1 Introduction
This chapter will scrutinise the case studies about the extent to which the practice described is likely to be sustainable regarding Maker Education activities contributing to the curriculum. It is important to define what such sustainability might entail and identify its key features with regard to educational reform both in general and in technology education in particular. In broad terms sustainability is seen as the ability for a system to maintain itself and endure over time.
The Maker Movement has educational reform intentions. An educational reform initiative will identify a particular feature of education that for a variety of reasons is seen as deficient or even missing and endeavour to rectify the
Examples of educational reform for the UK
| Educational reform | Examples from the UK |
|---|---|
| Complete revision of a national curriculum | In Wales a new curriculum was developed in 2020 with a view to it being implemented in 2022 (Welsh Government 2020) |
| Reform of an individual subject within a national curriculum | in response to its publication of Beyond 2000 science education for the future (Osborne & Millar, 1999) in collaboration with the University of York and the Awarding Organisation OCR, developed the 21st Century Science programme |
| Improving basic literacy and numeracy for particular age groups | The Primary Framework for literacy and mathematics introduced in England in 2006 (Department for Education and Skills 2006) |
| Local initiatives at individual school level | The Wreake Valley Science Scheme (Thorburn & Tinbergen, 1976) was written by the science staff at Wreake Valley Community College in the early 1970s. It was one of the first publications to advocate and enable mixed ability science teaching |
The fact that there has been and continue to be successive educational reform initiatives may be seen to indicate that achieving sustainability is a fool’s errand as the requirements of any education system will change as the society in which it is embedded undergoes change and the educational needs of those living in that society will also change. So, in one sense having long-term sustainability as a goal for an individual educational reform initiative is likely to be an impossibility. However, if we consider short-term initiatives in response to current changes in society then their sustainability takes on a different meaning. We can define the success of a reform in terms of immediate impact and the conditions required for this impact to be maintained and extended within the educational system for a limited time until either it becomes embedded in practice and is no longer seen as a reform or
Gerald van Dijk, Elwin Savelsbergh and Arjan van der Meij in their chapter Maker Education: Opportunities and threats for Engineering and Technology Education (2020) provide a balanced view of the threats and opportunities afforded for engineering and technology education (ETE) curricula by engaging with maker education. On the one hand there is little doubt that young people involved with their local maker movement experience a rich creative environment and learn to use particular technologies, but on the other hand the informal setting and level of choice they have may preclude the deliberate teaching of previously identified knowledge or skill. This is a particular issue for those educational systems in which there has been a a rise in the interest in and significance of knowledge rich curricula and the importance of teachers identifying and teaching specified substantive and disciplinary knowledge. The serendipity of learning within maker spaces would seem to have little place in this context. The authors use maker education to identify principles for strengthening ETE curricula in what they term a hybridization approach. Within this it is the role of the teacher in the classroom interaction with the students that make use of the approaches developed in maker spacers that is significant. This clearly indicates that in terms of the sustainability of any reform involving adopting Maker practice the involvement of teachers is likely to be crucial.
2 Establishing a Framework for Case Study Scrutiny
The case study A Participatory Design Approach to Sustaining Makerspace Initiatives (from Denmark) is presented in Chapter 3 and as the title indicates deals explicitly with sustainability of Makerspace initiatives. Hence it is well
- –Involvement of stakeholders in collaborative practical hands-on activities
- –Formal and informal discourse between stakeholders
- –Considering Infrastructure as involving not only technical structures but organizational, political and personal structures as well
- –Working both horizontally (engaging stakeholders in similar positions) and vertically (engaging with stakeholders at different levels of responsibility)
In this case the breadth of the stakeholders involved in the participatory design was wide and included the following:
- –Funding agency
- –Project lead
- –Director of education
- –University researcher
- –Makerspace manager
- –School principal
- –Teachers
- –Project partners
The study identified six steps involving some or all of the above that might lead to sustaining makerspace initiatives:
Step 1: Understanding the complexity of a makerspace initiative
This step involved an introduction to the initiative, a tour of a makerspace and a presentation by the makerspace manager with participants able to ask questions followed by the opportunity to meet and talk with teachers and pupils using the facility. It enabled participants to make tentative plans for necessary professional development.
This step involved participants in using makerspace facilities to tackle a making activity using digital design and manufacturing tools. This enabled a discussion on teacher – pupil interaction in makerspaces.
Step 3: Establishing the grand narrative of a maker space initiative
This step involved all the participants (including senior leadership) attending a presentation by an acknowledged researcher in the field giving an overview of international research on maker education followed by discussion. This established the dual use of maker spaces – practical activity using digital tools plus raising awareness of the nature and likely impact of digital tools on our society. This gave participants a ‘Big Picture’ view of maker education.
