How Is Lesley University Using Fabrication or Makerspaces Art and Design

Typhoon

Contents

• 1 Introduction
• 2 Digital blueprint and fabrication from different perspectives
  • two.one Maker spaces
  • ii.2 Learning organisation and evaluation
  • 2.3 Educational robotics
  • 2.4 Artistic thinking
  • ii.v Mathematics education
  • 2.6 Pedagogy
  • 2.seven Identity
• three Links
  • iii.i Projects
  • 3.2 Educational activity and training materials
  • 3.3 Online tools
  • iii.4 Various links
• 4 References and bibliography
  • iv.ane Cited with footnotes

1 Introduction

Digital design and fabrication (in french "Formulation et fabrication assistées par ordinateur", CFAO) is the combination of computer-assisted blueprint (CAD), computer-assisted manufacturing (CAM) and Calculator-numerical control (CNC) machines. This combination is also known nether other terms, e.g. Digital modeling and fabrication, divers by Wikipedia (May 2018), as "design and product process that combines 3D modeling or computing-aided design (CAD) with additive and subtractive manufacturing. Additive manufacturing is also known equally 3D printing, while subtractive manufacturing may besides be referred to equally machining,[1] and many other technologies tin can exist exploited to physically produce the designed objects". Some other term is digital blueprint and making, e.g. in the ECRAFT2LEARN projection.

Digital pattern and fabrication is particular interesting style of learning technology itself and learning through applied science (e.one thousand. IT skills, design skills, project skills). Co-ordinate to Hsu, Baldwin and Ching (2017), "Making, a procedure of creating something, has become a movement tied to encouraging growth in science, engineering, engineering, and mathematics (Stalk). The maker motility incorporates: i) makers, who are involved in experimental play; two) the makerspace, a community of practice for makers featuring a variety of supplies; and 3) making, activities focused around working and learning with technology (Dougherty 2013). Making spans a myriad of activities, including cooking, sewing, welding, robotics, painting, printing, and building (Peppler and Bender 2013). Making activities often involve programming and physical computing (east.g., robotics) that creates interactive experiences of sensing and controlling the physical globe with computers (O'Sullivan and Igoe 2014)."

Digital design and fabrication also allows teachers and other persons to create, share and conform various tangible learning materials such as models (due east.g. 3D printed molecules in biology), group animation tools (due east.one thousand. board games, or tokens), interactive objects (e.thousand. educational robots), etc.

We may expand this sometimes later on. For now, as well read:

• 3D printers in teaching
• Fab labs in education
• Computerized embroidery in teaching
• Digital design and fabrication for ICT didactics

In that location is also a consolidated bibliography

• Digital design and fabrication bibliography

2 Digital pattern and fabrication from different perspectives

Several rationales to introduce digital design and fabrication for learning in full general and ICT in particular have been put frontwards, directly or indirectly. Beneath, nosotros summarize a few strands of thinking.

2.1 Maker spaces

Digital blueprint and fabrication usually happens in a makerspace, i.e. a infinite inside which people tin create things, unremarkably in two steps. In a first step, some design is digitally created, eastward.g. with a general or specialized cartoon program. In a second step, the design (or parts) of it are made by a digitally controlled machine, due east.g. a 3D printer, a laser cutter, a milling car or an embroidery machine. Educational makerspaces are usually unlike from fab labs in ii respects: They are airtight to the public and they lack more expensive (e.g. laser cut) and dangerous (e.thousand. milling) machines.

Davee et al. (2015) found 45 different titles for these spaces. "Makerspaces, equally a more generic and inclusive term, has increasingly come to represent an extremely wide multifariousness of creative endeavors, tools, demographics, and types of places where making happens. Reflecting this, these spaces become by many names.". Eastward.g. make space, makery, idea lab, maker art, tinkering space, maker lab, but also design-lab, hands-on-learning space or domain specific such as art heart, gallery space, media lab, arts military camp. From this multifariousness, the authors conclude: "Evident in these names are a diverse range of making forms, including robotics, music, media, arts, and technology. Various approaches to making are also revealed, including those emphasizing play, design, the arts, scientific discipline, tinkering, collaboration, informal and hands-on learning, likewise as lab and studio approaches." (Davee et al., 2015). Finally, their review reveals three types of makespaces in libraries, museums, schools and community organizations: dedicated spaces that concentrate tools in a unmarried space, distributed makerspaces that use several spaces and mobile that let bringing equipment either with carts or full trucks to other places.

