Reflecting on the tinkering space and its definitions

It seems that all the definitions revolve around trying out different things in order for it to improve. For tinkering that goal is undefined, for trial and error it is for sure defined, and for brainstorming it seems that the problem is defined, but the solution is focused on being exploratory.

Definition in this course
Within this course tinkering goes towards play with the goal of improving, but also for exploration. In these three definitions, it is more implied towards a goal, while in the course tinkering is also iterative with sometimes finding solutions that seem weren't heavily implied by a problem. Aka, solutions that arise that from context that are not necesarily problems.

LLM-tool
"Tinkering refers to the act of making small, experimental changes or repairs to something, often in an informal or unskilled way, to improve or understand it better. It typically involves hands-on trial-and-error adjustments, modifications, or playful exploration, especially with mechanical or technical devices." ~ provided by Deepseek ↗.
ChatGPT ↗ provided me a table:
It seems that Deepseek gets really close to what has been mentioned before. The iterative nature and the hands-on experience is almost better explained than the dictionary definitions. However the answer seems to be nuanced towards being unprofessional, while tinkering is more nuanced towards having a functional result.
ChatGPT provideded me a table with relatively interesting comparisons that aligned more towards the book references, but the information does not go beyond the definitions, or a more elaborate answer. Ofcourse I could ask for them, but it is not what it provided me from the beginning.

To me, typical I-Tech cases involve three things: technology, the presence of human interaction and a problem. With the problem for this example: provide feedback to the runners (users) on how they perform in marathon races.
The technical hurdles would be: have technology be non-intrusive to the users and other marathon users (1), limited budget/time to develop any prototyped technology (2), making the technology safe in both data collaction and storing(3), having the testing with the right participants (4), safety of the communication of the technology towards the user; e.g. messages that can be intercepted or modified (5).
The tinkering comes in handy when trying to make the technology non-intrusive,and create it under a limited budget or time to develop a prototype. A very much used approach in HCI is the Wizard of OZ approach in which users will be given a prototype that seems to work, but is secretly being executed by a human pushing the buttons. This is to specifically test the concept or idea of a specific application, before fully putting the resources into refining the technology that potentially would not provide the desired outcome.
The other hurdles can be solved with tinkering, but more indirect. the participant problem can be tinkered by smaller tests with participants that sporadically run or have experience with running longer distances. Aka, finding users that steer towards the same user types. However, that might only be tinkerable if the end-user is already a clear persona, by which the 'similar users' can be substantiated or tested as 'similar'.
Safety I would personally define as more of a bickering-fighting between the data breachers and the technologists, which can be seen as an iterative process, but I would not define it as tinkering. This is because testing a system this deep in the process, would be very systematic. Tinkering I would define as more explorative and finding creative ways of solving a problem.

I have a lot of hobbies. From the creative scene to the more technical subjects. Below my inspiration for these areas.

In the session, I worked with a variety of prototyping tools:

The type and timing of instruction really matter. The LittleBits or BYOR benefit from a seed-style introduction—just show a few basics and let exploration happen. More advanced systems like Arduino Grove need clearer tooling/skills instruction to be effective; without this, users can feel lost. For open-ended creative tasks, minimal instruction is often better—too much direction kills discovery. But for goal-oriented tasks, a light intro toward the goal helps focus while still leaving room to experiment.
Introduction to the materials (seed): This is helpful when starting with new or modular tools like BYOR or LittleBits. A quick demo or “seed” of what’s possible is often enough to spark ideas and encourage playful exploration without over-explaining.
Introduction towards the goal (discovery): For open-ended projects, it’s helpful to give a light sense of direction or purpose—but not too much. This kind of instruction encourages creative problem-solving and personal interpretation while still giving a shared framework. This fits well with LEGO Technic and even LittleBits, where the how is flexible but the why is not yet clear.
Introduction to the tooling/skills: More complex systems like Arduino Grove need focused instruction on tools and skills. Without understanding how the components communicate or how the code works, you hit a wall fast. Here, instruction is less about the project goal and more about understanding the how behind the system.

Seymour Papert, drawing on Piaget’s theory of constructivism, developed the concept of constructionism. His approach emphasizes that learning occurs mostly when individuals are actively constructing something meaningful:
Constructionism: Knowledge is built through the active creation of tangible artifacts.
Learning through making: The process of building or programming facilitates deeper understanding.
“Hard fun”: Challenges are not obstacles to engagement, but rather, essential components of meaningful learning.
Technology as a tool for expression: Papert advocated for the use of computers and programming as a means of exploring complex ideas and fostering creativity.