Step 4: Developing the makerspace initiative within the existing municipality landscape
This step required participants from each district to develop their vision of an ideal makerspace learning environment from a variety of user-centred perspectives. This is important because it avoided a premature focus on technical resources and allowed each district, with the help of a professional facilitator, to develop a detailed diagram of their vision for use in the next step.
Step 5: Confirmation and articulation of management support for the makerspace initiative
In this step participants from each district shared their detailed diagrams with participants from other districts and the directors of education with the directors explaining how the initiative fits into the strategic vision of the district. This enables each district to see the initiative in terms of vertical collaboration and activity.
Step 6: Choosing and purchasing technologies for the maker space
In this final step participants received advice and guidance regarding buying, using and maintaining digital design and fabrication facilities. Participants visit another makerspace, as in Step 1, but now the focus is on the available technology. Participants were able to detail the makerspace technologies they wanted for their individual initiatives.
- –Who were involved in the initiative?
- –Were they able to gain an understanding of the complexity of the initiative?
- –Were they able to have a Hands-on introduction to makerspace education?
- –Were they able to establish a grand narrative of the initiative?
- –Were they able to integrate the initiative within the policy and practice of any local authorities present in the landscape?
- –Were they able to confirm and articulate the management support for the initiative?
- –Were they able to choose and purchase technologies for the initiative?
3 Scrutinising the Case Studies
We have six studies to scrutinise:
- –In Chapter 4. Informal Learning in a Public Library Makerspace for Youth in the Netherlands. (Pijls, Van Eijck, & Bredeweg)
- –In Chapter 5. Using “EcoMakerKits” to Stimulate Maker Mindset and Circular Thinking in Mexico. (Núñez-Solís, Madahar, Eskue, & Silva-Ordaz)
- –In Chapter 6. Playful learning by design. Remote development of a design education workshop for rural Kenya. (Westerhof, Gielen, van Boeijen, & Jowi)
- –
In Chapter 7. Connecting Maker Education to Secondary School Technology Education in Korea: A Case of the Technology Teachers’ Learning Community in Republic of Korea. (Kwon) - –In Chapter 8. Case Studies of Maker Education in China. (Gu & Yang)
- –In Chapter 9. Maker Education in the Applied Physics Bachelor Programme at Delft University of Technology. (Pols & Hut)
3.1 Scrutiny of Informal Learning in a Public Library Makerspace for Youth
This study reports on the setting up of a network of makerspaces in Amsterdam Public Library and through eight vignettes highlight particular aspects of the informal learning context and through these identified six critical features of informal makerspaces.
The makerspaces provided opportunities for children to develop technological skills and creativity and enhanced their self-efficacy.
The after school programs stimulated the children’s motivation.
The personal guidance was important as it supported children through the inevitable mistakes made in learning through making.
The physical embedding of the makerspace in a public library and near other public spaces or shops attracted children from local communities and allowed parents to easily contact the program.
Makerspace coaches had to adopt a variety of roles and need continuous professional development especially in pedagogy.
Cooperation with maker educators and student teachers from local organizations and institutions and universities stimulated the development of makerspace-coaches.
The intervention was initiated by the Amsterdam Public Library and involved the setting up of makerspaces in ten different libraries and the development of coaches within each makerspace to support the children aged 8–10 who visited the makerspaces. The comments from the coaches indicated that they understood the complexity of the initiative in terms of the different roles required of them. All the coaches received hands-on introductions to makerspace education and saw the initiative as a legitimate part of public library function which inevitably integrated the activity within the policy and practice of the organisation and may be seen as establishing a grand narrative. Given that the coaches received hands-on training and specialist guidance and saw coaching as part of their job working in the public library there was clearly management support for the initiative. In addition to computers each of the
3.2 Scrutiny of Using “EcoMakerKits” to Stimulate Maker Mindset and Circular Thinking
The Mexican electronics recycling company, Recicla Electronicos Mexico S.a de C.V., collects e-waste in order
- –to refurbish and resell electronic products,
- –to disassemble e-waste to obtain parts that can be resold,
- –to utilise parts in the development of new products for sale.
