Advertisement

Motive-Demand Dynamics Creating a Social Context for Students’ Learning Experiences in a Making and Design Environment

  • Kristiina KumpulainenEmail author
  • Anu Kajamaa
  • Antti Rajala
Chapter
Part of the Perspectives in Cultural-Historical Research book series (PCHR, volume 6)

Abstract

Making and design environments, often referred to as makerspaces, have aroused recent educational interest. These environments typically consist of spaces that support interest-driven engagement in hands-on creative activities with a range of digital artefacts. Although a variety of benefits from participating in making and design activities have been proposed, we currently have limited understanding of students’ learning experiences in makerspaces situated in schools. Following Hedegaards’ conceptualisations, we investigate motive-demand dynamics in students’ social activity in a school-based digital making and design environment, ‘The FUSE Studio’. We highlight our findings via vignettes selected from 65 h of video recordings of 94 students (aged between 9 and 12 years old) carrying out activities; the recordings were collected intermittently from an elective course over one semester. Our study illustrates how the students’ learning experiences were shaped through tension-laden interplay between the motives and demands of their activity situated across personal, relational and institutional contexts. The findings make visible how established ways of working and being at school interacted and came into tension with the students’ motive orientations, thereby limiting and at times transforming the social context of their learning. Our work also demonstrates how the analysis of motive-demand dynamics offers one useful conceptual tool to unpack students’ learning experiences in novel learning environments.

Keywords

Motive Demand Tension Making and design environments Learning experiences 

References

  1. Barton, A. C., Tan, C., & Greenberg, D. (2017). The makerspace movement: Sites of possibilities for equitable opportunities to engage underrepresented youth in STEM. Teachers College Record, 119(6), 1–44.Google Scholar
  2. Benton, C., Mullins, L., Shelley, K., & Dempsey, T. (2013). Makerspaces: Supporting an entrepreneurial system. Michigan State University EDA Center for Regional Economic Innovation. http://reicenter.org/upload/documents/colearning/benton2013_report.pdf.
  3. Bevan, B., Ryoo, J. J., Shea, M., Kekelis, L., Pooler, P., Green, E., … Hernandez, M. (2016). Making as a Strategy for Afterschool STEM Learning. Report from the Californian tinkering afterschool network research-practice partnership. San Francisco: The Exploratorium.Google Scholar
  4. Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital Fabrication and ‘Making’ in Education: The Democratization of Invention. In J. Walter-Herrmann & C. Büching (Eds.), FabLabs: Of Machines, Makers and Inventors (pp. 1–21). Bielefeld: Transcript Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Blikstein, P. & Krannich, D. (2013). The makers’ movement and FabLabs in education: experiences, technologies, and research. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 613–616). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  6. Blikstein, P., & Worsley, M. (2016). The maker movement: the last chance of progressive education? In K. Peppler, E. Halverson, & Y. Kafai (Eds.), Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environments (Vol. 1, pp. 64–80). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Edwards, A. (2016). A cultural-historical approach to practice: Working within and across practices. In J. Lynch, J. Rowlands, T. Gale, & A. Skourdoumbis (Eds.), Practice theory: Diffractive readings in professional practice and education (pp. 127–140). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Edwards, A. (2017). The dialectic of person and practice: How cultural-historical accounts of agency can inform teacher education. In J. Clandinin & J. Husu (Eds.), International handbook on research on teacher education (pp. 269–285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. El’konin, D. B. (1999). The development of play in preschoolers. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 37(6), 31–70.Google Scholar
  11. Fleer, M. (2014). The demands and motives afforded through digital play in early childhood activity settings. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 3(3), 202–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fleer, M. (2017). Digital role-play: The changing conditions of children’s play in preschool settings. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 24(1), 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.Google Scholar
  14. Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hakkarainen, K. (2009). A knowledge-practice perspective on technology-mediated learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hedegaard, M. (2008). A model of children’s learning activity that encompasses institutional practice from a cultural-historical perspective. In B. van Oers, E. Elbers, R. Van Veer, & W. Wardekker (Eds.), The transformation of learning (pp. 294–318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hedegaard, M. (2012a). Analyzing children’s learning and development in everyday settings from a cultural-historical wholeness approach. Mind, Culture and Activity, 19, 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hedegaard, M. (2012b). The dynamic aspects in children’s learning and development. In M. Hedegaard, A. Edwards, & M. Fleer (Eds.), Motives in children’s development: Cultural-historical approaches (pp. 9–27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hedegaard, M. (2014). The significance of demands and motives across practices in children’s learning and development: An analysis of learning in home and school. Learning, Social Interaction and Culture, 3, 188–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hedegaard, M., & Fleer, M. (2008). Studying children. A cultural-historical approach. London: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Honey, M., & Kanter, D. (Eds.). (2013). Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC horizon report: 2015 K-12 edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2015-nmc-horizon-report-k12-EN.pdf.
  23. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kafai, Y. B., Fields, D. A., & Searle, K. A. (2014). Electronic textiles as disruptive designs in schools: Supporting and challenging maker activities for learning. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 532–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kumpulainen, K. (2017). Makerspaces: Why they are important for digital literacy education. In J. Marsh, et al., (Eds.), Makerspaces in the early years: A literature review (pp. 12–16). University of Sheffield: Makey Project. http://makeyproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Makey_Literature_Review.pdf.
  26. Kumpulainen, K., & Renshaw, P. (2007). Cultures of learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 46, 109–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kumpulainen, K., Mikkola, A., & Jaatinen, A. M. (2014). The chronotopes of technology-mediated creative learning practices in an elementary school community. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1), 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, Consciousness and Personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  29. Lindtner, S. (2014). Hackerspaces and the internet of things in China: How makers are reinventing industrial production, innovation, and the self. China Information, 28(2), 145–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom. Torrance: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.Google Scholar
  31. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  32. Penney, L. R. (2016). An investigation into how students select and develop resources for learning as they pursue choice-based STEAM challenges. Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  33. Peppler, K., & Bender, S. (2013). Maker movement spreads innovation one project at a time. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(3), 22–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peppler, K., Halverson, E., & Kafai, Y. (Eds.) (2016). Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environments (Vol. 1 and 2). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Ramey, K. E. (2017). FUSE Studios: Bringing interest-driven, integrated-STEAM learning into schools via makerspaces. Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  36. Rajala, A., & Kumpulainen, K. (2017). Researching teachers’ agentic orientations to educational change in Finnish schools. In M. Coller & S. Paloniemi (Eds.), Agency at work: An agentic perspective on professional learning and development (pp. 311–329). Amsterdam: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rajala, A., & Sannino, A. (2015). Students’ deviations from a learning task: An activity-theoretical analysis. International Journal of Educational Research, 70, 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rodriguez Leal, T. (2016). “I sometimes question myself” The learning trajectories of four senior managers as they confronted changing at work. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  39. Salmi, S. & Kumpulainen, K. (2017). Children’s experiencing of their transition from pre-school to first grade: A visual narrative study. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.10.007.
  40. Schrock, A. R. (2014). ‘Education in disguise’: Culture of a hacker and maker space. InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 10(1). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0js1n1qg.
  41. Stevens, R. & Jona, K. (2017). Program design. FUSE studio website. Retrieved from May 20, 2017. https://www.fusestudio.net/program-design.
  42. Stevens, R., Jona, K., Penney, L., Champion, D., Ramey, K., Hilppö, J., … Penuel, W. (2016). FUSE: An alternative infrastructure for empowering learners in schools. In C. -K. Looi, J. Polman, U. Cress, & P. Reimann (Eds.) Transforming learning, empowering learners: 12th international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 1025–1032). https://www.isls.org/icls/2016/docs/ICLS2016_Volume_2.pdf.
  43. Van Maanen, J., Sørensen, J. B., & Terence, R. M. (2007). The interplay between theory and method. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1145–1154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). The problem of the environment. In R. Van der Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 338–354). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  45. Vygotsky, L. S. (1998). Collected works (Vol. 5). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kristiina Kumpulainen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anu Kajamaa
    • 1
  • Antti Rajala
    • 1
  1. 1.University of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations