Vallance, M. & Goto, Y. (2015). Learning by TKF to promote computational participation in Japanese education. In Proceedings of 18th International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning and 43rd International Conference on Engineering Pedagogy. World Engineering Education Forum. 20-24 September 2015, Florence, Italy. Note: T (Tsukutte つくって) is Making/ Creating. K (Katatte かたって) is Talking/ Sharing. F (Furikaeru ふりかえる) is Reflecting/ Discussing.

1. Future University Hakodate, Japan
Learning by TKF Michael Vallance
Yuta Goto
43rd International Conference on Engineering Pedagogy. World Engineering Education Forum. 20-24 September 2015, Florence, Italy.

2. Dr. Michael Vallance.
Qualifications
BSc (Hons) Mech
Engineering
Ed.D - Doctorate in Education
MSc Computer Assisted Learning
PGCE - Post-secondary Education
iVERG lab | mvallance.net

3. Motivation
Japanese education
❖ Japan is in top 3 OECD countries for
maths, science & reading. PISA (2012).
❖ Yet students lack confidence, have
high anxiety & no interest (in Maths,
in particular). PISA (2012).
❖ Good at test-taking.
❖ But lack creativity, willing to take
risks, leadership & poor modern (re.
digital) literacy. Business book ref.

4. Educating students for the 21st century
❖ In STEM and Arts & Humanities courses, students need to be provided
with meaningful and relevant opportunities to
❖ engage with problems that require the retrieval of prior knowledge,
❖ offer multiple perspectives of problems and solutions,
❖ and facilitate a challenging process
❖ which results in achievable, diverse outcomes.
❖ Learning should not occur in isolation but involve communication,
cooperation and collaboration with fellow learners and experts to foster
long term understanding and transference of learned concepts [12].

5. Design-based learning for engineering
❖ Mima & Yamauchi [2] and Honey & Kantor [13] suggest Design-based Learning can engage students as critical thinkers
to solve challenges within the context of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math).
❖ The emerging Maker Movement is informed by Piaget’s approach to learning where learners personally and sometimes
collaboratively construct solutions, gaining experience and, over time, calling upon their own embedded heuristics [14].
❖ Subsequent ‘cognitive engagement’ supports “student’s psychological investment in and effort directed toward
learning, understanding, mastering the knowledge, skills or craft that the academic work is intended to promote” [15].
❖ This leads to a more self-determined learner [16] who becomes more autonomous through the development of his/her
meta-cognitive knowledge [17].
❖ This can be seen in conflict with the desire of universities though who wish to focus on content delivery and
quantitative assessment.
❖ But Turkle & Papert [18] have argued for ‘epistemological pluralism’ where multiple ways of learning and knowing are
valued.
❖ Creativity then becomes a valued, personal asset that can be nurtured throughout a learner’s whole educational
experience.
❖ Creativity is not in the knowledge itself but in exploiting those multiple ways of knowing [19].

6. Creativity spiral
❖ Mitch Resnick, Director of
the MIT Media Lab in 2007
❖ ‘creativity’ - the way
people deal with problems
❖ a cycle of imagine – create
- play – share – reflect –
imagine.

7. to promote computational participation
❖ an interpretation of Mitch Resnick’s Creativity Spiral, termed TKF:
❖ Tsukutte (Create) – Katatte (Share) – Furikaeru (Reflect).
T (Tsukutte つくって) is Making/ Creating.
• K (Katatte かたって) is Talking/ Sharing.
• F (Furikaeru ふりかえる) is Reflecting/ Discussing.
❖ LEGO EV3 Mindstorms robot tasks to engage students in a collaborative,
creative cycle where students built, programmed, discussed and reflected upon
their actions.
❖ EV3 program solutions can be used as a metric to determine students’ learning
as characterized by TKF.
❖ Learning by TKF to promote a more constructionist, participatory learning
environment for programming students of all ages.

9. Method
❖ TKF approach to test its efficacy in a Japanese university.
❖ a progressive pedagogy within a traditional,
conservative Japanese education environment.
❖ a number of iteratively designed tasks, informed by the
Successive Approximation Model (SAM) and involving
the programming of LEGO Mindstorms EV3 robots.
❖ post-task survey data from participants to determine
evidence of learning and creativity.

10. Implementation
❖ 10 specific tasks conducted once-a-week over one semester.
The participants were five (N=5) Japanese male university
undergraduate students studying Information Systems.
❖ Closed and highly defined tasks needed to be designed in order
to provide the necessary comparability and empirical data to
determine the success of task completion from tangible and
quantifiably measured outcomes. [20] [21].
❖ To satisfy these criteria, the programming of a LEGO
Mindstorms EV3 robot to navigate mazes of measurable
complexity [22] was adopted.

