The Promise of the Maker Movement for Education

The Maker Movement is a community of hobbyists, tinkerers, engineers, hackers, and artists who creatively design and build projects for both playful and useful ends. There is growing interest among educators in bringing making into K-12 education to enhance opportunities to engage in the practices of engineering, specifically, and STEM more broadly. This article describes three elements of the Maker Movement, and associated research needs, necessary to understand its promise for education: 1) digital tools, including rapid prototyping tools and low-cost microcontroller platforms, that characterize many making projects; 2) community infrastructure, including online resources and in-person spaces and events; and 3) the maker mindset, aesthetic principles, and habits of mind that are commonplace within the community. It further outlines how the practices of making align with research on beneficial learning

[1]  L. Witmer.  The Montessori Method , 1914, The Psychological clinic.

[2]  J. Piaget.  Play, dreams and imitation in childhood , 1951 .

[3]  John Dewey,et al.  The Quest for Certainty: A Study of the Relation of Knowledge and Action , 1960 .

[4]  G. Hatano,et al.  TWO COURSES OF EXPERTISE , 1984 .

[5]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[6]  R. McDermott.  Understanding practice: The acquisition of a child by a learning disability , 1993 .

[7]  S. Papert.  The children's machine: rethinking school in the age of the computer , 1993 .

[8]  Timothy Koschmann,et al.  The Concept of Breakdown in Heidegger, Leont'ev, and Dewey and Its Implications for Education , 1998 .

[9]  D. Wood.  Self-theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality and Development. By Carol S. Dweck. Psychology Press, Hove, 1999. pp. 195. £29.95 (hb). , 2000 .

[10]  D. Perkins,et al.  Intelligence in the Wild: A Dispositional View of Intellectual Traits , 2000 .

[11]  E. Deci,et al.  Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. , 2000, Contemporary educational psychology.

[12]  William R. Penuel,et al.  The Connected School: Technology and Learning in High School , 2001 .

[13]  Andrew Elby,et al.  On the Substance of a Sophisticated Epistemology. , 2001 .

[14]  R. Sternberg,et al.  The Psychology of Intelligence , 2002 .

[15]  Michael Eisenberg,et al.  Beyond Black Boxes: Bringing Transparency and Aesthetics Back to Scientific Investigation , 2000 .

[16]  P. Twining.  Oversold and underused: computers in the classroom , 2002 .

[17]  Kris D. Gutiérrez,et al.  Cultural Ways of Learning: Individual Traits or Repertoires of Practice , 2003 .

[18]  Kennon M. Sheldon,et al.  PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES Motivating Learning, Performance, and Persistence: The Synergistic Effects of Intrinsic Goal Contents and Autonomy-Supportive Contexts , 2004 .

[19]  Ellen B. Mandinach,et al.  A Retrospective on Twenty Years of Education Technology Policy , 2005 .

[20]  M. Cole,et al.  Mind in Society , 2005 .

[21]  Mitchel Resnick,et al.  Some reflections on designing construction kits for kids , 2005, IDC '05.

[22]  Neil Gershenfeld,et al.  FAB: The Coming Revolution on Your Desktop--from Personal Computers to Personal Fabrication , 2005 .

[23]  L.J. Leifer,et al.  Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning , 2005, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[24]  M. Scardamalia,et al.  Knowledge Building: Theory, Pedagogy, and Technology , 2006 .

[25]  Brigid Barron.  Interest and Self-Sustained Learning as Catalysts of Development: A Learning Ecology Perspective , 2006, Human Development.

[26]  N. Augustine.  Rising Above The Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future , 2006 .

[27]  Robert H. Tai,et al.  Planning Early for Careers in Science , 2006, Science.

[28]  Manu Kapur.  Productive Failure , 2006, ICLS.

[29]  D. Buckingham.  Youth, Identity, and Digital Media , 2007 .

[30]  Katherine L. McNeill,et al.  Learning‐goals‐driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project‐based pedagogy , 2008 .

[31]  G. Hein.  Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits , 2009 .

[32]  Anthony D. Pellegrini,et al.  The Role of Play in Human Development , 2009 .

[33]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Prospective Adaptation in the Use of External Representations , 2009 .

[34]  S. Wortham.  Youth, Technology, and DIY: Developing Participatory Competencies in Creative Media Production , 2010 .

[35]  Becky Herr Stephenson,et al.  Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out , 2010 .

[36]  Eric Paulos,et al.  Rise of the expert amateur: DIY projects, communities, and cultures , 2010, NordiCHI.

[37]  Brigid Barron,et al.  Predictors of creative computing participation and profiles of experience in two Silicon Valley middle schools , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[38]  Flávio S. Azevedo.  Lines of Practice: A Practice-Centered Theory of Interest Relationships , 2011 .

[39]  Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.  Theoretical Perspectives, Methodological Approaches, and Trends in the Study of Expertise , 2011 .

[40]  David A. Gillam,et al.  A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas , 2012 .

[41]  R. A. Engle,et al.  How Does Expansive Framing Promote Transfer? Several Proposed Explanations and a Research Agenda for Investigating Them , 2012 .

[42]  Johannes Strobel,et al.  Engineering in the K‐12 STEM Standards of the 50 U.S. States: An Analysis of Presence and Extent , 2012 .

[43]  Dale Dougherty,et al.  The Maker Mindset , 2013 .

[44]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Learning by Teaching Human Pupils and Teachable Agents: The Importance of Recursive Feedback , 2013 .

[45]  Philip Bell,et al.  How Designing, Making, and Playing Relate to the Learning Goals of K-12 Science Education , 2013 .

[46]  Kris D. Gutiérrez,et al.  Connected Learning: An Agenda for Research and Design , 2013 .

[47]  Margaret Honey,et al.  Introduction Design, Make, Play: Growing the Next Generation of Science Innovators , 2013 .

[48]  Paulo Blikstein,et al.  Digital Fabrication and Making' in Education: The Democratization of Invention , 2013 .

[49]  M. Resnick,et al.  Designing for Tinkerability , 2013 .

[50]  Mike Petrich,et al.  It Looks Like Fun, but Are They Learning? , 2013 .

[51]  Paula Hooper,et al.  Tinkering , Learning & Equity in the After-School Setting , 2013 .

[52]  T. Kalil.  Have Fun—Learn Something, Do Something, Make Something , 2013 .

[53]  Anil Gurung,et al.  Makers: The New Industrial Revolution , 2014 .

[54]  Make to Relate: Narratives Of, and As, Community Practice , 2014, ICLS.

[55]  Breanne K. Litts,et al.  Learning in the Making: A Comparative Case Study of Three Makerspaces. , 2014 .

[56]  Rys Farthing,et al.  Participatory politics: next generation tactics to remake public spheres , 2015 .

[57]  Andrew Joyce-Gibbons,et al.  The effects of room design on computer-supported collaborative learning in a multi-touch classroom , 2016, Interact. Learn. Environ..