Maria Montessori’s educational philosophy also centers on learner autonomy, but with a more structured and developmental approach:
Prepared environment: Learning spaces should be intentionally designed to support self-directed activity.
Sensorial and manipulative materials: Concrete materials help children internalize abstract concepts.
Sensitive periods: Children pass through optimal phases for acquiring specific types of knowledge or skills.
Role of the educator as guide: The adult’s role is to support, rather than direct, the child’s learning.

Both Papert and Montessori aim towards learner-centered education with active engagement. Both value hands-on experiences, the importance of intrinsic motivation, and the role of the educator as a facilitator rather than a person spitting knowledge. They both believe in the learner’s ability to develop understanding through exploration within a supportive environment.

The main difference is in their view of structure and technology. Montessori education emphasizes a carefully ordered environment with prescribed materials, often with limited use of digital tools. In contrast, Papert focusses more on open-ended exploration, particularly through technology such as programmable robotics and computers, which he saw as key instruments for intellectual development.

Tinkering across age groups
For younger children, Montessori’s structured environment and concrete materials provide a perfect foundation for early tinkering and independence.
For older children and teens, Papert’s ideas slowly fit better—offering deep engagement with complex systems through tech, code, and invention.

Their combined views support a tinkering mindset 'after each other'. Both approaches validate that tinkering isn’t just for young kids—it’s a mindset for everyone.

Chapter 9 of Invent to Learn explores the importance of the physical environment in fostering a culture of making, creativity, and inquiry. The chapter emphasizes that a successful maker space (or tinkering/design lab) doesn’t require a fancy, high-tech setup—it’s more about culture, accessibility, and mindset. The best spaces prioritize agency, creativity, and collaboration—not just gear. Whether in a FabLab or a repurposed closet, what matters is letting learners make, fail, and iterate.
Also, the authors argue that learning spaces are not neutral; they convey a strong message about what kind of learning is valued. Traditional classroom layouts—rows of desks facing a teacher—imply passivity and obedience. In contrast, spaces designed for making communicate values of agency, experimentation, and collaboration.

Useful Pointers for Space (Location) and Setting
Flexibility: The space should adapt to different projects—movable furniture, open areas, and modular workstations.
Accessibility: Tools and materials should be visible and within reach to encourage spontaneous exploration.
Safety & Organization: Clear zones (e.g., electronics, crafting, coding) reduce chaos, while safety protocols enable independence.
Inspiration on Display: Showcase past projects, books, and "junk" materials to spark creativity.
Not Just Tech: A great space balances digital (3D printers, coding) and analog (cardboard, crafts, hand tools) making.

I use tinkering mostly in early and middle phases of the design process, particularly in ideation, prototyping, as an exploration. It is most valuable when moving from abstract thinking to tangible outcomes.
Early Ideation: When a problem is not yet defined, I tinker with mainly sketches, cardboard models, and/or quick code snippets to explore possibilities.
Mid-Process Debugging: When e.g. a code fails, I switch to solving it through tinkering and small iterative changes (e.g., resistor values, joint angles) instead of overanalyzing. Not to confuse with finding the cause: that goes very systematically. Though solving the problem will be tinkering for me.

When I want to draw a comic scene or wallpaper, I always break it down into smaller pieces. The same goes for my bike fixing, I make it open-ended questions that can be explored. For example, rather than "how do I draw a fight scene?" or "how do I make my bike more comfortable?", tinkering will emerge from questions like "from what angle does this character the most intimidating?" or "what make the best positions on my bike to both watch traffic and go fast?". The goals is clear in both situations, but the sub questions require iterations that have not just one anwser (aka open-endedness). PReferreably, but sometimes not always possible, it works best with fast prototypes and cheap iterations.

Discussion and leaving the project for at least 1 hour. My tunnel vision sometimes takes over and then nothing can put m into other mindsets. If I cannot or don't want to leave the project fully, I start sketching other things, watch other people's drawing or in the biking context, try to improve other parts of my bike first. Then while I am working at the other thing, I might get new insights from my mind thinking over it, or seeing it literally differently with drawing sketches. Sometimes I mights add in another person for the duck-effect (also used in programming) to explain my problem to them. Tinking out-loud verbalizes my problem and I can see myself what the issue is, without sometimes even their reply. As mentioned before, I like to keep my own autonomy - they are just there for decoration.

Music, music, MUSIC. Did I say music? This literally makes me start, as I see the end of a song as a deadline to have something done: starting with my project. Then, the rest will follow. For sketches, I always keep them, not only for the possiblity I need them again, but also for my ego: I will see the progress from where I was to where I am now. With bike-fixing, I like to do it with others too. Also for tool sharing (sadly I am mainly the one lending out my tools...), but also because of the peer-energy at Sectie-C. Everyone is making stuff, so I want to be able to show off at the end of the day what I did too.

My knowledge comes from already the curiousity of things work. The knowledge I would define as 'inzicht', the ability to know how things work from actually seeing it and being able to apply it to similar situations by imagination. The experience I gained were really because of the insights I got how something works and being able to think about it and build ont top of that in imaginative bike projects. Sometimes they come to live, sometimes they stay imaginative.
The same goes for drawing. When I am able to indeed draw that character very intimidating, I know it for the future characters how I could potentially design them intimidating - I can omit the information too, and probably will next time and tinker again... but at least I have the posibility to actively rule out the results of the previous tinkering session.

Both media seem to share the same iterative process and in a way the same open endedness. Especially when the electronics allow for rapid prototyping, iterative processes can take place a lot. However, digital media seems to be more structured and habiting logical thinking or is more abstract than in real life (e.g. my 3D design for the building block, digitally felt way different than in real life. The 3D printed building block, made me wanna throw it across the room: it made me see the similarity of a japanese shurikun).

The flair of tinkering is its open endedness. When inputting variables, mutliple outcomes can occur. The thing with reproducibility is that is always should contain the same outcome. Tinkering focusses more on the process than the same outcome. So in a way I would vote for reproducible tinkering sessions, but not that always the same outcome occurs. Hence, the unexpected outcomes tinkering is used for.

Tinkering thrives in ambiguity and exploration; iterative design seeks efficiency and direction. Yet both are valuable, and in practice, they often intertwine—tinkering can inform early exploration, while iterative design carries ideas forward with precision and purpose. One drives toward solutions, the other explores the solution space.
In my bike situation, I would be making a basket from different low-cost materials, to get the dimensions and shapes the way I want it (=tinkering). Then, when I have printed several versions of several 3D designs, his would then be iterative design.

YES. As I mentioned before, if the roles are equal in terms of autonomy, tinkering together even creates more chances of diverser solutions. The open endedness is key in tinkering and as everyone will have adifferent view or (mis)conception of the project, the outcomes will even be more diverse.

Materials indeed influence the tinkering session. It will create a bias when there will be materials from specific contexts. Crafting materials are usually softer in display, while arduino will create a more functional solution and lego will even create a new bias, namely towards storytelling scenes.
These three groups of materials can come in handy whe nthe tinkering needs do be in a specic exploration space. These materials then can provide an intended bias by encouraging outcomes, that steers towards a direction of solutions. On the contrary, when one is not familiar with the material and its bias of outcomes, it can have a negative effect on the tinkering session.

If framed intentionally, tinnkering can be used in the exploratory phase, because of its open ended nature. However, later in the design phase, RtD becomes more structured and the design processess (making, prototyping, iterating) will create new knowledge in a reproducable way. As discussed above, tinkering will be less suitable with repeating the same outcome upon repeating a session. Documenting the process is hard, as it is hard to track what happened during a tinkering session, and connecting things to theory usually happens after the tinkering session: less before that as it will obstruct the freedom of the open ended outcomes.

As discussed before in the untinkerable section! In the domains of ethical considerations, economic situations or sfaety, tinkering should not be used.

The key is to embrace tinkering’s playful openness while anchoring it in real-world relevance on the way. At first, tinkering thrives on curiosity, experimentation, and accepting "failure" as progress. Then later on, critical thinking ensures ideas address actual needs, constraints, or ethical considerations. Tinkering reveals possibilities; criticality grounds them.

Our tinkering exercise fosters out-of-the-box thinking by having participants repurpose obejects in unforeseen ways. This stimulates creative problem solving, giving them the insight that materals ca be used beyond their function. By experimenting freely, they become more open towards seeing products/obbjects or problems in a different way: very useful in design and engineering.
Ofcourse there are some challenges, since it requires 'backwards-thinking' (3d setup = 2d outcome). This can be a hurdle, leading to frsutration or discouragement if their initial idea doesn't become what they envisioned. The other way around can work too: that an very unrealistic ugly product can still create an interesting shadow.
Personally, this exercise pushed me beyond my safezone of silence in a group: my own work also had working outcomes, new solutions that the group didn't come up with. I can still explore on my own as before, but sharing new inventions more assertively also is beneficial to the group. This exercise made me more secure in that.

Our workshop is about creating moving shadows—and the interesting part is that it doesn’t require buying new stuff or creating waste. Kids can use things they already have at home, like old toys or cardboard boxes, and nothing gets ruined in the process. The materials stay reusable because we’re just playing with light and shadows, not cutting or gluing things permanently. That said, it’s up to us (the instructors) to set the right tone. If we encourage kids to get creative with what they already have—instead of reaching for new materials—the workshop stays fun and eco-friendly. The goal is to show that STEM can be low-waste without sacrificing creativity.