Abbie Brown (2015) distinguishes a curricular bureaucracy of making activities, derived from her ain experience in a year-long 3D press experience:

• Print trials involves parametrizations in the blueprint software, preparing the auto and evaluating the result and its use.
• Design experiments involves designing an object by modifying an existing one or by creating a new i scratch. I allows both creativity and technological skill development..
• Engineering tests addresses a production challenge, i.e. a existent need that requires a physical solution, e.g. creating a box for a estimator board.

The similar uTEC make model was adult by Loertscher et al. (2013) and includes 4 levels:

uTEC Brand Model (slightly modified by DKS)

Level	Elaboration	Examples
iv. Creating	Inventing, producing, enterpreneurship	Novel production
3. Experimenting	Edifice, trying/failing, repurposing	modifying and testing theories
two. Tinkering	Playing, messing around, questioning, researching	making changes to others creating
1. Using	Enjoying, sampling, engaging, playing	experience what others have created

According to Oliver (2016), makerspaces are defined by core tenets, east.k. self-directed learning, serious play, tolerance for failure and retrial, peer collaboration and sharing between experts and novices.

ii.2 Learning organization and evaluation

Learning system or making activities depend a lot on the context. Most digital design and fabrication happens exterior formal pedagogy, e.g. subsequently school activities in a schoolhouse setting.

Learning arrangements in maker spaces depend on the context. Sheridan et al. (2014) found in a comparative report of 3 cases several adaptive learning arrangements. "Ane of the distinctive features of all the spaces is the fashion diverse learning arrangements (e.m., solo exploration, facilitated i-on-one or small group projects, collaborative projects, online forums, and structured classes) often informally evolve to back up the projects and goals of the participants.". Duration of projects ranged from minutes to years, depending on both the nature of the project and the type of makerspace. The same authors observed the emergence of a "We saw prove in each makerspace of a hybrid model that includes many of the ways of seeing, valuing, thinking, and doing constitute in participatory cultures yet incorporates pedagogical structures found in more formal studio-based settings, such as sit-in, facilitated workshops, and critique (Hetland et al., 2013)"

In formal beneath academy education, we can distinguish two situations: Formal classes, due east.k. design and technology in UKs lower and higher secondary schools, and "technologie" in the french lower and college secondary school organization. These classes follow formal learning goals but are probably fairly open to more learner centered pedagogy. Occasional design and fabrication activities to support some curricular or extra-curricular topics.

Evaluation of learner activities both in formal and informal settings tin evaluate products (things made), product presentations (e.m. in online portfolios) and other contributions, e.chiliad. participation in class, on forums and on wikis. Oliver lists assessable competences "as both hard skills (working with tools and manipulating materials) and soft skills (pursuing interests, staying committed through trial and failure, attempt), application of the blueprint process (questioning, prototyping), craftsmanship in making, customs edifice (collaborates with peers, cleans upwards), and content understanding when applicable (Chang 2015; Yokana 2015). In addition, educators tin expect at the emergence of "metarepresentational competence" in makers or an "understanding of how tools support communicating an idea, when to invoke certain tools, and for what purpose" (Sheridan et al. 2014, p. 508)."

Lisa Yokana (2015) developed a PDF a sample rubric for maker awarding that evaluates half-dozen dimensions: technique/concepts, habits of mind, reflection and understanding, craftsmanship, responsibility and endeavor.

Evaluation also can take into account evolutionary stages, i.eastward. whether participants can reach a "create" stage.

