Makification: Towards a Framework for Leveraging the Maker Movement in Formal Education

Maker culture is part of a burgeoning movement in which individuals leverage modern digital technologies to produce and share physical artifacts with a broader community. Certain components of the maker movement, if properly leveraged, hold promise for transforming formal education in a variety of contexts. The authors here work towards a framework for leveraging these components (i.e., creation, iteration, sharing, and autonomy) in support of learning in a variety of formal educational contexts and disciplines. A version of this manuscript appeared in Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 2016. At the first ever White House Maker Faire, President Obama said, “Today’s D.I. Y is tomorrow’s ‘Made in America’”, acknowledging the importance of the growing maker movement and its impact on our country (Obama, 2014). Many educational researchers share his excitement and view the maker movement as an innovative way to reimagine education (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Peppler & Bender, 2013; Vossoughi, Hooper, & Escudé, 2016). However, utilizing elements of the maker movement to improve student learning in formal educational contexts is a non-trivial task, and requires close examination of learning through making and how related strategies can be implemented effectively within our current educational environments Halverson and Sheridan (2014) broadly define the maker movement as “the growing MAKIFICATION: TOWARDS A FRAMEWORK 2 number of people who are engaged in the creative production of artifacts in their daily lives and who find physical and digital forums to share their processes and products with others” (p. 496). The maker movement is an evolution of earlier times in this country when many people thought of themselves as tinkerers, and popular publications such as Make magazine carry on traditions started by publications such as Popular Mechanics (Dougherty, 2012). Though the instinct to make and share the products of making is certainly not a new phenomenon, the ease with which makers can not only create complex and personalized physical objects but also share the processes and results with others is unique to the current historical moment. While the previous decades introduced the democratization of information through personal computers and the Internet, the current maker movement is ushering in the democratization of production of physical artifacts through emerging digital fabrication (Bell et al., 2010; Gershenfeld, 2012). Tools such as 3D printers, laser cutters, and digital die cutters provide consumers with the ability to fabricate artifacts with a level of precision that was in earlier decades solely the domain of professionals. As well, the rise of the Internet has allowed consumers the ability to share instructions, advice, and products of making globally with others through websites such as sketchfab.com, www.thingiverse. com, and www.instructables. com. There is much about the maker movement that is relevant to the field of education, and there are components of the maker movement and maker culture that, if properly leveraged, could benefit formal education. Halverson and Sheridan (2014) suggest that learning in making is not interchangeable with schooling, and while organizations have made significant strides in bringing the maker movement to afterschool programs at museums and community centers, a more powerful application of this movement may lie in the integration into formal education (Dougherty, 2012). Research in this area is in its infancy, however emerging projects such as MAKIFICATION: TOWARDS A FRAMEWORK 3 Paulo Blikstein’s FabLab@School project are beginning to consider how elements of the maker movement can be adapted for formal K-12 settings (Blikstein, 2013; Halverson & Sheridan, 2014). To integrate elements of the maker movement effectively into formal educational settings, thoughtful inclusion of these technologies into classrooms and curriculum designs will be required. To that end, we begin to suggest here a framework for leveraging aspects of the maker movement in formal education that we term makification. Simply put, we define makification as the process of taking characteristic elements from the maker movement and infusing them into formal educational activities in a variety of contexts. In the following sections, we first describe a theory of learning, constructionism (Papert, 1991), which underpins our thinking about employing elements of the maker movement into formal educational contexts. Second, we examine how the modern maker movement may extend this framework, and finally we begin to identify elements necessary for incorporating making activities into instructional activities designed explicitly to facilitate different kinds of learning. In doing so, we bridge theory with practice, and begin to illustrate a practical framework both to assist K-12 teachers in incorporating making into their curriculum and to provide a foundation on which to build further research in this area. Constructionist Theory of Learning While learning through making is compatible with several existing educational theories, many researchers consider constructionism (Papert, 1991) as a theory of learning which undergirds the use of elements from the maker movement for educational purposes (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Martinez & Stager, 2013; Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014). Constructionism holds that learners can construct knowledge specifically when they actively participate in the making and public sharing of a physical object (Papert, 1991). As such, it is aligned with Piagetian MAKIFICATION: TOWARDS A FRAMEWORK 4 constructivist views of learning, which hold that the process of learning involves the active construction of knowledge and the continual revision of mental representations of that learning. Papert’s constructionism is a “pillar” (Blikstein, 2013, p. 4) of constructionism, and, correspondingly, his work deeply informs the makification framework. If constructionism is the undergirding learning theory behind makification, then it is important to focus on the two pillars of constructionism, making and sharing, as they relate to makification. The act of physically producing an artifact, as opposed to simply constructing a mental representation, affords the creator an opportunity to situate or contextualize that object into a broader system (Ackermann, 2001; Papert, 1991). This privileging of situated learning into a specific context, as opposed to the more abstract, detached, formal thinking favored in traditional epistemology, is consistent with modern theories of learning (Ackermann, 2001; Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). Concrete artifacts are, by their nature, more easily shared than abstract thinking. The process of sharing encourages the type of learning environment in which novices are not separated from experts, and, importantly, creates some of the conditions necessary for learning for both the novices and the experts (Papert, 1980, 1991). In this way, much of the power of constructionist learning environments comes from the development of and interaction in a community of practice (Wenger, 1999). Learning and Activities within the Maker Movement With growing interest in the types of informal learning that happens while engaged in maker activities, researchers have been studying various makerspaces, Maker Faires, and other communities associated with the maker movement. Noting the uniqueness of each space, researchers have observed that makerspaces are contextualized communities that suit their MAKIFICATION: TOWARDS A FRAMEWORK 5 diverse members’ interests and focus on a variety of activities and techniques, such as combinations of electronics, textiles and/or digital fabrication (Anderson, 2012; Dougherty, 2012; Hatch, 2014; Peppler, Maltese, Keune, Chang, & Regalla, n.d.-a). The literature also highlights core characteristics that define both the community mindset and the nature of activities that take place within makerspaces, including physical making that employs multidisciplinary approaches to solve problems (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Martin, 2015; Peppler & Bender, 2013), sharing ideas and artifacts with others (Anderson, 2012; Brahms, 2014; Sheridan et al., 2014), iteration that has a failure-positive approach (Brahms, 2014; Sheridan et al., 2014), and individual autonomy that empowers maker/learner choices and control (Dougherty, 2012; Educause Learning Initative (ELI), 2013; Gershenfeld, 2012; Kalil, 2010; Peppler & Bender, 2013). The makerspace model works well in informal learning settings (i.e. afterschool clubs and summer camps). However, it is difficult to integrate within the rigid structure of the current formal education curricula and assessment. Martin (2015) cautions educators however, that if the critical elements of maker community and maker mindset are ignored, any attempt to integrate making into formal learning will become tool-centric and therefore will lose the essence of what makes “making” appealing to students. Moving forward, we must ensure that we embrace an approach that highlights the affordances of the mindset and community structure within the maker movement yet simultaneously allows for more deliberate learning objectives to be addressed. Though craft, art, and design are at the root of makerspace activities, if educators want to integrate these type of maker activities into formal learning contexts it is important to acknowledge the differences between these types of activities, both the purpose of the learning goals and the purpose of the creators’ expression (see Figure 1). MAKIFICATION: TOWARDS A FRAMEWORK 6 Figure 1. Observational differences between “makification” activities and maker-related activities. Pure constructionism needs freedom and minimal restrictions (standardized regulations), which is difficult to come by in today’s climate of crowded curricula and high-stakes testing. In or