11. Task process

12. Examples

13. a sample solution
LEGO EV3 program

14. Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1. I used some experiences from previous tasks or class. (K F)
2. I found new functions in EV3 today. (T/K)
3. I had a new idea today. (T/K)
4. I had to think deeply and analyze today’s task. (K)
5. I had to explain something to another student or my instructor. (K/F)
6. I had to solve a technical problem (hardware or software or circuit). (T)
7. I implemented the EV3 program successfully. (T)
8. I had fun. (F)
9. Feel free to write anything about today’s activities. (F)
Survey

15. Data: TKF from survey

16. Data: EV3 program block counts

17. Data: TKF & EV3 program

18. T(Tsukutteつくって)isMaking/Creating.
❖ Observed that T (Creating/ Making) has a corresponding pattern to TEAM
1 EV3 program blocks and TEAM 2 EV3 program blocks for TT1 to TT7.
❖ Also, T (Making) has a corresponding pattern to utilization of EV3 program
loop/switches for TT1 to TT6 and TT8 for both TEAM 1 and TEAM 2.

19. K (Katatte かたって) is Talking/ Sharing.
❖ K (Sharing) has a corresponding pattern to TEAM 1 EV3 program blocks for TT1 to TT5
and TT8, but not TT6 and TT7. This pattern was quite similar for TEAM 2. K (Sharing)
has a corresponding pattern to TEAM 2 blocks for TT1 to TT5 but not TT6 to TT8.
❖ For the inclusion of EV3 program loops and switches, K (Sharing) has a corresponding
pattern to TEAM 1 and TEAM 2 loop/switches for TT1 to TT5 for TT1 to TT5 and TT8,
but not TT6 and TT7.

20. F(Furikaeruふりかえる)isReflecting/Discussing.
❖ F (Reflection) has a corresponding pattern to TEAM 1 EV3 program blocks for TT1 to TT5
but not TT6 to TT8. This is quite similar to TEAM 2 where F (Reflection) has a corresponding
pattern to TEAM 2 blocks for TT1 to TT5 and TT8 but not TT6 to TT7.
❖ For the inclusion of EV3 program loops and switches, F (Reflection) has a corresponding
pattern to both TEAM 1 and TEAM 2 loop/switches for TT1 to TT6 but not TT7 to TT8.

21. Observations
❖ Hypothesized and demonstrated that if LEGO Mindstorms
program blocks represent student solutions in solving the
given task problem, then the EV3 program solution can be a
metric of the students’ learning outcome [22].
❖ Data graphs illustrate that in both participant teams in this
project the EV3 programmed blocks and students’ TKF data
were consistent.
❖ From the comparably patterned data it may be stated that
TKF illustrate creativity and are possible indicators of learning.

22. Limitations
❖ Number of participants was low (N=5). It was decided to engage only five participants
in order to gain a more thorough understanding of the value (if any) of the TKF model.
❖ Secondly, the use of LEGO Mindstorms may appear to be too basic for university
undergraduates but, as stated in this paper, many Japanese students enter Systems
Information Science related courses with little, if any, programming experience. This
lack of digital literacy emphasis is quite widespread throughout Japan.
❖ Thirdly, the iterative design and build process described may not initially appear to add
new knowledge to the existing literature. However, the project’s procedure informed by
the TKF model is certainly unique among the more traditional pedagogies generally
employed in Japanese education.
❖ Finally, the paper does not claim to provide a solution to all the current challenges
facing Japanese education, but offer TKF as a model to create constructionist,
participatory learning environments.

23. Conclusion
❖ The goal of this paper was to determine the efficacy of the TKF model when used
to develop the declarative (knowing what), procedural (knowing how) and meta-
cognitive (knowing why) knowledge of Systems Information Science students
programming robots to complete set tasks.
❖ The TKF approach encouraged students to create physical solutions for robot
related tasks, participate in the communication and sharing of their solution
processes, and finally reflect upon their actions and perceived learning.
❖ It was found that the LEGO Mindstorms EV3 program solutions could be used as
a metric to determine students’ creativity and learning as characterized by TKF.
❖ With 21st century education aimed at developing students’ knowing, doing and
being, from our research we have shown that task implementation utilizing the
TKF model is epistemologically and ontologically meaningful.

24. Future University Hakodate, Japan
Learning by TKF Michael Vallance
Yuta Goto
iVERG lab
www.mvallance.net
Email: michael@fun.ac.jp
Reference
Vallance, M. & Goto, Y. (2015). Learning by TKF to promote computational participation in
Japanese education. In Proceedings of 18th International Conference on Interactive Collaborative
Learning and 43rd International Conference on Engineering Pedagogy. World Engineering
Education Forum. 20-24 September 2015, Florence, Italy.