I. In their opening chapter, "An Insanely Brief and Incomplete History of Making" from Invent to Learn, Sylvia Libow Martinez and Gary Stager, Ph.D. present a highly convincing position for the value of making in education by tracing the historical arguments for making as a method of learning from the past 500 years. The survey account of educational philosophers through the ages presented much food for thought for me for I learned additional insights on the varying educational philosophies. A couple of smaller points struck me most specifically in the article - first was the idea that toys designed for children should be "capable of making real things" as opposed to only mimicking them with models (p. 20). I began to reflect on the variety of toys I had as a child, and while some toys did allow actual fabrication, those that did were often "cookie-cutter" craft kits, with explicit directions and outcomes, or pre-fabricated toy sets such as the Easy Bake Oven. Children love to make things! Why are not all toys oriented to allow them to create their own toys to play with in the future, or give them skills to promote the subject of the craft kit one the pre-packaged pieces have already been used up? Allowing actual production through toys, whether it be physical or digital creation, can create a life-long passion for making things and skills that can create children who are not only problem-solvers, but also have a deeper connection and appreciation of their own objects. This made me want to look further into current "creative" toy companies to see if they have improved since my own childhood to promote invention and skills, rather than just "making something" with little creative input from the child. I also was struck by Seymour Papert's observation that educational technology frequently "means inventing new gadgets to teach the same old stuff in a thinly disguised version of the same old way" (p. 23); this sentiment is also expressed in Papert and Cynthia Solomon's article "Twenty Things to Do with a Computer". Instead of simply replacing old methods with a screen, we should of course be thinking how to invent new forms of education with a tool that is prime for invention, innovation and forward-moving exploration. Using a computer to only speed up outdated methods is missing the point. How can we give students the tools to also question what technology can do so that they too can push its boundaries? Papert and Solomon proposed the concept of the "turtle" over twenty years ago that created a space for students to learn to "de-bug" a system in order to achieve their own desired result. I now confidently believe that this type of creativity and problem solving should be reflected in making during school and should also be reflected at home through toys that foster a similar set of values.
II. In his article, "Digital Fabrication and 'Making' in Education: The Democratization of Invention", Paulo Blikstein also makes an excellent argument for making in schools, specifically channeled in the form of a FabLab or Maker's Space. I was struck by some of the educational concepts Blikstein addressed in the article. He proposed that "while a scientific investigation is typically concerned with finding the one law to explain many natural phenomena, a technological investigation typically finds many solutions for the same problem" (p. 3). Reflecting on my own schooling, most of the investigations I participated in were indeed based in science classes, where we were all more or less trying to get to the same conclusion in order to prove a concept already published in our science text books. There was very little room for departure from what had already been proven, and as a result, didn't really encourage the experimentation one would assume an experiment should entail. The idea that technology, and I would also argue art making, have the ability to find multiple solutions seems critical to consider when developing questioning and curious students, who can grow to make a difference in the world, not simply answer wrote questions through carefully pre-outlined steps. This kind of question-based thinking has created an entire generation of tech start-ups that are all about creating unique solutions through new technical means; these tech companies have tapped into the concept that where there is not already a program to answer a question, invent one yourself. I think that this is the type of thinking that should be promoted for all students, not just those who hope to enter a technical field.
I can absolutely see the value of having a maker's space in schools - especially at the secondary level where students can work more independently with an adult monitor in the space. I do not feel like I personally would be qualified at this moment to run a Maker's Space or be the point person for the students and would want some support from another teacher who also has experience with engineering and science. Perhaps this is one of the tricks of the Maker's Space being an interdisciplinary space in schools as it would take significant coordinating and enthusiasm from multiple departments - unless someone was hired specifically for the role. Having the support of art, science, engineering, technology and mathematics would allow students to truly create whatever they are most interested in and not limit their projects based on a single teacher's knowledge or skillset.
II. In his article, "Digital Fabrication and 'Making' in Education: The Democratization of Invention", Paulo Blikstein also makes an excellent argument for making in schools, specifically channeled in the form of a FabLab or Maker's Space. I was struck by some of the educational concepts Blikstein addressed in the article. He proposed that "while a scientific investigation is typically concerned with finding the one law to explain many natural phenomena, a technological investigation typically finds many solutions for the same problem" (p. 3). Reflecting on my own schooling, most of the investigations I participated in were indeed based in science classes, where we were all more or less trying to get to the same conclusion in order to prove a concept already published in our science text books. There was very little room for departure from what had already been proven, and as a result, didn't really encourage the experimentation one would assume an experiment should entail. The idea that technology, and I would also argue art making, have the ability to find multiple solutions seems critical to consider when developing questioning and curious students, who can grow to make a difference in the world, not simply answer wrote questions through carefully pre-outlined steps. This kind of question-based thinking has created an entire generation of tech start-ups that are all about creating unique solutions through new technical means; these tech companies have tapped into the concept that where there is not already a program to answer a question, invent one yourself. I think that this is the type of thinking that should be promoted for all students, not just those who hope to enter a technical field.
I can absolutely see the value of having a maker's space in schools - especially at the secondary level where students can work more independently with an adult monitor in the space. I do not feel like I personally would be qualified at this moment to run a Maker's Space or be the point person for the students and would want some support from another teacher who also has experience with engineering and science. Perhaps this is one of the tricks of the Maker's Space being an interdisciplinary space in schools as it would take significant coordinating and enthusiasm from multiple departments - unless someone was hired specifically for the role. Having the support of art, science, engineering, technology and mathematics would allow students to truly create whatever they are most interested in and not limit their projects based on a single teacher's knowledge or skillset.
Comments
Post a Comment