Topic 9 – Constructionism and the maker movement

Casper Wang 19/5/2020 – 44637586

With the 21st century evolving education, the technology and tools for the classroom are also evolving.  More specifically, constructionism tools for the classroom are designed and utilised to tackle the 4C’s of the 21st century, Critical Thinking, Communication, Collaboration and Creativity. This is correlated to ‘Making’, a movement tied to encouraging the growth in STEM (Hsu, Baldwin & Ching, 2017). The makers are involved in experimental play, practice through a variety of supplies, focuses around working and learning with technology (Dougherty, 2013).

Video 1: Jason Wik & Gabriel Wilkes Tedtalk on maker movement in schools.

The process of maker movement involves many different types of activities including but not limited to cooking, sewing, welding, robotics, painting, printing, and building (Peppler & Bender, 2013). Furthermore, ‘Making’ activities often involve programming and physical computing such as robotics, that focuses on creating an interactive experience through the sensing and controlling the physical world through computers (O’sullivan & Igoe, 2014). Constructionism and the maker movement provides an opportunity for development of interests, identity and content area learning (Martin, 2015). This includes sophisticated tools which are commonly used in making to engage in student practicality, problem solving and first-hand learning (Brown, 2015; Kostakis et al., 2015).

Video 2: Maker Movement and the connection to STEM

The maker movement appeals to the educational community as a strategy to attract students to engage in STEM units and to promote creative thinking. Sefton-Green (2013) has suggested that even though maker spaces are increasingly found in schools, these only result in often more guided projects and offer more formal learning than other venues. I’ve reviewed a couple of constructionism tools including: “Little bits, Makey Makey, Squishy Circuits, Chibi Lights, Turing Tumble, Neuron etc.”. The vast majority suits creativity to a greater level however, tools such as Squishy Circuits, Makey Makey offer little learning and creativity in higher education such as science or engineering. It is however more beneficial and age appropriate learning for younger years such as primary education.

Makeblock’s Neuron kit is interesting, it is like Lego’s Mindstorm kits where the users are constructing inventions which include a diverse range of sensors such as cameras, audio, movement etc. Users can construct an invention to perform a certain purpose or function with a certain intent. Despite not having first-hand experience with the Neuron Kit, it can be hypothesised that student creativity in engagement with this kind of constructionism tool allows students to also connect digitally through their mobile devices to their inventions for programming, sharing their design or inspired by other designs.

Video 3: Makeblock’s Neuron Inventor Kit.

References:

Brown, A. (2015). #D printing in instructional settings: Identifying and supporting family learning in informal settings (doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (3582510).

Dougherty, D. (2013). The maker mindset. In M. Honey & D. E. Kanter (Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 7–11). New York: Routledge.

Hsu, Y., Baldwin, S., & Ching, Y. (2017). Learning through Making and Maker Education. TechTrends, 61(6), 589-594.

Kostakis, V., Niaros, V., & Giotitsas, C. (2015). 3D printing as a means of learning: An educational experiment in two high schools in Greece. Telematics and Informatics, 32(1), 118–128. doi:10.1016/j. tele.2014.05.001.

Martin, L. (2015). The Promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-college Engineering education research (J-PEER),5(1), 30-30. Doi:10.7771/2157-9288.1099.

O’sullivan, D., & Igoe, T. (2014). Physical computing: Sensing and controlling the physical world with computers. Boston: Thomson course Technology.

Peppler, K., & Bender, S. (2013). Stiching circuits: Learning about circuitry through e-textile materials. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(5), 751-763.

Sefton-Green, J. (2013). Learning at not-school. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Published by cw44637586

EDUC3620

One thought on “Topic 9 – Constructionism and the maker movement

  1. Hi Casper,
    I enjoyed your insights into a makerspace. I liked how you looked at the with the use of Makerspaces allows for the integration of STEM. I enjoyed your review of on the Makeblock’s Neuron Kit as it was not one of the tools that I researched. It would have been interesting to get your opinion on the drawbacks that Makerspaces could have. This would have shown a more critical review into the use of Makerspaces in the classroom. Overall a very informative and engaging blog post.

    Georgina

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started