2.3 Educational robotics

Green at al. 2018, A Await at Robots and Programmable Devices for the K-12 Classroom

Digital pattern and fabrication for ICT education virtually frequently means assembling a robot from a variety of technologies and the programming it. Some technology, e.g. HyperDuino, Makerbit or LEGO Mindstormsare more suitable to combine making and programming while respecting the curriculum, according to Light-green at al. who created a fiddling taxonomy that allows classifying utilize of tools according to educational outcomes. "The curriculum domain focuses on outcomes that support learners using the tools to understand and demonstrate understanding of content (especially related to content standardsThe making domain is strongly focused on outcomes that are craft-centric (i.e., making a product). The principles of engineering science and coding domain focuses on outcomes associated with coding as the curriculum; learning to use the tools is the master result of this domain. The overlapping of the circles combines the outcomes of the unlike domains." (Green et al. 2018)

Since both Digital pattern & fabrication and ICT teaching are most often associated with engineering and since educational robotics has long continuing tradition starting in Papert'due south constructionism, it is natural that making is ofttimes associated with robotics. "Making spans a myriad of activities, including cooking, sewing, welding, robotics, painting, printing, and building (Peppler and Bough 2013). Making activities ofttimes involve programming and physical computing (east.g., robotics) that creates interactive experiences of sensing and decision-making the physical globe with computers (O'Sullivan and Igoe 2014)." (Hsu et al. 2017)

2.4 Creative thinking

Sousa and Pileckki (2013) associated artistic thinking with divergent thinking. "in some Stalk classrooms, the students are completing experiments that merely confirm a scientific principle that they have already learned. Such an activity is of little interest and hardly challenging. [...] In divergent thinking, on the other manus, the educatee generates several ideas about possible ways to solve a problem, often by breaking it down into its components and looking for new insights into the problem. Afterward gaining those insights, the student may then utilise convergent thinking to put the parts back together and solve the trouble in a dissimilar and unexpected fashion. [...] Divergent thinking works best with poorly defined problems that have multifaceted solutions. This is the type of thinking that is typical of creative activities.". In more than elementary terms:

• Convergent thinking solves a problem by applying procedures to known sub-bug, i.e. allows to compute a solution with known tools for known issues.
• Divergent thinking allows spliting a problem into new sub-problems, i.e. see it differently. According to Kraft (2007) cited by Sousa and Pilecki (2013), divergent thinking also seems to change the brain itself, i.e. enhance hereafter creativity.

In a way, converting thinking allows to solve difficult problems whereas divergent thinking allows to solve complex problems, i.east. at Andersen and Krathwohl'due south create level. Both together allow to solve difficult and complex ones.

Based on Gardner, Sousa and Pilecki then relate artistic domains with intellectual skills: "music requires musical/rhythmic and logical/mathematical skills. Visual art, of course, conspicuously calls for visual/spatial intelligence. Drama involves verbal/linguistic, bodily/kinesthetic, and interpersonal skills. Dance certainly depends on actual/kinaesthetic, visual/spatial, and interpersonal intelligences. When teachers purposefully incorporate arts-related skills in their teaching, the students' benefits are abundant."

Halverson and Sheridan (2014) cited by past Davee, Regalla and Change (2015) point out that maker and arts spaces share a similar architecture. "Many makerspaces resemble studio arts learning environments, where participants work independently or collaboratively with materials to blueprint and make". Even so, the report by Sheridan et al. (2014:526) also show that makerspaces unite more than other spaces. "Among us authors, we have prior experience in many sites for learning in the making—arts studios, performing arts companies, and game blueprint and digital media labs. Unlike these disciplinary places of practice, makerspaces support making in disciplines that are traditionally separate. [...] This blending of traditional and digital skills, arts and engineering creates a learning environment in which there are multiple entry points to participation and leads to innovative combinations, juxtapositions, and uses of disciplinary knowledge and skill (Brahms & Crowley, 2014)."

ii.v Mathematics educational activity

"Engineering and Pattern is a purposeful and valuable subject in its own correct and information technology is besides a subject which enables the meaningful delivery of other subjects to be placed into real-world contexts. In a situation where there is full integration of the ii subject areas, namely Technology and Blueprint with Mathematics then the Mathematics can be taught within a context that is relevant to everyday living. The Mathematics has 'purpose and focus' through the medium of Applied science and Blueprint (Ainley, Pratt and Hansen, 2006:29)." (Gibson & Bell, 2011)

However, Gibson and Bell (2011) do betoken out that many teacher student'south are afraid of mathematics. If it is seen every bit difficult and threatening by the teacher, mathematical contents cannot be delivered finer in a "making" class

ii.6 Educational activity

We believe that making pedagogy can exist traced back to philosophers like Locke and Rousseau and educators such as Pestalozzi, Fröbel and Herbart who all advocated in 1 form or some other that children learn through through experience, and in particular through somewhat autonomous play and manipulation of objects.

