Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From Theory to Practice: Unveiling the Synergistic Potential of Design and Maker Education in Advancing Learning

  • Original Research
  • Published:
SN Computer Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the implementation and impact of maker culture in Hong Kong higher education institutions. Maker culture is a collaborative educational approach that not only embraces students’ capacity for self-paced, autonomous learning but also applies this knowledge to creative problem solving and innovation. A qualitative study was conducted, focusing on the experiences of teachers within Hong Kong’s higher education sector. Eight teachers with a computer science background were selected for interviews to gain insights into their perceptions and experiences with maker education. Although a larger and more diverse sample population was initially considered, the decision to limit the sample size was taken to ensure cross-sectional comparability and direct weighting of teachers’ experiences within a singular, complementary educational setting. The findings provide valuable insights into the benefits and challenges associated with integrating maker education into traditional educational systems. It became evident that adequate resources, effective teachers, and improved administrative systems play significant roles in the successful implementation of this approach. Maker education appears to offer a pragmatic alternative to traditional performance-based studies, potentially leading to a future of education that is creative, innovative, and student-directed. Therefore, despite the challenges, with the right support and resources, the integration of maker culture into educational systems could significantly transform teaching and learning processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data will be made available on reasonable request to corresponding author.

References

  1. Ayivor I. 101 Keys to Everyday Passion. New York: CreateSpace Independent Publishing; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wu T-T, Lin C-J, Wang S-C, Huang Y-M. Tracking visual programming language-based learning progress for computational thinking education. Sustainability. 1983;2023:15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15031983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kamkwamba W. The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind. New York: HarperCollins Publishers; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Lundberg M, Rasmussen J. Foundational principles and practices to consider in assessing maker education. J Educ Technol. 2018;14:1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hsu YC, Baldwin S, Ching YH. Learning through making and maker education. TechTrends. 2017;61:589–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0172-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Morado MF, Melo AE, Jarman A. Learning by making: A framework to revisit practices in a constructionist learning environment. Br J Educ Technol. 2021;52:1093–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sharma GVSS, Prasad CLVRSV, Rambabu V. Online machine drawing pedagogy—A knowledge management perspective through maker education in the COVID-19 pandemic era. Knowl Process Manag. 2022;29:231–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wu W. Maker movement in post-industrial Hong Kong. Thesis at University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, 2016.

  9. Wen W. Making in China: Is maker culture changing China’s creative landscape? Int J Cult Stud. 2017;20(4):343–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367877917705154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Weng X, Chiu TKF, Tsang CC. Promoting student creativity and entrepreneurship through real-world problem-based maker education. Think Skills Creat. 2022;45: 101046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ng O, Liu M, Cui Z. Students’ in-moment challenges and developing maker perspectives during problem-based digital marketing. J Res Technol Educ. 2023;55(3):411–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1967817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lo NP. Bridging Digital Competence and Sustainability: Unveiling the Synergistic Potential of Design and Maker Education, Preprints, 2023. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202312.0564.v1

  13. Liang W, Fung D. Designing STEM education in small class teaching environments: The Hong Kong experience. Asia Pac Educ Res. 2023;32:189–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-022-00643-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Santo R, Peppler K, Ching D, Hoadley C. Maybe a maker space? Organizational learning about maker education within a regional out-of-school network. Fab Learn; 2015, pp. 1–10. d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net.

  15. Vuopala E, Guzmán Medrano DG, Aljabaly M, Hietavirta D, Malacara L, Pan C. Implementing a maker culture in elementary school—Students’ perspectives. Technol Pedagog Educ. 2020;29:649–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1796776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Tabarés R, Boni A. Maker culture and its potential for STEM education. Int J Technol Des Educ. 2023;33:241–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09725-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bento Silva J, Nardi Silva I, Meister Sommer Bilessimo S. Technological structure for technology integration in the classroom, inspired by the maker culture. J Inf Technol Educ Res. 2020;19:167–204. https://doi.org/10.28945/4532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Krummeck K, Rouse R. Can you DIG it? Designing to support a robust maker culture in a university makerspace. Int J Des Learn. 2017;8:1–15. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v8i1.22702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chou PN. Skill development and knowledge acquisition cultivated by maker education: Evidence from Arduino-based educational robotics. Eurasia J Math Sci Technol Educ. 2018;14:1–15. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/93483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Zhan W, Hur B, Wang Y, Cui S, Yalvac B. Creating maker culture in an engineering technology program. Int J Eng Educ. 2021;37:712–20.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lock J, Gill D, Kennedy T, Piper S, Powell A. Fostering learning through making: Perspectives from the international maker education network. Int J E Learn Distance Educ. 2020;35:1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Godhe AL, Lilja P, Selwyn N. Making sense of making: critical issues in the integration of maker education into schools. Technol Pedagog Educ. 2019;28:317–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2019.1610040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Li B. The construction path of innovation and entrepreneurship education in secondary vocational schools from the perspective of the maker era. Int J New Dev Educ. 2021;3:50–4. https://doi.org/10.25236/IJNDE.2021.030211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Shin M, Lee JJ, Nelson FP. Funds of knowledge in making: Re-envisioning maker education in teacher preparation. J Res Technol Educ. 2022;54:635–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1908868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhan W, Hur B, Wang Y, Cui S, Yalvac B. Actively engaging project based learning through a Mini Maker Faire in an engineering technology program. ASEE Virtual Conference. , 2020; Vol. 28818. https://peer.asee.org/actively-engaging-project-based-learning-through-a-mini-maker-faire-in-an-engineering-technology-program

