When considering science education within the makerspace (engineering workshop) context, insufficient attention may be paid to the cultural models organising the learning activity in such spaces. Too often, learning is imagined to be orchestrated by instructors, and students are supposed to passively respond to activities and events planned on their behalf; even when constructivist approaches are considered, curriculum goals are seldom negotiated, let alone led by student interests. We report on a case study of school which designed a learning organisation around a makerspace, built upon a hacker model of learning. Here, we used the benign version of hack, meaning to reverse- and creatively engineer devices to suit one’s goals. While it may appear that less ‘teaching’ is required, the tasks required to effectively remove the supports, and yet achieve learning, are non-trivial indeed. We found three practices that defined such a space: (i) a significant ludic component, (ii) highly authentic scientific practices, and (iii) attention to tacit knowledges in learning the practices of science. We argue that the mythologies surrounding the hacker stereotype have made an impartial consideration of hacking difficult, and that one effective way of using makerspaces for science instruction can be based on a reimagined set of goals for science. Specifically, attention needs to be paid towards the performative aspects of scientific knowledge in addition to competence in the representations of science.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
The OLPC project sought to deliver low-cost computing to the global south. These machines were to be delivered with software for communication and the equivalent of electronic textbooks, with the intention for recipients to educate themselves. Most observers report mixed success to this project.
For instance, for his crimes, Kevin Mitnick was forbidden access to a computer or a telephone because it was believed that he could whistle modem tones and cause further mayhem.
But also consider ‘weapons of math destruction’ (O’Neil 2017)
Barbrook, R., & Cameron, A. (1996). The Californian ideology. Sci Cult, 6(1), 44–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505439609526455.
Banks, D. A. (2018, January 24). Engineered for dystopia. Retrieved February 8, 2018, from https://thebaffler.com/latest/engineered-for-dystopia-banks
Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and ‘making’ in education: the democratization of invention. In FabLabs: Of machines, makers, and inventors. Bielefeld: Transcript Publishers.
Bevan, B., Gutwill, J. P., Petrich, M., & Wilkinson, K. (2015). Learning through stem-rich tinkering: findings from a jointly negotiated research project taken up in practice. Sci Educ, 99(1), 98–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.2115.
Blikstein, P., & Worsley, M. (2016). Children are not hackers: building a culture of powerful ideas, deep learning, and equity in the maker movement. In K. Peppler, E. Halverson, & Y. Kafai (Eds.), Makeology: makerspaces as learning environments. (pp. 64–80).
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London: Sage Publications.
Bratus, S. (2007). What hackers learn that the rest of us don’t: notes on hacker curriculum. IEEE Security & Privacy, 5(4), 72–75.
Burbules, N. (2016). Technology, education, and the fetishization of the ‘New’. In P. Smeyers & M. Depaepe (Eds.), Educational research: discourses of change and changes of discourse. Switzerland: Springer International.
Chan, A. S. (2014). Beyond technological fundamentalism: Peruvian hack labs & “inter-technological” education. Journal of Peer Production, 5. Retrieved from http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-5-shared-machine-shops/peer-reviewed-articles/beyond-technological-fundamentalism-peruvian-hack-labs-and-inter-technological-education
Cresswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). Abingdon. Oxon: Routledge.
Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2017). Why democracies need science. Cambridge: John Wiley & Sons.
Davies, S. R. (2017). Characterizing hacking. Sci Technol Hum Values, 43(2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243917703464.
Davis, R. L., Schneider, B., & Blikstein, P. (2017). Making the invisible visible: a new method for capturing student development in makerspaces. In B. K. Smith, M. Borge, E. Mercier, & K. Y. Lim (Eds.), Making a difference: prioritizing equity and access in CSCL, 12th international conference on computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) 2017 (Vol. 1, pp. 175–182). Philadelphia: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Dougherty, D. (2012). The maker movement. Innovations, 7(3), 11–14.
García Martinez, A. (2016). Chaos monkeys: inside the Silicon Valley money machine. London: Ebury Press.
Grand, K. J. (2006). Research lessons from hardware hacking. Commun ACM, 49(6), 44–49.
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. Am Anthropol, 96(3), 606–633.
Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. M. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harv Educ Rev, 84(4), 495–504.
Hatch, M. (2014). The maker movement manifesto. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247–298.
Ingold, T. (2014). That’s enough about ethnography! HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 4(1), 383–395.