According to Hsu et al (2015) citing Martinez and Stager (2013), the maker movement is rooted in the works of Dewey, Piaget plus Newspaper and Montessori. Nosotros do non exactly share this view since tinkering and bricolage (and that is the essence of it) is not directly related to pedagogy and precedes it, e.yard. in the class of craftsmanship, engineering science, and more modernistic DIY. Too, the influential fab lab move rather did start from "allow us build spaces that let to create near everything". However, makers in educational activity quickly made the link, since making is per se "easily on". Consequently, the theoretical influence on making in educational activity seems to exist Papert and his Constructionism.

According to Blickstein (2018), there are several sources, i.due east. what is chosen progressive education in the United states, distributed cognition and apprenticeship learning, critical pedagogy and constructionism. "Progressive educators and constructivist researchers have been prescribing involvement-driven, student-centered, and experiential approaches for more than a century (Dewey 1902; Freudenthal 1973; Fröbel and Hailmann 1901; Montessori 1965; Von Glaserfeld 1995)." (p. 420). "Critical pedagogy then highlighted the importance of learners' empowerment, culturally accurate learning experiences, convivial tools, and the connectedness with local communities and their funds of knowledge (Freire 1974; Illich 1970; Moll et al. 1992). Critical theorists such as Freire fervently advocated that students should perceive themselves as change makers, capable of producing transformations in a world that should never be taken equally static or immutable." (p. 420).

"The idea that "pedagogy thinking" is appropriate in elementary school does have some antecedents but in 1970 it was certainly not electric current in the mainstream of American education circles. I see the movement that goes under names like "thinking skills" and "critical thinking" as something that came to prominence much later and was supported if not inspired by a wave of hype on the lines of "Logo teaches logical thinking." Reading "Teaching Children Thinking" should evidence that my own views were much more complex: Programming can be used to support learning about thinking, which is a very dissimilar claim from maxim that in itself it improves thinking skills." (Papert, 2005)

2.7 Identity

According to Wenger ^[i] identity is what we know, what is foreign and what we cull to know, as well equally how we know it. Our identities determine with whom we will interact in a knowledge sharing activity, and our willingness and capacity to engage in boundary interactions (Wenger 2000, p.239). ^[i] .

Maker identity

A first dimension to explore is the maker identity, i.east. become, through educational activities, someone with the mindset and the skills of maker, at least in the context of making activities and spaces. Chu et al. (2015) ^[2] define the maker mindset as a combination of self-efficacy, motivation and interest: "Three of the almost common and highly pregnant constructs in determining one's self-concept are self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation and interest or enjoyment. Bandura's social cognitive theory of cocky-efficacy suggests that the child who thinks: "I Tin can (am able to) Make technology things" may progress to thinking "I CAN BE (have a possibility to be) a Maker," and ultimately to "I AM (place myself as and want to be identified as) a Maker." Hidi and Renninger [21] 'four-phasemodel of interest' development specifies that situational interest (that a single well-designedMaking activity may trigger) is able to develop into a maintained situational interest, and then an emerging private interest, and finally a well-developed individual involvement. Amongst the influ-encing variables of such interest, Hidi and Renninger [21] have also shown that intrinsic motivation works to bear upon an individual's intrinsic interest value for an action." Chu et al. (2015, p5).

O'Donovan and Smith (2020) ^[3] identified the post-obit list of makerspace capabilities in the literature:

• The capability to skilfully make and do
• The capability to presume and perform a valued maker identity
• The capability to found and maintain maker customs
• The capability to sustain livelihood
• The capability to change one's identify in the globe
• The capability to participate in fabric culture.

