Fostering Creativity with Makerspaces

Recent technological advances have increased the availability and affordability of technologies that enable hands-on learning, such as 3D printers, robotics, microprocessors, virtual and augmented reality and e-textiles (Martinez & Stager, 2014). Such technologies are often utilised in makerspacers, which are ‘informal sites for creative production in art, science and engineering where people of all ages blend digital and physical technologies to explore ideas, learn technical skills, and create new products’ (Sheridan et al., 2014, p. 505).

While makerspacers exist in many contexts, they can be particularly effective in education. Makerspacers align with numerous principles of the constructivist pedagogy, including student-centred learning, engaging student activities, and minimal teacher instruction and intervention (Bichelmeyer & Hsu, 1999). The independence offered to students in makerspacer tasks promotes the development of critical thinking skills (Martinez & Stager, 2014), which is a general capability of the Australian syllabus (ACARA, 2016).

The Makeblock Neuron kit is one example of a technology that could be used in a makerspacer environment. This kit comes with over 30 electronic and magnetic blocks, including a voice sensor, light sensor and infrared sensor. This kit is intuitive to use and particularly well suited to STEM subjects. Based on my experience, I believe that science classes in particular would benefit from this technology. For example, when studying photosynthesis, as is required by the Years 7-10 NSW science syllabus, students could take measurements of soil temperature and moisture to understand how these factors influence plant growth. One potential issue, however, is that students may resort to simply following the instructions provided and consequently not engage in the higher order thought processes. Although tools such as the Makeblock Neuron kit can be highly effective, it is important to note that makerspacers can also incorporate more basic tools. This is demonstrated by the activity below, which only required nails and wooden box!

Fostering Creativity

Makerspacers encourage creativity by placing students in a role where they must identify problems and generate solutions. As students encounter flaws in their initial designs they must respond with new approaches, which often leads to creative ideas (Pink, 2011). Furthermore, makerspaces encourage collaborative learning, which allows students to share their unique and diverse ideas with others, and thus is conducive to creativity as it (Slavin, 2015).

Potential Limitations

The key challenge for teachers when using makerspacers is to create well-designed learning activities. For example, activities must be cognitively engaging, as those that involve hands-on activities alone are unlikely to result in effective learning (Mayer, 2004).

References

ACARA. (2016). General capabilities. Retrieved from https://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum/general-capabilities.

Bichelmeyer, B, A., & Hsu, Y. (1999). Individually-guided education and problem-based learning: A comparison of pedagogical approaches from different epistemological views. In K. E. Sparks & M. Simonson (Eds.), Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Papers Presented at the 21st National Convention of the Association for Education Communications and Technology (AECT) (pp. 73-39). Washington, DC: AECT.

Martinez, S., & Stager, G. (2014). The maker movement: A learning revolution. International Society for Technology in Education. Available at https://www.iste.org/explore/articleDetail?articleid=106

Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1): 14-19. doi: 10.1037/0003- 066X.59.1.14

Pink, D. (2011). Creative fluency. In L. Crocket, I. Jukes, A. Churches (Eds.), Literacy is not enough – 21st century fluencies for the digital age. (pp. 43-54). Corwin.

Sheridan, K., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T. (2014). Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 4: 505-531. doi: 10.17763/haer.84.4.brr34733723j648u

Slavin, R. E. (2015). Cooperative learning in elementary schools. Education, 43(1): 5-14. doi: 10.1080/03004279.2015.963370