In this final blog post, I will critique ‘The Maker Movement’ (TMM) and constructivism’s ability to enhance students’ digital creativity and learning.
Halverson & Sheridan (2014, p. 496) describe TMM as “the growing number of people who are engaged in the creative production of artifacts in their daily lives and who find physical and digital forms to share their processes and products with others”. In TMM processes, nine key ideas are suggested; make, share, give, learn, tool up (secure access to necessary tools), play, participate, support, and change (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014). TTM is closely linked to Seymour Papert’s theory of constructivism which presents a theoretical foundation for learning based on creativity, tinkering, exploring, building, and presentation (Donaldson, 2014). Papert believed that learning not only occurs through learners constructing meaning but also through constructing real-world inventions that they can share with others (Donaldson, 2014). Papert's theory of constructivism is based on two types of construction, these include;
“learning is an active process, where people construct knowledge from their experiences”
“people construct new knowledge with particular effectiveness when they are engaged in constructing personally meaningful products” (Donaldson, 2014).
Research from Bower et al., (2018) found that constructivism and TMM activities that use technology resulted in higher levels of student engagement and confidence. Bower et al., (2018) findings from the research question “What do students learn when undertaking maker activities?” found that “when undertaking maker space-based activities students were observed to develop;
creativity
problem-solving skills
critical thinking
inquiry capabilities
design thinking skills
collaborative skills
autonomy
literacy, numeracy, scientific understanding
technological capabilities
communication skills
reflective learning capabilities
resilience”.
Papert’s theory of constructivism as well as TMM closely aligns with outcomes from the NSW K-10 Science, Mathematics, and English Syllabus in addition to the ACARA Technologies Learning Area. Constructivism can be embedded into various educational activities. For example, stage 3 students could be given the following task:
“In groups, design a watering system for a plant that is controlled by a micro:bit”.
A micro:bit is a simple programmable single-board computer that students can code with information (Micro:bit Educational Foundation). More information on a micro:bit can be accessed here - https://microbit.org/). For example, in this activity students would program the micro:bit to tip more water into the soil until the soil is moist enough.
This activity would adhere to the following NSW Science and Technology K-10 Syllabus outcomes;
“ST3-2DP-T: plans and uses materials, tools, and equipment to develop solutions for a need or opportunity
ST3-3DP-T: defines problems, and designs, modifies, and follows algorithms to develop solutions
ST3-4LW-S: examines how the environment affects the growth, survival, and adaptation of living things” (NESA, 2017)
As well as the following ACARA Technologies outcomes;
“Design thinking focus: Application of the design process and producing (making) solutions to design products, services, and environments
Computational thinking focus: Digital Technologies provide students with practical opportunities to use design thinking and to be innovative developers of digital solutions and knowledge.” (AC, 2015).
See an example below of my watering system created with a micro:bit!
See here my micro:bit watering system. One of the cables would be placed into the soil and coded to sense when the soil is too dry. If the soil was sensed to be dry, the automated system would tip more water into the soil and repeat this if necessary (own source).
Images of my micro:bit watering system (own images)
Not only would this task, which is inspired by constructivism and TMM, meet the following policy requirements, but would also promote learners to think creatively in the design and production processes of the task when engaging with digital technology.
However, whilst constructivism or TMM activities are engaging and enhance creativity for learners, there are also particular issues that need to be considered. For example, students engaging in constructivist tasks may seem to be disengaged or off-task due to technology being unavailable, students’ difficulties working productively in groups, and some gamified aspects of the software (Bower et al., 2018). Additionally, technology software used in TMM activities may be overly expensive for some schools which may make it difficult to participate in some tasks.
See below more micro:bit-controlled designs!
Video of a micro:bit gate which open and closes by a sensor (own video)
Video of micro:bit scarecrow who's arms moves by a sensor (own video)
Check out this Youtube video on micro:bit's for education!!!
Check out this 8-minute video on TMM!
References
Australian Curriculum (AC). (2015). Technologies. https://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum/foundation-year-10/learning-areas-subjects/technologies
Bower, M., Stevenson, M., Falloon, G., Forbes, A., Hatzigianni, M. (2018). Makerspaces in Primary School Settings – Advancing 21st Century and STEM capabilities using 3D Design and 3D Printing. Sydney, Australia: Macquarie University.
Donaldson. (2014). The Maker Movement and the rebirth of Constructionism. Hybrid Pedagogy. https://hybridpedagogy.org/constructionism-reborn/
Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. M. (2014). The Maker Movement in Education. Harvard Educational Review., 84(4), 495–505.
Micro:bit Educational Foundation. Hardware Details of the latest micro:bit hardware revision. https://tech.microbit.org/hardware/
NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA). (2017). Science and Technology K-6 Syllabus. htps://educatonstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/k-10/learning-areas/science/science-and-technology-k-6-new-syllabus
Comments