  26. Maaia LC. Inventing with maker education in high school classrooms. Technol Innov. 2019;20:267–83. https://doi.org/10.21300/20.3.2019.267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Webb KK. Makerspaces: High-tech and low-tech locations to expand creativity in the academic library. Elsevier Connect. Available online: www.elsevier.com, 2019.

  28. De Backer L, Van Keer H, Valcke M. The functions of shared metacognitive regulation and their differential relation with collaborative learners’ understanding of the learning content. Learn Interact. 2022;77:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Rambe P. Spaces for interactive engagement or technology for differential academic participation? Google Groups for collaborative learning at a South African University. J Comput High Educ. 2017;29:353–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9141-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Clapp EP, Ross J, Oxman JR, Tishman S. Maker-Centered Learning: Empowering Young People to Shape Their Worlds. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Setiaputra B, Yoas JH. Design exploration and collaboration within groups in learning-by-making (LBM) approach. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng. 2020;960:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/960/4/042041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Cohen J, Jones WM, Smith S, Calandra B. Makification: Towards a framework for leveraging the maker movement in formal education. J Educ Multimedia Hypermedia. 2017;26:1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Carbonell RM, Boklage A, Clayton P, Borrego M. Making improvements; Pedagogical iterations of designing a class project in makerspace. ASEE Virtual Conference, 2020; Vol. 30352.

  34. Hall R, Shapiro BR, Hostetler A, Lubbock H, Owens D, Daw C, Fisher D. Here-and-then: Learning by making places with digital spatial story lines. Cogn Instr. 2020;38:348–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2020.1732391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Shu Y, Huang TC. Identifying the potential roles of virtual reality and STEM in maker education. J Educ Res. 2021;114:108–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2021.1887067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. An H, Sung W, Yoon SY. Hands-on, minds-on, hearts-on, social-on: A collaborative maker project integrating arts in a synchronous online environment for teachers. TechTrends. 2022;66:590–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00740-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Cortiz D, Silva JO. Web and virtual reality as platforms to improve online education experiences. In: 10th International Conference on Human System Interactions, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1109/HSI.2017.8005003.

  38. Bryman A. Social Research Methods. 4th ed. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Jonker J, Pennink BJW. The Essence of Research Methodology: A Concise Guide for Master and PhD Students in Management Science. Heidelberg: Springer; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Saunders M, Lewis P, Thornhill A. Research Methods for Business Students. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Patton MQ. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  42. O’Reilly M, Kiyimba N. Advanced Qualitative Research: A Guide to Using Theory. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 2015.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  43. Petersen NJ. Designing a rigorous small sample study. In: Osborne JW, editor. Best Practices in Quantitative Methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications; 2008. p. 137–52.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  44. Ragin CC, Amoroso LM. Constructing Social Research: The Unity and Diversity of Method. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Hammersley M, Trainou A. Ethics in Qualitative Research: Controversies and Contexts. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications; 2012.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  46. Merriam SB, Tisdell EJ. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. 4th ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  47. King N, Horrocks C. Interviews in Qualitative Research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Chu S-T, Hwang G-J, Hwang G-H. A goal-oriented reflection strategy-based virtual reality approach to promoting students’ learning achievement, motivation and reflective thinking. Sustainability. 2023;15:3192. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Professional and Continuing Education, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China

    Noble Po-kan Lo

  2. Department of Educational Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

    Noble Po-kan Lo

Authors
  1. Noble Po-kan Lo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Noble Po-kan Lo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest.

Research Involving Human and /or Animals

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lo, N.Pk. From Theory to Practice: Unveiling the Synergistic Potential of Design and Maker Education in Advancing Learning. SN COMPUT. SCI. 5, 360 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-024-02726-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-024-02726-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation