Abstract
Opportunities for young people to participate in making activities—either within school-based learning or within the growing number of makerspaces being established outside of formal education—have increased dramatically in recent years. Whilst some have advocated young people’s participation in makerspaces as an opportunity to democratise access to STEM learning, it is also acknowledged that these spaces reproduce patterns of inequitable participation found in other science-related settings. An underpinning framework that builds on the concept of science capital and the principles of the science capital teaching approach may help a better understanding of this issue. Drawing on data from observations and interviews conducted in a UK-based makerspace, we argue that science capital pedagogic principles are evident in makerspaces and, when enacted, help to create an environment where young people feel valued and better able to participate in making and coding activities. We argue that small changes to practice in the design and facilitation of makerspaces could result in such spaces being more equitable and socially just.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Learning science the fun and creative way: coding, making and play as vehicles for informal science learning in the twenty-first century https://comnplayscience.eu/.
References
Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2013). ‘Not girly, not sexy, not glamorous’: Primary school girls’ and parents’ constructions of science aspirations. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 21(1), 171–194.
Archer, L., Dawson, E., DeWitt, J., Seakins, A., & Wong, B. (2015). “Science capital”: A conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(7), 922–948.
Archer, L., DeWitt, J., & Osborne, J. (2015). Is science for us? Black students’ and parents’ views of science and science careers. Science Education, 99(2), 199–237.
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. Bielefeld: Transcript Publishers.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (Vol. 16). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richarson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greewood Press.
Brahms, L., & Crowley, K. (2016). Making sense of making: Defining learning practices in MAKE magazine. Makeology: Makers as Learners, 2, 13–28.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597.
Braun, V., Terry, G., Gavey, N., & Fenaughty, J. (2009). ‘Risk’ and sexual coercion among gay and bisexual men in Aotearoa/New Zealand–key informant accounts. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 11(2), 111–124.
Calabrese Barton, A., Tan, E., & Greenberg, D. (2017). The makerspace movement: Sites of possibilities for equitable opportunities to engage underrepresented youth in STEM. Teachers College Record, 119(6), 11–44.
Clarke, V., Braun, V., & Hayfield, N. (2015). Thematic analysis. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 222–248). London: Sage.
Dawson, E. (2017). Social justice and out-of-school science learning: Exploring equity in science television, science clubs and maker spaces. Science Education, 101(4), 539.
DeWitt, J., Archer, L., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2010). High aspirations but low progression: The science aspirations–careers paradox amongst minority ethnic students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(2), 243–271.
DeWitt, J., & Archer, L. (2017). Participation in informal science learning experiences: The rich get richer? International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7(4), 356–373.
DeWitt, J., Nomikou, E., & Godec, S. (2018). Recognising and valuing student engagement in science museums. Museum Management and Curatorship, 34(2), 183–200.
Godec, S., King, H., & Archer, L. (2017). The Science Capital Teaching Approach: Engaging students with science, promoting social justice. London: University College London.
Godec, S., King, H., Archer, L., Dawson, E., & Seakins, A. (2018). Examining Student Engagement with Science Through a Bourdieusian Notion of Field. Science & Education, 27(5–6), 501–521.
Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495–504.
Ho, K. H., Chiang, V. C., & Leung, D. (2017). Hermeneutic phenomenological analysis: The ‘possibility’ beyond ‘actuality’ in thematic analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 73(7), 1757–1766.
Honey, M., & Kanter, D. (Eds.). (2013). Design, Make, Play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators. London: Routledge.
Kim, Y.E., Edouard, K., Alderfer, K. & Smith, B.K. (2018). Making culture. A National Study of Education Makerspaces. ExCITe Centre Report. Retrieved from: https://drexel.edu/excite/engagement/learning-innovation/making-culture-report/
Lewis, J. (2015). Barriers to women’s involvement in hackspaces and makerspaces. Access as spaces. Available at: https://access-space.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Barriers-to-womens-involvement-in-hackspaces-and-makerspaces.pdf. Accessed May 10, 2016.
Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the Maker Movement for education. Journal of Pre-college Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 5(1), 30–39.
Martin, L., Dixon, C., & Betser, S. (2018). Iterative design toward equity: Youth repertoires of practice in a high school maker space. Equity & Excellence in Education, 51(1), 36–47.
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. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 505–531.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the staff and children of the case study site for their support and contribution to this research. This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement NO 787476. This paper reflects only the authors’ views. The Research Executive Agency (REA) and the European Commission are not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
King, H., Rushton, E.A.C. (2020). Applying the Lens of Science Capital to Understand Learner Engagement in Informal Maker Spaces. In: Giannakos, M. (eds) Non-Formal and Informal Science Learning in the ICT Era. Lecture Notes in Educational Technology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6747-6_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6747-6_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-6746-9
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-6747-6
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)