The frustrations of digital fabrication: an auto/ethnographic exploration of ‘3D Making’ in school
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.
KeywordsLearning 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.
- Anderson, C. (2012). Makers. New York, NY: Crown.Google Scholar
- Buechley, L., & Hill, B. (2010). LilyPad in the wild. Paper presented to DIS, Aarhus, Denmark. Retrieved http://bit.ly/1FSGe1T.
- Denzin, N. (1997). Interpretive ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Department for Education, UK. (2013). 3D printers in schools. Retrieved http://bit.ly/1HMIfeN.
- 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
- 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
- FabLearn. (2015). Conference on creativity and fabrication in education. Stanford University. Retrieved stanford.io/1GIIRBb.Google Scholar
- Fuchs, C. (2014). Digital labour and Karl Marx. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Galloway, A. (2014). Protocol. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Hakken, D. (1999). Cyborgs@Cyberspace?. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Hatch, M. (2014). The maker movement manifesto. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
- 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
- New York Hall of Science. (2013). A blueprint. Maker programs for youth. Retrieved http://bit.ly/1J78gH7.
- Soep, E. (2014). Participatory politics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- 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 http://bit.ly/1L5qDsm.
- White House. (2014). President Obama to host first-ever White House maker faire. Office of the Press Secretary. Retrieved http://1.usa.gov/1IY1ek0.
- Wiener, N. (1993). Invention: The care and feeding of ideas. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar