Though the maker movement has proliferated in out-of-school settings, there remains a design challenge of how to effectively integrate maker activities into K–12 classrooms. In other contexts, though, creative design and production have historically been successfully integrated in classrooms through studio models common to the arts, architecture, and engineering.
Purpose/Objective
In this paper, we leverage the features and practices of studio models from arts, architecture, and engineering education to integrate maker activities in a high school classroom. Within this Maker Studio model, students focus on designing a computational artifact and engage in practices more predominantly found in studio arts, architecture, and engineering classes such as feedback, critique, and reflection.
Research Design
We conducted a case study of how a class of 23 high school students participating in a STEM elective class in teams partnered with art students to develop an interactive installation. Our analyses focus on how the structure of the feedback, critique, and reflections in the Maker Studio informed and shaped students’ design processes.
Conclusions
We discuss affordances and implications of recognizing studio practices (particularly critique) as design features of maker activities, especially in high school classroom contexts, and present the Maker Studio as a viable model for integration of maker activities in classroom environments. We also characterize key features of the Maker Studio model, including the following: appreciation and support for maker processes in addition to or even above final products, integration of various structures for giving and receiving critique throughout the design process, support for interdisciplinary and collaborative project work, and engagement with diverse perspectives and expertise during critiques.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaichtalJ. (2011). Hack this: 24 incredible hackerspace projects from the DIY movement. Indianapolis, IN: QUE.
2.
BaileyR. O. N. (2005). The digital design coach enhancing design conversations in architectural education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.
3.
BartonA. C., TanE., & GreenbergD. (2016). The makerspace movement: Sites of possibilities for equitable opportunities to engage underrepresented youth in STEM. Teachers College Record, 119(6), 11—44.
4.
BeckerH. J. (1998). Running to catch a moving train: Schools and information technologies. Theory into Practice, 37(1), 20—30.
5.
BenittiF. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978—988.
6.
BliksteinP. (2013). Digital fabrication and “making” in education: The democratization of invention. In Walter-HerrmannJ., & BüchingC. (Eds.), FabLabs: Of machines, makers, and inventors (pp. 1—21). Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript-Verlag.
7.
BliksteinP., & KrannichD. (2013). The makers' movement and FabLabs in education: Experiences, technologies, and research. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 613–616). doi:10.1145/2485760.2485884
8.
BrahmsL., & WernerJ. (2013). Designing makerspaces for family learning in museums and science centers. In HoneyM., & KanterD. (Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 71—94). London, UK: Routledge.
9.
BrittonL. (2012). A fabulous laboratory: The makerspace at Fayetteville Free Library. Public Libraries, 52(4), 30—33.
10.
BudinH. (1999). Computers and the problem solving curriculum. New York, NY: Center for Technology and School Change at Teachers College, Columbia University and Children's Software Press.
11.
BuechleyL. (2006). A construction kit for electronic textiles. In Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers (pp. 83–90). doi:10.1109/ISWC.2006.286348
12.
CraddockI. L. (2015). Makers on the move: A mobile makerspace at a comprehensive public high school. Library Hi Tech, 33(4), 497—504.
13.
CubanL., KirkpatrickH., & PeckC. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813—834.
14.
CuffD. (1992). Architecture: The story of practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15.
DorenM. (2015). Is the critique relevant? The function of critique in a studio art classroom, told three times. Visual Inquiry, 4(3), 193—203.
16.
FaroS., & SwanK. (2006). An investigation into the efficacy of the studio model at the high school level. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(1), 45—59.
17.
FosterC., LandeM., & JordanS. (2014, June). An ethos of sharing in the maker community. Paper presented at the 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, IN.
18.
HendersonT., VogelP., & CampagnaM. (2017). MakerSpace to capstone: Plans and progress towards an integrated K–12 design thinking and STEAM curriculum. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 8(1).
19.
HiraA., JoslynC. H., & HynesM. M. (2014). Classroom makerspaces: Identifying the opportunities and challenges. In Proceedings of the 2014 Frontiers in Education (FIE) Conference (pp. 1–5). doi:10.1109/FIE.2014.7044263
20.
HundhausenC., AgrawalA., FairbrotherD., & TrevisanM. (2010). Does studio-based instruction work in CS 1? An empirical comparison with a traditional approach. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 500–504). doi:10.1145/1734263.1734432
21.
HundhausenC. D., & BrownJ. L. (2008). Designing, visualizing, and discussing algorithms within a CS 1 studio experience: An empirical study. Computers & Education, 50(1), 301—326.
22.
JamesP. (1996). The construction of learning and teaching in a sculpture studio class. Studies in Art Education, 37(3), 145—159.
23.
JohnsonB., & HalversonE. (2015, June). Learning in the making: Leveraging technologies for impact. Paper presented at the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC), Boston, MA.
24.
KellamN., WaltherJ., CostantinoT., & CramondB. (2013). Integrating the engineering curriculum through the synthesis and design studio. Advances in Engineering Education, 3(3).
25.
KuhnS. (2001). Learning from the architecture studio: Implications for project-based pedagogy. International Journal of Engineering Education, 17(4/5), 349—352.
26.
LittleP., & CardenasM. (2001). Use of “studio” methods in the introductory engineering design curriculum. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(3), 309—318.
27.
LittsB. K. (2015a). Resources, facilitation, and partnerships: Three design considerations for youth makerspaces. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 347–350). doi:10.1145/2771839.2771913
28.
LittsB. K. (2015b). Making learning: Makerspaces as learning environments (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
29.
LoertscherD. V., PreddyL., & DerryB. (2013). Makerspaces in the school library learning commons and the uTEC Maker Model. Teacher Librarian, 41(2), 48—51.
30.
MartinL. (2015). The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 5(1), 4.
31.
McKayC., & PepplerK. (2013, June). MakerCart: A mobile fab lab for the classroom. Position paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC), New York, NY.
32.
Moorefield-LangH. M. (2015). When makerspaces go mobile: Case studies of transportable maker locations. Library Hi Tech, 3(4), 462—471. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-06-2015-0061.
33.
OhY., IshizakiS., GrossM. D., & DoE. Y. L. (2013). A theoretical framework of design critiquing in architecture studios. Design Studies, 34(3), 302—325.
34.
PalumboD. (1990). Programming language/problem-solving research: A review of relevant issues. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 65—89.
35.
PapertS. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.
36.
PepplerK. (2013). STEAM-powered computing education: Using e-textiles to integrate the arts and STEM. Computer, 46(9), 38—43. doi:10.1109/MC.2013.257
37.
PetrichM., WilkinsonK., & BevanB. (2013). It looks like fun, but are they learning? In HoneyM., & KanterD. E. (Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 50—70). New York, NY: Routledge.
38.
PlemmonsA. (2014). Building a culture of creation. Teacher Librarian, 41(5), 12—16.
39.
PreddyL. B. (2013). School library makerspaces: Grades 6–12. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
40.
RavitchS. M., & CarlN. M. (2015). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
41.
ReardonS., & TangneyB. (2015). Smartphones, studio-based learning, and scaffolding: Helping novices learn to program. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(4), 1—15.
42.
SalazarS. M. (2013). Studio interior: Investigating undergraduate studio art teaching and learning. Studies in Art Education, 55(1), 64—78.
43.
SchnittkaC. G., BrandtC. B., JonesB. D., & EvansM. A. (2012). Informal engineering education after school: Employing the studio model for motivation and identification in STEM domains. Advances in Engineering Education, 3(2).
44.
SearleK. A., FieldsD. A., LuiD. A., & KafaiY. B. (2014). Diversifying high school students' views about computing with electronic textiles. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 75–82). doi:10.1145/2632320.2632352.
45.
SheridanK., HalversonE. R., LittsB., BrahmsL., Jacobs-PriebeL., & OwensT. (2014). Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 505—531.
46.
SheridanK. M., & KonopaskyA. (2016). Designing for resourcefulness in a community-based makerspace. In PepplerK., HalversonE., & KafaiY. B. (Eds.), Makeology: Vol. 1. Makerspaces as learning environments (pp. 30—46). New York, NY: Routledge.
47.
StakeR. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48.
Tofel-GrehlC., FieldsD., SearleK., Maahs-FladungC., FeldonD., GuG., & SunC. (2017). Electrifying engagement in middle school science class: Improving student interest through e-textiles. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1—12.
49.
Tofel-GrehlC., LittsB., & SearleK. (2016). Getting crafty with the NGSS. Science and Children, 54(4), 48—53.
50.
UluoğluB. (2000). Design knowledge communicated in studio critiques. Design Studies, 21(1), 33—58.
51.
VasudevanV., KafaiY., & YangL. (2015, June). Make, wear, play: Remix designs of wearable controllers for scratch games by middle school youth. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 339–342). doi:10.1145/2771839.2771911
52.
VossoughiS., EscudéM., KongF., & HooperP. (2013). Tinkering, learning & equity in the after-school setting. Paper presented at FabLearn, Stanford, CA. Retrieved from http://fablearn.stanford.edu/2013/papers/
53.
WallaceS., BanksT., SedasM., GlazewskiK., BrushT. A., & McKayC. (2017). What will keep the fish alive? Exploring intersections of designing, making, and inquiry among middle school learners. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 8(1).
54.
WardripP. S., & BrahmsL. (2016). Taking making to school: A model for integrating making into classrooms. In PepplerK., HalversonE., & KafaiY. B. (Eds.), Makeology: Vol. 1. Makerspaces as learning environments (pp. 97—106). New York, NY: Routledge.
55.
WendlerW. V., & RogersJ. S. (1995). The design life space: Verbal communication in the architectural design studio. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 12(4), 319—336.
56.
WilsonJ. M., & JenningsW. C. (2000). Studio courses: How information technology is changing the way we teach, on campus and off. Proceedings of the IEEE, 88(1), 72—80.
57.
WinnerE., HetlandL., VeenemaS., SheridanK., PalmerP., & LocherI. (2006). Studio thinking: How visual arts teaching can promote disciplined habits of mind. In LocherP., MartindaleC., & DorfmanL. (Eds.), New directions in aesthetics, creativity, and the arts (pp. 189—205). Amityville, NY: Baywood.