Isaacson, W. (2014). The innovators: how a group of inventors, hackers, geniuses and geeks created the digital revolution. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Kabayadondo, Z. (2015). The prototyping mind: rethinking perception, affordances, and the mediation of cultural artifacts. Mind Cult Act, 23(2), 154–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2015.1087570.
Levy, S. (2001). Hackers: heroes of the computer revolution (Vol. 4). New York: Penguin Books.
Lindtner, S. (2015). Hacking with Chinese characteristics. Sci Technol Hum Values, 40(5), 854–879. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243915590861.
Lindtner, S., & Lin, C. (2017). Making and its promises. CoDesign, 13(2), 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2017.1308518.
Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to learn: making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom. Torrance, CA: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.McComas W.F. (2014) “21st-Century Skills”. In: McComas W.F. (Ed.) The language of science education. SensePublishers: Rotterdam.
McComas, W. F. (2014). The language of science education. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Pubishers.
Ministry of Education. (2017). MOE FY 2017 committee of supply debate speech. [Web page] Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/moe-fy-2017-committee-of-supply-debate-speech-by-minister-of-education-schools-ng-chee-meng
Mitnick, K. D., & Simon, W. L. (2005). The art of intrusion: the real stories behind the exploits of hackers, intruders & deceivers. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley Publishing, Inc.
Morris, P. (2015). Comparative education, PISA, politics and educational reform: a cautionary note. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 45(3), 470–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2015.1027510.
Nikitina, S. (2012). Hackers as tricksters of the digital age: creativity in hacker culture. Journal of Popular Culture, 45(1), 133–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5931.2011.00915.x.
Norris, A. (2014). Maker-her-spaces as hybrid places: designing and resisting self constructions in urban classrooms. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2014.86687.
O’Neil, C. (2017). Weapons of math destruction. London: Penguin Books.
OpenGov Asia. (2017). RIE2020 plan – A*STAR to launch two model factories, AI.SG makerspace to be operational in January 2018. OpenGov Asia [Web page]. Retrieved from http://www.opengovasia.com/articles/7830-rie2020-plan-astar-to-launch-two-model-factories-aisg-makerspace-to-be-operational-in-january-2018
Papert, S. (1993). Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas (2nd ed.). New York: Perseus Books.
Peh, S. H. (2016). Neither civil nor servant: the Philip Yeo story. Singapore: Straits Times Press.
Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: time, agency and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pickering, A., & Guzik, K. (Eds.). (2008). The mangle in practice: science, society, and becoming. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Selwyn, N. (2015). Minding our language: why education and technology is full of bullshit … and what might be done about it. Learn Media Technol, 41(3), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2015.1012523.
Sheridan, K., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T. (2014). Learning in the making: a comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harv Educ Rev, 84(4), 505–531.
Sim, W. H. (2003). Chaotic thoughts from the old millennium. Singapore: Cruxible.
Skibell, R. (2002). The myth of the computer hacker. Inf Commun Soc, 5(3), 336–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180210159292a.
Söderberg, J. (2010). Misuser inventions and the invention of the misuser: hackers, crackers and filesharers. Sci Cult, 19(2), 151–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430903168177.
Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. (2016). As global study TIMSS turns 20, new results show east Asian students continue to outperform peers in mathematics. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center Press Release. Retrieved from http://timss2015.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/T15-Press-Release-FINAL-11-29.pdf
The Economist Intelligence Unit, & Asian Development Bank. (2014). Creative productivity index: analysing creativity and innovation in Asia. Asian Development Bank.
Toyama, K. (2015). Geek heresy: rescuing social change from the cult of technology. New York: PublicAffairs.
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: learning for life in our times. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.
White House. (2014). Presidential proclamation—national day of making. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/06/17/presidential-proclamation-national-day-making-2014
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: design and methods (Fourth ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Inc.
I would like to acknowledge the contribution of Deborah Fields who provided assistance in the early conceptualisation of this manuscript. I am also thankful to the anonymous reviewers whose insights have improved the quality of this manuscript. National Institute of Education (Singapore) http://www.nie.edu.sg.
This research has been supported by funding from the Ministry of Education, Singapore. Grant number ERFP OER 12/14 MT. The opinions here are of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of the funding source.
Research on human subjects has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Nanyang Technological University. All participants have provided informed consent for participation in this study. No sufficiently identifiable information about participants has been included in this manuscript.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Conflict of Interest
The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
About this article
Cite this article
Tan, M. When Makerspaces Meet School: Negotiating Tensions Between Instruction and Construction. J Sci Educ Technol 28, 75–89 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9749-x
- Cultural design
- Learning environments
- STEM education