Makerspaces in Schools – Trend or Necessity?

Jmyjmyz814 [CC BY-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)]

The ‘most impactful technologies are those that bring information closer to us, support sharing, and offer more visceral learning experiences‘ (Bower, 2017, p. 405). At the same, the effective utilisation of such technologies largely depends on educators ‘preparedness and propensity’ (ibid., p. 415). Thus, teachers are required to constantly explore technologies from a critical stance, particularly emerging ones, to provide their students with the best possible learning environments.

EDUCAUSE and the New Media Consortium (NMC) have identified in their last report on major trends in K-12 education the implementation of makerspaces in school as an important development (Freeman et al., 2017). Although makerspaces already started to emerge in the educational context some years ago and one can rather refer to it as a strategy than a technology, it is still an ongoing trend supporting the use of different kinds of technology.

Strictly speaking, ’makerspaces are physical environments that foster opportunities for hands-on learning and creation, often enabled by emerging technologies‘. They are 'leveraging maker activities to engage learners in creative, higher-order problem-solving through design, construction, and iteration’ (ibid., p. 40). Stevenson et al. (2019) add that makerspaces ‘embody a growing movement of educators promoting constructionist learning with physical materials and digital technologies’ (p. 1260).

The major benefit being referred to in several studies and papers is the hands-on learning taking place in these learning environments. However, while technologies such as ‘3D printers, laser cutters, and animation software’ provide the necessary tools, it is the task designs that are most crucial for enabling the respective learning experiences (Freeman et al., 2017, p. 40). Moreover, only if the tasks are well designed, higher-order and creative thinking and problem-solving strategies can be fostered (Freeman et al., 2017; Vongkulluksn et al., 2018; Stevenson et al., 2019). Particularly, the utilisation and mix of different technologies serve as a vehicle to ‘empower students to think beyond traditional solutions, and critically develop solutions that are truly authentic to their style of learning’ (Vongkulluksn et al., 2018, p. 3). Vongulluksn et al. (2018) state that in this sense authentic learning ‘is not a trend – it is a necessity’ and that makerspaces facilitating ‘learn by doing cultivate self-awareness and self-reliance while piquing curiosity’ (p. 4). In other words, makerspaces can benefit students to develop knowledge and skills that go beyond a subject and interest. Besides self-directed learning, collaboration and peer-to-peer learning can be enhanced (Freeman et al., 2017).

Another key benefit is that makerspaces can be utilised for cross-fertilisation of subjects or better courses and thus ‘multi- and interdisciplinary learning’ (Freeman et al., 2017, p. 41). That is why it is the perfect environment for Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), Instead of just teaching vocabulary or letting students imitate conversations, makerspaces offer authentic contexts for language use. Studies showcase that ‚hands-on activities’ in possible CLIL subjects like STEM and Art can benefit young learners not only in their SL acquisition but also can increase their motivation, collaborative and creative skills (Ludovico & Zambelli, 2017; Pladevall-Ballester, 2019). As an ‘integration among heterogeneous skills […] CLIL encourages a cross fusion of didactic subjects – currently considered as a relevant educational trend – by approaching content through the target language. (Ludovico & Zambelli, 2017, p. 140). Combining both trends, makerspaces, and CLIL could have an immensely positive effect on student learning. Looking at existing examples, I would like to implement a makerspace with a 3D printer and similar tools at my school, so that students can create artefacts in connection to another subject, e.g. science or art (Barett, 2014). While creating those artefacts they should try to communicate in English as their second language, discussions or giving peer support offer authentic situations for that. Students could not only improve their English speaking skills but also their technological skills through the use of tools like a 3D printer (Ludovico & Zambelli, 2017). Also, they could refer to the created objects in the following CLIL lessons.

All in all, makerspaces can promote integrated learning in multiple ways. In highly motivating and authentic situations, teachers can deploy them to teach a second language and other subjects at the same time, and, furthermore, underlying skills like creative problem-solving, self-reliance but also collaboration. However, finally, we have to remember to focus on ‘pedagogy, and technology is just the means via which we distribute knowledge between people and facilitate experience’ (Bower, 2017, p. 423). Something that we have to keep mind is that ‘it is unlikely to ever capture the overwhelmingly positive educational impact of an elegant and captivating design idea that sparks a subject and students to life. It is the creative application of design knowledge that makes the critical difference’ (ibid.).

References

Barrett, K. (2014). Playtime hacked: Kids' makerspaces blend art and technology to reuse and repurpose. Alternatives Journal, 40(3), 42.

Bower, M. (2017). Design of technology-enhanced learning: Integrating research and practice. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Group.

Freeman, A., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., and Hall Giesinger, C. (2017). NMC/CoSN Horizon Report: 2017 K–12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium

Ludovico, L. A., & Zambelli, C. (2017). Web-Based Frameworks for CLIL in Primary School: Design, Implementation, Pilot Experimentation and Results. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 739, 139-158.

Pladevall-Ballester, E. (2019). A longitudinal study of primary school EFL learning motivation in CLIL and non-CLIL settings. Language Teaching Research, 23(6), 765-786.

Stevenson, M., Bower, M., Falloon, G., Forbes, A., & Hatzigianni, M. (2019). By design: Professional learning ecologies to develop primary school teachers’ makerspaces pedagogical capabilities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1260-1274.

Vongkulluksn, V., Matewos, W., Sinatra, A., & Marsh, M. (2018). Motivational factors in makerspaces: A mixed methods study of elementary school students’ situational interest, self-efficacy, and achievement emotions. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 1-19.