The frustrations of digital fabrication: an auto/ethnographic exploration of ‘3D Making’ in school

  • Selena Nemorin


Following initial educational enthusiasms for ‘Making’ technologies and the ‘Maker Movement’, increasing numbers of students are now using digital fabrication programs and equipment in school. Given the current lack of empirical research exploring the realities of Making as a school activity, this paper presents an in-depth auto/ethnographic account of 3D printing—currently, one of the most popular Maker technologies in schools. Investigating the case of an 8 week Year 9 design project, this paper seeks to broaden understandings of how 3D printing technologies and practices are shaping “what counts” as learning within contemporary school settings. In particular, this research focuses on the experiences of Making within a school context; what is learned through these experiences; and how the process of Making in school feels. This paper highlights three key issues that have been marginalised to date in discussions of Making in schools: (1) lack of pragmatic engagement, (2) affective labour of failing; and (3) mediated alienation.


Learning School Design Digital fabrication 3D printing Maker education 



This paper arises from a research project funded by the Australian Research Council (award number DP140101258). I would like to thank the participating school staff and students, and my colleagues for their contributions to this conversation. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions and comments.


  1. Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35, 373–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, C. (2012). Makers. New York, NY: Crown.Google Scholar
  3. Ball, S. J. (2000). Performativities and fabrications in the education economy: Towards the performative society? The Australian Educational Researcher, 27(2), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buechley, L., & Hill, B. (2010). LilyPad in the wild. Paper presented to DIS, Aarhus, Denmark. Retrieved
  5. Denzin, N. (1997). Interpretive ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Department for Education, UK. (2013). 3D printers in schools. Retrieved
  7. Dougherty, D. (2013). The maker mindset. In M. Honey & D. E. Kanter (Eds.), Design/make/play (pp. 7–16). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 733–768). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. FabLearn. (2015). Conference on creativity and fabrication in education. Stanford University. Retrieved Scholar
  10. Fuchs, C. (2014). Digital labour and Karl Marx. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Galloway, A. (2014). Protocol. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hakken, D. (1999). Cyborgs@Cyberspace?. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Halverson, E., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 496–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hatch, M. (2014). The maker movement manifesto. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  15. Kafai, Y., Fields, D., & Searle, K. (2014). Electronic textiles as disruptive designs. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 532–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (JPEER), 5(1), 30–39.Google Scholar
  17. Muncey, T. (2005). Doing autoethnography. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 4(1), 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. New York Hall of Science. (2013). A blueprint. Maker programs for youth. Retrieved
  19. Peppler, K., & Bender, S. (2013). Maker movement spreads innovation one project at a time. The Phi Delta Kappan, 95(3), 22–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Soep, E. (2014). Participatory politics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Spry, T. (2001). Performing autoethnography. Qualitative Inquiry, 7(6), 706–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Van Maanen, J. (2011). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vandevelde, C., Wyffels, F., Ciocci1, M., Vanderborght, B., & Saldien, J. (2015). Design and evaluation of a DIY construction system for educational robot kits. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. Retrieved
  24. White House. (2014). President Obama to host first-ever White House maker faire. Office of the Press Secretary. Retrieved
  25. Wiener, N. (1993). Invention: The care and feeding of ideas. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations