When Makerspaces Meet School: Negotiating Tensions Between Instruction and Construction

Abstract

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.

Notes

  1. 1.

    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.

  2. 2.

    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.

  3. 3.

    But also consider ‘weapons of math destruction’ (O’Neil 2017)

References

  1. Barbrook, R., & Cameron, A. (1996). The Californian ideology. Sci Cult, 6(1), 44–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505439609526455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Banks, D. A. (2018, January 24). Engineered for dystopia. Retrieved February 8, 2018, from https://thebaffler.com/latest/engineered-for-dystopia-banks

  3. Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and ‘making’ in education: the democratization of invention. In FabLabs: Of machines, makers, and inventors. Bielefeld: Transcript Publishers.

  4. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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).

  6. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bratus, S. (2007). What hackers learn that the rest of us don’t: notes on hacker curriculum. IEEE Security & Privacy, 5(4), 72–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 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

  10. Cresswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). Abingdon. Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2017). Why democracies need science. Cambridge: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Davies, S. R. (2017). Characterizing hacking. Sci Technol Hum Values, 43(2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243917703464.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

  15. Dougherty, D. (2012). The maker movement. Innovations, 7(3), 11–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. García Martinez, A. (2016). Chaos monkeys: inside the Silicon Valley money machine. London: Ebury Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Grand, K. J. (2006). Research lessons from hardware hacking. Commun ACM, 49(6), 44–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. Am Anthropol, 96(3), 606–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. M. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harv Educ Rev, 84(4), 495–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hatch, M. (2014). The maker movement manifesto. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ingold, T. (2014). That’s enough about ethnography! HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 4(1), 383–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Isaacson, W. (2014). The innovators: how a group of inventors, hackers, geniuses and geeks created the digital revolution. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Levy, S. (2001). Hackers: heroes of the computer revolution (Vol. 4). New York: Penguin Books.

  26. Lindtner, S. (2015). Hacking with Chinese characteristics. Sci Technol Hum Values, 40(5), 854–879. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243915590861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lindtner, S., & Lin, C. (2017). Making and its promises. CoDesign, 13(2), 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2017.1308518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 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.

  29. McComas, W. F. (2014). The language of science education. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Pubishers.

  30. 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

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. O’Neil, C. (2017). Weapons of math destruction. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  36. 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

  37. Papert, S. (1993). Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas (2nd ed.). New York: Perseus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Peh, S. H. (2016). Neither civil nor servant: the Philip Yeo story. Singapore: Straits Times Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: time, agency and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Pickering, A., & Guzik, K. (Eds.). (2008). The mangle in practice: science, society, and becoming. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  42. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Sim, W. H. (2003). Chaotic thoughts from the old millennium. Singapore: Cruxible.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Skibell, R. (2002). The myth of the computer hacker. Inf Commun Soc, 5(3), 336–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180210159292a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  47. 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

  48. The Economist Intelligence Unit, & Asian Development Bank. (2014). Creative productivity index: analysing creativity and innovation in Asia. Asian Development Bank.

  49. Toyama, K. (2015). Geek heresy: rescuing social change from the cult of technology. New York: PublicAffairs.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: learning for life in our times. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  51. 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

  52. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: design and methods (Fourth ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Inc.

Download references

Acknowledgements

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.

Funding

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Tan.

Ethics declarations

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.

Ethical Approval

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

Keywords

  • Makerspaces
  • Hackers
  • Cultural design
  • Learning environments
  • STEM education