Search results

Relatively few studies have examined the perspectives of informal learning facilitators who play key roles in cultivating an equitable learning environment for nondominant youth and families in making and tinkering spaces. This study aims to foreground the perspectives of facilitators and highlight the complexities and tensions that influence their equity work.

Interviews were conducted with facilitators of making and tinkering spaces across three informal learning organizations: a museum, a public library system and a network of community technology centers. This study then used a framework that examined equity along dimensions of access to what, for whom, based on whose values and toward what ends to analyze both the explicit and implicit conceptions of equity that surfaced in these interviews.

Across organizations, this study identified similarities and differences in facilitators’ conceptualizations of equity that were influenced by their different contexts and had implications for practice at each organization. Highlighting the complexity of enacting equity in practice, this study found moments when dimensions of equity came together in resonant ways, while other moments showed how dimensions can be in tension with each other.

The complexity that facilitators must navigate to enact equity in their practice emphasizes the need for professional development and support for facilitators to deepen their conceptions and practices around equity beyond access – not just skill building in making and tinkering.

This study recognizes the important role that facilitators play in enabling equity-oriented participation in making and tinkering spaces and contributes the “on the ground” perspectives of facilitators to highlight the complexity and tensions of enacting equity in practice.

This paper aims to investigate how families’ sociomaterial experiences in engineering programs held in libraries and a museum influence their creative engineering practices and the creativity expressed in their products derived from their inquiry-driven engineering activities.

This research project takes a naturalistic inquiry using qualitative and quantitative analyses based on video records from activities of 31 parent–child pairs and on creativity assessment of products that used littleBits as prototyping tools.

Families engaged in two sociomaterial experiences related to engineering – collaborative idea exchange and ongoing generative tinkering with materials – which supported the emergence of novel ideas and feasible solutions during the informal engineering programs. Families in the high novelty score group experienced multiple instances of collaborative idea exchange and ongoing generative tinkering with materials, co-constructed through parent-child collaboration, that were expansive toward further idea and solution generation. Families in the low novelty score group experienced brief collaborative idea exchange and material tinkering with specific idea suggestions and high involvement from the parent. An in-depth case study of one family further illustrated that equal engagement by the parent and child as they tinkered with the technology supported families’ creative engineering practices.

This analysis adds to the information sciences and learning sciences literatures with an account that integrates methodologies from sociocultural and engineering design research to understand the relationship between families’ engagement in creative engineering practices and their products. Implications for practitioners include suggestions for designing spaces to support families’ collaborative idea exchange and ongoing generative tinkering to facilitate the development of creative engineering practices during short-term engineering programs.

A reply to Tony Tinker's paper, “The withering of criticism”.

The paper employs argument and discourse to critique Tinker's paper and defend the author's position.

The paper shows how oddly our work has been represented, and that Tinker's claims are unsupported. It rejects Tinker's reading of classical texts as the only valid one, and argues that his reductionist critique could hinder the advancement of interdisciplinary accounting research. We conclude our reply by urging scholars to intervene in worldly affairs by ensuring that intellectual activity is diverse, not stereotypical or predictable.

Argues the importance of scholars' engagement in worldly affairs, including matters of policy and practice, from diverse perspectives.

The purpose of this paper is to re-center playfulness as a humanizing approach in teacher education. As teachers navigate the current moment of heightened control, surveillance, and systemic inequity, these proposed moves in teacher education can be transgressive. Rather than play as relegated to childhood or infancy, what does it look like to continue to be “playful” in teaching and teacher education?

To examine how teacher educators may design for teachers’ critical playful literacies, the authors offer three “worked examples” (Gee, 2009) of preservice teachers’ playful practices in an English literacies teacher education course.

The authors highlight instructional design elements pertinent to co-designing for teachers’ play and playful literacies in teacher education: generative constraints to practice everyday ingenuity, figuring it out to foster teacher agency and debriefs to interrupt the teaching’s perpetual performance.

The term “playful,” as a descriptor of practice and qualifier of activity appears frequently in educational literature across domains. The relationship of play to critical literacies – and, more specifically, educators’ literacies and learning – is less frequently explored.

This paper aims to investigate design principles for transforming existing making communities of practice within public libraries into online knowledge-building communities to support youths, families with young children and adult members’ making and tinkering during COVID-19.

Building upon C4P and connected learning framework, the authors analyze existing literature and practitioner reports on informal learning projects related to making and STEM learning, family learning and online learning as well as emergent cases of innovative approaches in response to COVID-19 from public libraries, informal learning institutions and community groups.

