Abstract
During the last decade, different values, tools and practices promoted by maker culture have been adopted in formal educational settings with the aim of reinvigorating Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education. Higher education institutions (HEIs) have also engaged with maker culture to explore its potentialities regarding education, entrepreneurship and innovation. However, these collaborations with various stakeholders are not always smooth and educators need to deal with significant challenges that arise in these engagements, despite the problem-solving learning opportunities that they can offer their students. This paper presents the results of a case study that dealt with these issues through the establishment of an open and collaborative learning ecosystem (OCLE) between different educators, students and external stakeholders. The empirical work was based on thirty-three semi-structured interviews across four countries, eight focus groups and a final participatory workshop. The study argues that maker culture can offer several potentialities for pushing forward an integrative vision of STEM education as well as other disciplines from social sciences and humanities. An emphasis is placed on how tertiary education can benefit greatly from the adoption of OCLEs and how these communities of practices can encourage an education oriented to meeting societal challenges. The paper also warns that these kinds of interventions face significant organisational challenges in HEIs that demand significant institutional recognition and support to overcome this organisational resistance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data and material
The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Notes
See the recognised educational project “Dando forma al Medievo” https://dandoformamedievo.wordpress.com/.
For a detailed description of these numbers, see the different OD&M activity reports available at https://odmplatform.eu/results/activities-reports-2/.
Examples of these physical prototypes were a smart T-shirt and inclusive urban solutions. See also https://odmplatform.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/d6.3-success-stories-catalogue.pdf.
Abbreviations
- AI:
-
Artificial Intelligence.
- CAD:
-
Computer-aided Design.
- CNC:
-
Computer Numerical Control.
- EU:
-
European Union.
- HEI:
-
Higher Education Institution.
- IoT:
-
Internet of Things.
- OCLE:
-
Open and Collaborative Learning Ecosystem.
- OD&M:
-
Open Design and Manufacturing.
- STEAM:
-
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics.
References
Anderson, C. (2012). Makers: the new industrial revolution. Random House
Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital Fabrication and ‘Making’ in Education: The Democratization of Invention. In J. Walter-Herrmann & C. Büching (Eds.), FabLabs: Of Machines, Makers and Inventors (Bielefeld, pp. 1–21). Transcript Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2014.939762
Browder, R. E., Aldrich, H. E., & Bradley, S. W. (2019). The emergence of the maker movement: Implications for entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(3), 459–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2019.01.005
Burke, L. M., & McNeill, J. B. (2011). “Educate to innovate”: How the Obama plan for STEM education falls short. In Backgrounder (Issue 2504)
Corsini, L., Aranda-Jan, C. B., & Moultrie, J. (2019). Using digital fabrication tools to provide humanitarian and development aid in low-resource settings. Technology in Society, 58(February), 101117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.02.003
Davies, R. (2015). Industry 4.0 Digitalisation for productivity and growth. (Issue September)
Dellot, B. (2015). Ours to Master: How makerspaces can help us master technology for a more human end. (Issue November)
Diaz, J., Tomàs, M., & Lefebvre, S. (2021). Are public makerspaces a means to empowering citizens? The case of Ateneus de Fabricació in Barcelona. Telematics and Informatics, 59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101551
Dougherty, D. (2012). The Maker Movement. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 7(3), 11–14. https://doi.org/10.1162/INOV_a_00135
English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1
Grundke, R., Marcolin, L., Nguyen, T. L. B., & Squicciarini, M. (2018). Which skills for the digital era? Returns to skills analysis (OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers). https://doi.org/10.1787/9a9479b5-en
Halbinger, M. A. (2018). The role of makerspaces in supporting consumer innovation and diffusion: An empirical analysis. Research Policy, 47(10), 2028–2036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.07.008
Hallström, J., & Schönborn, K. J. (2019). Models and modelling for authentic STEM education: reinforcing the argument. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0178-z
Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The Maker Movement in Education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495–504. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.34j1g68140382063
Hatch, M. (2013). The maker movement manifesto: rules for innovation in the new world of crafters, hackers, and tinkerers. McGraw Hill
Illeris, K. (2018). An overview of the history of learning theory. European Journal of Education, 53(1), 86–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12265
Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(2), 193–212. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2005.17268566
Leung, A. (2020). Boundary crossing pedagogy in STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00212-9
Li, D. (2014). The new shanzhai: Democratizing innovation in China. Paris Innovation Review. http://parisinnovationreview.com/articles-en/the-new-shanzhai-democratizing-innovation-in-china?from=groupmessage
Lindtner, S., & Li, D. (2012). Created in China: The Makings of China’s Hackerspace Community. Interactions, 19, 18–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/2377783.2377789
Lindtner, S., Hertz, G. D., & Dourish, P. (2014). Emerging sites of HCI innovation. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems—CHI ’14, 439–448. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557132
Lindtner, S. (2015). Hacking with Chinese Characteristics: The Promises of the Maker Movement against China’s Manufacturing Culture. Science, Technology & Human Values, 40(5), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243915590861
Lindtner, S., Greenspan, A., & Li, D. (2015). Designed in Shenzhen: Shanzhai Manufacturing and Maker Entrepreneurs. Aarhus Series on Human Centered Computing, 1(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.7146/aahcc.v1i1.21265
Martelloni, L., Lobascio, A., Como, E., Giorgi, D., Lotti, G., Fiesoli, I. … Gutiérrez, R. T. (2017). Universities, Enterprises and Maker Communities in Open Design & Manufacturing across Europe : An exploratory study (Issue November)
Martin, L. (2015). The Promise of the Maker Movement for Education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 5(1), https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1099
Nascimento, S., & Pólvora, A. (2018). Maker Cultures and the Prospects for Technological Action. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(3), 927–946. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9796-8
Niaros, V., Kostakis, V., & Drechsler, W. (2017). Making (in) the Smart City: The Emergence of Makerspaces. Telematics and Informatics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.05.004
Ramella, F., & Manzo, C. (2018). Into the crisis: Fab Labs – a European story. The Sociological Review, 66(2), 341–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026118758535
Rayna, T., & Striukova, L. (2021). Fostering skills for the 21st century: The role of Fab labs and makerspaces. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120391
Ritz, J. M., & Fan, S. C. (2015). STEM and technology education: international state-of-the-art. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(4), 429–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9290-z
Rosa, P., Ferretti, F., Guimarães Pereira, Â., Panella, F., & Wanner, M. (2017). Overview of the Maker Movement in the European Union (Issue December). https://doi.org/10.2760/227356
Rosa, P., Guimaraes Pereira, A., & Ferretti, F. (2018). Futures of Work: Perspectives from the Maker Movement. https://doi.org/10.2760/96812
Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to Identify Themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X02239569
Saunders, T., & Kingsley, J. (2016). Made in China—Makerspaces and the search for mass innovation
Sheridan, K., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T. (2014). Learning in the making. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 505–532. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.brr34733723j648u
Silverman, D. (2006). Qualitative Research. Theory, Method and Practice (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications
Smit, J., Kreutzer, S., Moeller, C., & Carlberg, M. (2016). Industry 4.0
Smith, A., Fressoli, M., Abrol, D., Arond, E., & Ely, A. (2017). Grassroots Innovation Movements. Routledge
Tabarés, R. (2018). La importancia de la cultura tecnológica en el movimiento maker. Arbor, 194((789): a471). https://doi.org/10.3989/arbor.2018.789n3013
Tabarés, R. (2019). La fabricación abierta: ¿un camino alternativo a la industria 4.0? Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia. Tecnología y Sociedad, 14(41), 263–285
Tabarés, R., & Kuittinen, H. (2020). A tale of two innovation cultures: Bridging the gap between makers and manufacturers. Technology in Society, 63(November 2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101352
Tabarés, R., Bartolomé, T., García, J., Martelloni, L., Marmo, D., Martínez, R. … Widerska, E. (2020). Higher education in the making: reinvigorating learning institutions throughout cross-academic collaborations - D.6.4. - White Paper Version 2.0
Tabarés-Gutiérrez, R. (2016). Approaching maker´s phenomenon. Interaction Design and Architecture(s), 30, 19–29
Tomkin, J. H., Beilstein, S. O., Morphew, J. W., & Herman, G. L. (2019). Evidence that communities of practice are associated with active learning in large STEM lectures. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0154-z
Turner, F. (2018). Millenarian tinkering: The puritan roots of the maker movement. Technology and Culture, 59(4), S160–S182. https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.2018.0153
von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing Innovation. The MIT Press
Vuorikari, R., Ferrari, A., & Punie, Y. (2019). Makerspaces for Education and Training. https://doi.org/10.2760/946996
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press
Wong, A., & Partridge, H. (2016). Making as Learning: Makerspaces in Universities. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 47(3), 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2016.1228163
Acknowledgements
We would like also to thank all teachers, students, makers, manufacturers and other stakeholders that voluntarily participated in this research for kindly allowing us to share some time with them.
Funding
This work has benefited from the funding received by the OD&M Erasmus + Programme of the EU under Project Number: 575063-EPP-1-2016-1-IT-EPPKA2-KA and project PID2019- 107251RB-100 granted by MCIN/AEI/ https://doi.org/10.13039/501100011033.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All persons who meet authorship criteria are listed as authors, and all authors certify that they have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for the content, including participation in the concept, design, analysis, writing, or revision of the manuscript. Furthermore, each author certifies that this material or similar material has not been and will not be submitted to or published in any other publication before its appearance in the International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education journal. Below there is a recap of the main contributions done by each author: Conception and design of study: R. T., A.B. Acquisition of data: R. T. Analysis and/or interpretation of data: R. T., A.B. Drafting the manuscript: R. T, A.B. Revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content: R. T, A.B. Approval of the version of the manuscript to be published: R. T., A.B.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tabarés, R., Boni, A. Maker culture and its potential for STEM education. Int J Technol Des Educ 33, 241–260 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09725-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09725-y