The capability to presume and perform a maker identity is defined as follows in Addendum Tabular array A4: "Digital fabrication technologies assistance people cultivate new and valued identities. Users associate with identities such every bit maker, hacker, and design entrepreneur – nosotros use maker equally autograph. The capability to be recognised as artistic and smart by others, brings a sense of well-being to protagonists. Users value a technologically competent and creative identity that enables them to identify with, and exist identified by others in makerspaces. There is also a commitment to involving others in making and openness, at least as an ethic, if non always in practise. (Anderson, 2012; Toupin, 2014; Troxler, 2014; Schor et al., 2016; Davies, 2017; Menichinelli and Ustarroz Molina, 2018)"

Using a Q-factor analysis, appraise "how this listing of capabilities is actually experienced in do amongst diverse users of different makerspaces" in the UK. They come up to the determination that they are non as expansive every bit the list, eastward.g. livelhood capabilities or a more sustainable material culture. 2d, and that is non then surprising, experienced capabilities depend on whether it is on a personal, an entrepreneurial or a social innovation level. That beingness said, new skills, bodacious identity and a sense community seem to arise from using technology in the social organization of a makerspace (e.thousand. collaboration or learning-by-doing). Finally, O'Donnovan & Smith insist that "the sociotechnical configuration of the makerspace is not separate from wider preference formation mechanisms. Makerspaces can mediate wider cultural and social influences, but the latter's connected presence depends upon how actively they are countered or encouraged in the makerspace itself,..."

Bratich and Brush (2011) ^[4] discover that online crafting communities are non identity.-based communities, but rather some kind social meshworks. The aforementioned may be true for some physical makerspaces, in particular the ones that exist in educational institutions.

Making and identity

Personal and professional person identities can be expressed and fifty-fifty developed through making. In particular, computerized embroidery, allows for quick and easy creation of a graphic that conveys some identity message, e.1000. draw the essence of a function or an idea. At the same time information technology allows for a certain of fuzziness and surprise.

"Making" besides can be understood as a form of fabrication with a critical identity. In more elaborate terms, post-automation contexts reappraise human bureau in automation technologies.

Reynolds (2004) ^[5], in a qualitative study, establish that engaging in textile art, practitioners cope better with illness but besides enable them to "preserve a positive identity, develop socially valued skills,enjoy menstruation, and make social contacts grounded in mutualinterests."

Leslie Forehand (2019), ^[half-dozen] explores the criticality of feminine arts and crafts. "With digital technology emerging every bit a indicate of power and inventiveness within the profession, traditionally feminine crafts can exist seized as tools to reimagine women's identities, fostering cultures of digital craft and developing future opportunities that tin can differently position women's relationship to labor and ingenuity."

Katz-Buonincontro & Foster (2012: 347) ^[7] argue that "avatar drawing" "reveals significant portraits of students' racial and academic identity". According to Zoran ^[8], "Work by Wiessner suggests the mode of craftspeople in traditional practices reveals social data and expressions of personal identity".

Amit Zoran ^[8] associates "artistic style" - that has been the field of study of many studies - with identity. "By creative manner, I mean the formal variations in artwork or blueprint that transmit information almost personal and social identity. This is a variation on Wiessner'south definition of way equally a 'formal variation in material culture that transmits data near personal and social identity' ^[9].". Zoran (2016), then points out inherent limitations of computational design and ends upwardly "advocating for digital imperfection in computational pattern practices as a way to conjure a struggle between artistic skill and personal style—a struggle that will contribute to an unpredictable however meaningful product.". Zoran et al (2014) ^[10] adult a milling device called FreeD' that enables users to interpret and alter a virtual model during fabrication.

iii Links

iii.1 Projects

• ECRAFT2LEARN. Quote: "The eCraft2Learn projection will research, pattern, pilot and validate an ecosystem based on digital fabrication and making technologies for creating figurer-supported artefacts. The project aims at reinforcing personalised learning and teaching in scientific discipline, technology, engineering, arts and math (STEAM) education and to assist the development of 21st century skills that promote inclusion and employability for youth in the Eu. The eCraft2Learn ecosystem volition support both formal and breezy learning by providing the appropriate digital fabrication." (retrieved May 2018).