The authors suggest 11 design principles around five areas: program design, facilitation, tools and materials, process documentation and sharing and feedback.

This work contributes to the information and learning sciences concerned with community engagement and knowledge creation by suggesting a design model to transform and sustain existing making communities of practice within public libraries into online knowledge-building communities during COVID-19.

This study aims to understand how graduate students in a maker education course discuss beliefs about making and implement these beliefs as pedagogy in their curricular designs.

Interview transcripts from seven students were analyzed thematically for conceptions of making and learning. Lesson plans were also coded for elements of making, and the authors compared students’ articulated ideas about making with the practical implementation of making in their designs.

Students reflected on the nature of making and the possible benefits and tensions surrounding the use of making for learning. Multiple students discussed benefits for their future learning and careers. Comparisons between interview and lesson plans highlight both successful alignments and key gaps in the application of making principles, including struggles that students encountered when translating their beliefs about making into real-world pedagogy.

Given the limited sample size, future research should explore the extent to which educators in other contexts encounter similar or different obstacles in their development of maker-focused pedagogies.

Findings can be used to inform future maker education courses to better support students in successfully translating core principles of making from general beliefs into effective and practical pedagogical strategies.

Despite widespread interest in combining making with educational spaces, much remains to be understood about the strategies that educators use to integrate elements of making into their pedagogy. This study contributes discussions of the benefits and tensions that maker educators may encounter when blending tenets of making with the needs of formal education.

The earliest human societies relied for their subsistence on the hunting of animals and the gathering of food. The small bands of people who lived together pursuing these activities appear to have been the prototype of all human organisation. Hunting and gathering was the predominant type of social organisation until perhaps 12,000 years ago. Tools and weapons were not made of metal till around 4,000 B.C., the plough was not in use until about a thousand years later, and iron tools and weapons were not used until around 1,000 B.C. (Lenski and Lenski, 1978). The history of the human race has been intextricably bound up with that of engineering when this is very broadly defined as the making of tools and other contrivances as aids and adjuncts to life. From the Stone, Bronze and Iron Ages at one end of human experience to the Steam, Jet, Atomic and Computer Ages at the other, technical‐engineering achievements have defined and delimited whatever is possible for human beings. Thus throughout the long historical transition from a predominantly agricultural to a predominantly industrial society engineers, or rather anyone whose principal activity was making and tinkering with three‐ dimensional artefacts, played a crucial role.

The researchers conducted a collective case study to investigate how families engaged in making activities related to aerospace engineering in six pop-up makerspace programs held in libraries and one museum. The purpose of this paper is to support families’ engagement in design tasks and engineering thinking, three types of discussion prompts were used during each workshop. The orienting design conjecture was that discussion prompts would allow parents to lead productive conversations to support engineering-making activities.

Within a collective case study approach, 20 consented families (22 adults, 25 children) engaged in making practices related to making a lunar rover with a scientific instrument panel. Data included cases of families’ talk and actions, as documented through video (22 h) and photographs of their engineering designs. An interpretivist, qualitative video-based analysis was conducted by creating individual narrative accounts of each family (including transcript excerpts and images).

Parents used the question prompts in ways that were integral to supporting youths’ participation in the engineering activities. Children often did not answer the astronomer’s questions directly; instead, the parents revoiced the prompts before the children’s engagement. Family prompts supported reflecting upon prior experiences, defining the design problem and maintaining the activity flow.

Designing discussion prompts, within a broader project-based learning pedagogy, supports family engagement in engineering design practices in out-of-school pop-up makerspace settings. The work suggests that parents play a crucial role in engineering workshops for youths aged 5 to 10 years old by revoicing prompts to keep families’ design work and sensemaking talk (connecting prior and new ideas) flowing throughout a makerspace workshop.

Conference report

This paper reports on the Maker and Maker Faire events in September at New York City.

The findings include the authors’ impressions of the meetings.

Original impressions of the conferences.

The purpose of this paper is to present TalkBox, an affordable and open-source communication board for users with communication or speech disorders. Making and tinkering methods are combined with community engagement and participatory design to create a democratic and accessible approach to assistive technology design.

The authors employed a community-engaged participatory design methodology where we incorporated input from stakeholders into the design of the interface. Close collaboration with our community partner allowed us to make informed decisions on different aspects of the design from sourcing of the material to testing the prototype.

Through describing TalkBox, the paper presents a concrete example of how assistive technology can be designed and deployed more democratically, how collaborations between academia and community partners can be established, and how the design reflects different aspects of the methodology used.

This paper explores the question of how can open-source technology and making methods contribute to the development of more affordable and inclusive designs through a concrete example.