2017
DOI: 10.1007/s11528-017-0172-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Learning through Making and Maker Education

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
61
0
4

Year Published

2017
2017
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 124 publications
(74 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
1
61
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Furthermore, child-centeredness can be levered to proscribe what is developmentally appropriate in ways that restrict children's access to knowledge and ways of coming to know, as a means of protecting them from difficult issues and everyday events. The makerspace movement aligns with child-centeredness in its commitment to enabling users to pursue their own passions (Hsu, Baldwin, & Ching, 2017), but its roots lie not in an individualized agenda of self-improvement but in a participatory, democratic, and commons-oriented vision (Vasilis, Vasilis, & Wolfgang, 2017). In relation to Rogoff's (2003) second plane of analysis (relational), in this paper we argue that the maker movement has the potential to contribute to contemporary theories that place children's prior experiences and funds of knowledge (Moll et al, 1992) at the heart of relational pedagogical practice.…”
Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, child-centeredness can be levered to proscribe what is developmentally appropriate in ways that restrict children's access to knowledge and ways of coming to know, as a means of protecting them from difficult issues and everyday events. The makerspace movement aligns with child-centeredness in its commitment to enabling users to pursue their own passions (Hsu, Baldwin, & Ching, 2017), but its roots lie not in an individualized agenda of self-improvement but in a participatory, democratic, and commons-oriented vision (Vasilis, Vasilis, & Wolfgang, 2017). In relation to Rogoff's (2003) second plane of analysis (relational), in this paper we argue that the maker movement has the potential to contribute to contemporary theories that place children's prior experiences and funds of knowledge (Moll et al, 1992) at the heart of relational pedagogical practice.…”
Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous research suggests that initial teacher preparation programs in the United States are beginning to increase their work in supporting teachers' ability to implement maker technologies and principles in their practice (Authors, 2017). In addition, there are several programs available to in-service teachers, such as the online course Maker Tech: Hybrid Computing and Creative Tinkering for STEAM Education offered at Boise State University, and a course focusing on establishing makerspaces in K-12 environments at the University of Wisconsin-Stout (Hsu et al, 2017). However, there is currently little empirical research to inform the development and implementation of such efforts.…”
Section: Educator Perceptionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, maker activities may align with previous learning theories such as experiential education, critical pedagogy, and problem-based learning (Blikstein, 2013;Halverson and Sheridan, 2014;Oliver, 2016). Second, research has suggested that making activities may provide a vehicle to attract students to engage in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) subjects (Berry et al, 2010;Bevan et al, 2014;Hsu et al, 2017;Lacey, 2010;Martin, 2015). Third, several studies have pointed to a connection between maker activities and improved spatial reasoning (Katsio-Loudis and Jones, 2015;Safhalter et al, 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Berman, Garcia, Nam, Chu, and Quek (2016) describe how a community of practice may eventually emerge through making-based activities. The theoretical framework of communities of practice is therefore often used as a lens for analyzing makerspaces Hsu, Baldwin, & Ching, 2017;Sheridan et al, 2014). Communities of practice can be described using three characteristics: mutual engagement, a joint enterprise, and a shared repertoire (Besamusca & Drijvers, 2013;Wenger, 2007).…”
Section: Theorymentioning
confidence: 99%