A spin off from the company is a makerspace initiative to engage young people with the idea of a circular economy through the problems of e-waste and give them hands on experience of using e-waste (presented as EcoMaker Kits) to make working products and develop technical skills and understanding alongside the skills of communication and problem solving. The EcoMaker team from within the company supported a small pilot initiative involving four students working with a retired engineer as facilitator. The main protagonists involved in the initiative were the EcoMaker team. From their work within Recicla Electronicos Mexico S.a de C.V. the EcoMaker team understood the enormity of the e-waste problem and the complexity of engaging young learners with possible solutions. The range of resources and activities that the team produced is a clear indication that they understand the complexity of the initiative. Importantly the work of the Recicla Electronicos Mexico S.a de C.V. provided a hands-on introduction to and experience of makerspace education. Through this introduction members of the team were able to produce kits that could be used by teachers in schools and kits for students to use in a summer school. The EcoMaker teams’ commitment to solving the e-waste problem both commercially and educationally indicates they have a grand narrative for their initiative. Although lacking a local authority as such in which the initiative was embedded the commercial arena in which Recicla Electronicos Mexico S.a de C.V. operates provides a similar context in which the EcoMaker team are embedded and through this the team receive management support. The activities with young learners taking place in Recicla Electronicos Mexico S.a de C.V. provide examples potentially transferrable to other maker spaces and into schools. The context within which the initiative took place readily made available the technologies the initiative needed.
The scrutiny paints a picture of a successful initiative that is embedded in the commercial activity of Recicla Electronicos Mexico S.a de C.V. Given the
3.3 Scrutiny of Playful Learning by Design Remote Development of a Design Education Workshop for Rural Kenya
This initiative began with the idea of engaging children in rural Kenya with the designing and making of simple toys as means to develop design related skills through a workshop programme developed by a design academic based in the Netherlands in collaboration with a facilitator working with the children in Kenya. In the light of Covid restrictions, cultural context and the response of the children the workshop program evolved from a ‘teaching the children to design’ approach to an ‘engaging the children in designerly play’ approach. The communications between the academic and the facilitator were crucial in enabling the facilitator to capture the children’s attention and motivate them to learn through play. The participants in this initiative were the academic in the Netherlands, the facilitator in Kenya and the children taking part in the workshops. The academic and the facilitator were able to develop an understanding of the complexity of the initiative through communication in response to the children’s reaction to the workshop. To achieve a hands-on introduction to makerspace education the facilitator a) worked closely with the children using the resources provided by the academic and b) helped with the adaptation of these resources to the local context. A grand narrative of sorts was established at the beginning of the initiative but the way in which the children responded to the workshops caused activities to be altered significantly with the means within the grand narrative changing considerably. The local facilitator integrated the initiative in the context of a local community centre supported by a Kenyan non-profit organisation. Management support for the initiative was confirmed and articulated through the appointment of the local facilitator. The technologies used were to a large extent provided by the children from the local environment. Although in no sense the sort of hi-tech resources usually associated with makerspaces these were very appropriate for the situation.
This initiative is an outlier with regard to conventional makerspace activities but none the less it can be seen to answer the scrutiny questions successfully in terms of its context. However, the continued existence of the initiative is completely dependent on the local facilitator. Through taking part in the initiative under the guidance of the design academic based in the Netherlands the
3.4 Scrutiny of Connecting Maker Education to Secondary School Technology Education in the Republic of Korea
The study reports on the use of technology classrooms as maker spaces in response to the Korean Government support for maker education in schools. The participants in this initiative were members of the MAKER group – a voluntary technology teachers’ professional community. They gained an understanding of the complexity of the initiative by developing a teaching and learning model for the initiative. At the MAKER group meetings teachers carried out practical projects which provided a hands-on introduction to makerspace education. Members of the Maker group were able to establish a grand narrative of the initiative through their alignment with government initiatives and through their ambition to promote a greater understanding of the nature of technology education and its value to contemporary education. Through alignment with government initiatives and the technology components of the Korean National Curriculum the initiative was able, to some extent, to integrate itself into national policy although the extent to which school practice ‘on the ground’ aligned itself with these features is unclear. MAKERS is a voluntary organisation existing through the enthusiasm of its members and the study does not reveal the extent to which administrators and senior leadership staff in school supported the aims of MAKERS. The study notes that currently equipment available is limited to ‘3D modelling, Arduino and coding education’. This indicates that teachers in schools as members of the MAKER group are not able to choose and purchase a wider range of technologies than that already available.
Whilst most elements of the scrutiny have been successfully met it is important to note that this initiative is dependent on the efforts of a group of highly motivated volunteers for its continuation. And although in line with government support for maker education in schools it is unclear as to the extent to which it can become part of regular school practice. The limitation to certain sorts of equipment may build discontent among the participating teachers. So, there is the potential for sustainability, but this would be enhanced if specific links with government agencies were forged to provide explicit support for the maker activities in local secondary schools and garner ring fenced funding.
3.5
The Tsinghua Makerspace community, part of the Tsinghua iCenter Project at Tsinghua University, developed a design and make assignment that was carried out by pupils at Tianyi Middle School under the direction of their teacher: the design and creation of a small energy-saving table lamp. The teacher was provided with detailed instructions concerning the resources required, the construction techniques to use, the teaching sequence and product evaluation criteria. In addition to developing technical knowledge and skills it was expected that the nature of the product being designed and made would raise pupils’ awareness of energy conservation. The main participants were members of the Tsinghua Makerspace Community (volunteer university students), the middle school teacher and the pupils. The complexity of the initiative was understood by the university students as revealed by their production of detailed instructions and by the participating teacher through his effective use of the instructions. The university students had considerable makerspace education experience prior to the initiative and the teacher acquired this through following the detailed instructions. The work of the Tsinghua iCenter Project and the Tsinghua Makerspace community is underpinned by an appreciation of makerspace education and this established a grand narrative for the initiative. The teaching of the design and make activity in a local middle school was a first step to integrating the initiative into the policy and practice of the local authority. The teacher was able to purchase the items required from the school budget and teach the activity within the school timetable. This indicates management support for the initiative.
Whilst all elements of the scrutiny have been successfully met it is important to note that the initiative is dependent on the guidance provided by the volunteer university students. Given the nature of the Tsinghua iCenter Project it is likely that this guidance will continue. But at the moment the initiative is taking place in just one school. Its continued existence here is dependent on the willingness of the class teacher to continue and is vulnerable to his leaving the area if another teacher cannot be found to continue with the initiative. If the initiative is to become sustainable it is important that efforts are made to recruit and train other schoolteachers to take part in the initiative.
3.6 Scrutiny of Maker Education in the Applied Physics Bachelor Programme at Delft University of Technology
This initiative develops makerspace activity to enable university physics students to develop the practical and intellectual skills to design and make prototype technical equipment. The authors of the study were the main drivers of the initiative but also the students whose took the lab courses Design
Whilst all elements of the scrutiny have been successfully met and the initiative is embedded in a university engineering degree program its short-term future, at least, seems secure. There is little doubt that the enthusiasm of the main drivers is contributing to its current success. If for some reason they moved to another university and the running and maintenance of the initiative was left to those teaching the course, then there is the possibility that it might not be so successful with students becoming less enthusiastic. This might lead to its demise. Strategies to avoid this include induction of those teaching the course into its significance with regard to student experience and professional development to ensure they remain competent in hands-on makerspace activities.
4 Concluding Remarks
There is little doubt that in each of the case studies those involved had clearly identified intentions for their interventions and explicit plans for their implementation. In all cases there is evidence that this combination of intent and implementation led to significant impact. So, from that standpoint these Maker Education initiatives may be seen as successful. However, such success in the short term does not guarantee the sustainability of the initiatives. It is
1. Continued Perception of Worth by Key Stakeholders
Stakeholders who are involved in formulating national or regional education policy may, for various reasons, decide that such initiatives are no longer worthwhile. If that happens the initiatives will inevitably flounder. Ensuring that this does not happen requires effective political lobbying by those who are convinced of the worth of the initiatives.
If stakeholders who have been responsible for creating and sustaining an initiative as in the Mexican and China case studies lose interest for whatever reason, then the continuance of the initiative will be in doubt. Stakeholders who are involved in implementation, i.e., the teachers and coaches, are crucial to sustainability. If, for any reason, they decide that the initiatives no longer have worth then sustainability will be compromised.
2. Continued Funding
This is essential to ensure appropriate hardware and software is available not only to enable the continuation of pilot initiatives but for roll out across the educational system.
3. Professional Development for Those Responsible for Implementation
It is essential to ensure that all the teachers involved are inducted into the culture of the maker movement, experience hands-on makerspace activities and have the opportunity to refresh and enhance this knowledge and skill at regular intervals. This has implications for both initial teacher education and continuing professional development.
References
Department for Education and Skills. (2006). The Primary Framework for literacy and mathematics. Crown copyright. http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/pdfs/2006-primary-national-strategy.pdf
Lucas, B., Hanson, J., & Claxton, G. (2014, May). Thinking like an engineer: Implications for the education system. Royal Academy of Engineering. https://raeng.org.uk/media/brjjknt3/thinking-like-an-engineer-full-report.pdf. Accessed 16 September 2022.
Osborne, J., & Millar, R. (Eds.). (1999). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future; the report of a seminar series funded by the Nuffield Foundation. King’s College London, School of Education. https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/project/beyond-2000-science-education-for-the-future
Thorburn, P., & Tinbergen, D. (1976). Wreake valley science scheme. Edward Arnold. https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/18912825
van Dijk, G., Savelsbergh, E., & van der Meij, A. (2020). Maker education: Opportunities and threats for engineering and technology education. In P. J. Williams & D. Barlex (Eds.), Pedagogy for technology education in secondary schools (pp. 83–98). Springer Nature.
Welsh Government. (2020). Introduction to Curriculum for Wales guidance. Retrieved May 6, 2022, from https://hwb.gov.wales/curriculum-for-wales/introduction/