated in the activities with their students (see Table 1).
• Discussion followed the questions regarding their observations and experiences of the digital
fabrication activities, (e.g., which aspects in Fab Lab activity were meaningful for the
students’ CT process?).
FOCUS GROUP II: Facilitators
• The interview questions regarded their perspectives and experiences during the activities
(e.g. how was CT seen in the activities?), as well as observation of the focus group interview I
with the teachers (e.g., what did you notice in teachers' answers, what are lacks/
shortcomings of educationalists?). The interviews were recorded in video and audio.

12. University of Oulu
Data Collection
6/13/2019 Replace footertext if needed12
‒ For data analysis, we employed a theory-driven approach following the
guidelines introduced by Krueger and Casey (2000).
‒ First, we transcribed the recorded two focus group interviews.
‒ Based on the predetermined codes, six CT practices defined by Barr et al.
(2011), we examined the teachers’ and facilitators’ perspectives towards
their experiences in digital fabrication activities.
‒ The unit of analysis in this study is the institutional level. In this study, we
intend to highlight the perspectives of groups of people, teachers and
facilitators, rather than those of individual participants.

13. University of Oulu
Results
6/13/2019 Replace footertext if needed13

14. University of Oulu
Results
6/13/2019 Replace footertext if needed14
1. Developing CT Practices through
Frequent Use of Computers in
Digital Fabrication
2. Developing CT Practices through
Complex Problem-Solving in
Digital Fabrication
3. Teachers’ and Facilitators’
Perspectives on CT Practices

15. University of Oulu
1. Developing CT
Practices through
Frequent Use of
Computers in
Digital
Fabrication
‒ Among the six CT practices defined by
Barr et al. (2011), the teachers and
facilitators most frequently discussed
formulating problems to allow computers
and other dig
‒ “You have to use a vector graphics program
to prepare your file in a certain way, in a form
that the laser cutter can process…. it’s an
algorithm you have to follow and also do CT,
you have to perform certain steps in a
certain order to get the result.” (one of the
facilitators)
6/13/2019 Replace footertext if needed15

16. University of Oulu
2. Developing CT
Practices through
Complex
Problem-Solving
in Digital
Fabrication
‒ In the digital fabrication activities, the
students were engaged in complex problem-
solving. The complexity they needed to
confront involved the functions of the
artefacts and the procedures of making. One
of the facilitators explained,
“Computational thinking is best applied to a little
bit larger design problems, when you really have
to divide your work into pieces that you need to
solve piece by piece.”
‒ Not only by using computers in the process,
but the students also had opportunities to
develop CT practices by thinking logically
and implementing solutions efficiently and
effectively.
‒ “The whole project was pretty much about
thinking logically, all the hardware staff, you had
to think that when this part is moving that way, it
moves the other one in the opposite direction,
and stuff like that. So…. you had to think
logically to get it working.”
6/13/2019 Replace footertext if needed16

17. University of Oulu
3. Teachers’ and
Facilitators’
Perspectives on
CT Practices
‒ The facilitators indicated that digital
fabrication involves the concept of CT in
its process. One of them explained it as
follows:
“Any process in Fab Lab requires this way of
thinking [CT]: go through these logical steps.
For example, if you want to make a printed
circuit board or milled circuit board, you have
to follow certain steps, and it is about
computational thinking, it’s an algorithm you
have to follow.”
‒ On the other hand, the facilitators
mentioned their unclear understanding as
regards the concept of CT. One of them
said, “I don’t know. We don’t actually
know, we guess they are learning CT. But
we don’t know they really are.”
6/13/2019 Replace footertext if needed17

18. University of Oulu
DISCUSSION
6/13/2019 Replace footertext if needed18

19. University of Oulu
DISCUSSION:
Complexity may
increase
potential for
developing CT
‒ The findings suggested that the nature of STEM-
based digital fabrication, frequent use of
computers and complex problem-solving,
enhances the development of CT practices
described by Barr et al. (2011).
‒ Frequent use of computers in the process,
which naturally occurs in the process of digital
fabrication, allows the students to convert their
problems into certain formats to employ digital
fabrication methods.
‒ The complexity of digital fabrication activities
may increase the potential for developing CT
practices, especially thinking logically and
implement solutions effectively.
6/13/2019 Replace footertext if needed19

20. University of Oulu
DISCUSSION:
Teachers and
facilitators can be
vague in their
definition of the
concept of CT
‒ in the focus group interview with the
teachers, the discussion focused on visible
actions in the use of computers, such as
designing on the computer, rather than
implementation of the fundamental
concepts of computing: abstractions and
automation, which, according to Wing
(2008), underlie CT
‒ This finding is in line with the result of the
survey among school teachers conducted
by Mannila et al. (2014).
‒ On the other hand, we uncovered that the
facilitators might not have a clear definition
of CT and CT practices, even though CT is
a basic way of thinking in their fields of
expertise: computer science and
engineering6/13/2019 Replace footertext if needed20

21. University of Oulu
LIMITATIONS ‒ As a limitation of this study, we are
aware that the sample size for the
focus group interviews was small.
‒ In addition, we could have
described the concept of CT in a
more detailed manner during the
focus group interviews.
‒ Although we provided an
explanation of CT before starting
discussion in the focus group
interviews, it is likely that the
interviewees might not fully
understand the concept to discuss
it properly.
6/13/2019 Replace footertext if needed21

22. University of Oulu
CONCLUSIONS
6/13/2019 Replace footertext if needed22

23. University of Oulu
CONCLUSION
Aim was to explore
the potential for
developing CT
practices through
digital fabrication
activities.
‒ We found that STEM-based digital
fabrication activities may enhance
developing CT practices.
‒ In addition, the complexity, such as
the complex mechanics of the
artefacts and complex procedures
to fabricate, encouraged the
students’ skills in thinking logically
and implementing solutions
effectively.
‒ However, we also found that the
teachers and facilitators could be
lacking in their understanding of
the definition of CT
6/13/2019 Replace footertext if needed23

24. University of Oulu
TO SUM UP:
To encourage the development of students’ CT practices, both the school
teachers’ and facilitators’ awareness of the concepts of CT is essential.
Future research may examine the development of teachers’ and facilitators’
understanding and implementation of CT in more detail.
6/13/2019 Replace footertext if needed24

25. University of Oulu
Thank you!
6/13/2019 Replace footertext if needed25
https://www.researchgate.net/project/DigiFabEdu-Digital-
Fabrication-and-Fab-Labs-in-Formal-Education

26. University of Oulu
RELATED
PUBLICATIONS
Pitkänen, K., M. Iwata, and J. Laru. “Supporting
Fab Lab Facilitators to Develop Pedagogical
Practices to Improve Learning in Digital
Fabrication Activities.” Paper presented at Fab
Learn Europe 2019 Conference. FabLearn
Europe ‘19, May, 2019, Oulu, Finland.
Laru, J., E. Vuopala, M. Iwata, K. Pitkänen, M.
L. Sánchez, A. Mäntyniemi, M. Packalén, and J.
Näykki. “Designing Seamless Learning Activities
for School Visitors in the Context Of FabLab
Oulu.” In Seamless Learning: Perspectives,
Challenges and Opportunities. Lecture Notes in
Educational Technology, edited by C. Looi, L.
Wong, C. Glahn, and S. Cai, 153-169.
Singapore: Springer, 2019.
6/13/2019 Replace footertext if needed26