• Scopes df. Educational resource of the fablab foundation. Quote: Digital fabrication has the potential to transform k-12 education. With the SCOPES-DF project, the Fab Foundation is bringing together fabbers, makers, and educators to deepen our understanding of the "what", "how" and "why" of Stalk disciplines.

• Fablearn, Quote: is a network, research collaborative, and vision of learning for the 21st century. FabLearn disseminates ideas, all-time practices and resources to support an international community of educators, researchers, and policy makers committed to integrating the principles of constructionist learning, popularly known equally "making" into formal and informal Thou-12 education.

iii.2 Pedagogy and training materials

• Estimator-Aided Pattern (Fabacademy.mit.edu)

3.3 Online tools

(see as well other pages in the Category:Fab lab

• Fab Modules, software to run any fab lab machine, e.m. fabmodules.org, a complete 2d input to milling and laser cutter toolpaths. The *.js files can exist copied to your own machine.

3.4 Various links

• Book Excerpt: FabLab—Of Machines, Makers and Inventors (June, 2013)

• Makerspaces in the High School Library (Pininterest board)

• Design and Brand (Pininterest board)

• Maker Movements, Do-It-Yourself Cultures and Participatory Blueprint: Implications for HCI Research. A CHI 2018 workshop, Montreal April 21-26, 2018.

4 References and bibliography

• Walter-Herrmann, Julia & Corinne Büching (2013) (eds.), FabLab, Of Machines, Makers and Inventors. Transcript, Reihe Kultur- und Medientheorie, ISBN 978-iii-8376-2382-half dozen, home page.
  • Gratis introductory affiliate (PDF)

• Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
• Blikstein, P. (2018). Maker Movement in Education: History and Prospects. Handbook of Technology Teaching, 419.
• Brahms, 50., & Crowley, K. (2014, April). Textual analysis of Make Magazine: Core practices of an emerging learning customs. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Coming together, Philadelphia.

• Brown, A. (2015). 3D press in instructional settings: Identifying a curricular bureaucracy of activities. TechTrends, 59(5), sixteen–24. doi: 10.1007/s11528-015-0887-1

• Burke, John J., Makerspaces. A practical guide for librarians.

• Davee, Due south., Regalla, L., & Chang, S. (2015). Makerspaces: Highlights of select literature. Retrieved from http://makered.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Makerspace-Lit-Review-5B.pdf

• Doyle, South., Forehand, Fifty., & Senske, N. (2017). Computational Feminism: Searching for Cyborgs. http://papers.cumincad.org/cgi-bin/works/Evidence?acadia17_232

• Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1993).

• Gibson, Ken S; Bell, Irene. When Applied science and Design Educational activity is Inhibited by Mathematics. Design and Technology Education: an International Journal, [S.50.], v. 16, n. iii, nov. 2011. ISSN 1360-1431. Bachelor at: https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/Appointment/article/view/1662. Date accessed: 10 july 2018.

• Green, T., Wagner, R., & Green, J. (2018). A Await at Robots and Programmable Devices for the One thousand-12 Classroom. TechTrends. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0297-two

• Hsu, YC., Baldwin, Due south. & Ching, YH. Learning through Making and Maker Education, TechTrends (2017) 61: 589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0172-6

• Kraft, U. (2007). Unleashing creativity. In F. Bloom (Ed.), Best of the encephalon from Scientific American: Mind, matter, and tomorrow'south encephalon (pp. 9–19). New York: Dana Press.

• Libow Martinez, Sylvia & Gary Stager (2013). Invent To Learn Making, Tinkering, and Engineering in the Classroom, Constructing Modern Knowledge Press, ISBN 0989151107

• Loertscher, D. 5., Preddy, L., & Derry, B. (2013). Makerspaces in the schoolhouse library commons and the uTEC maker model. Teacher Librarian, 41(two), 48–51.

• Loertscher, D.V., Preddy, L.,& Derry, B. (2013). Makerspaces in the schoolhouse library learning commons and the uTEC maker model, Teacher Librarian, 41 (two), 48-51

• Makerspace playbook: Schoolhouse edition. (2013). PDF. Free ebook.

• Oliver, Grand. M. (2016). Professional evolution considerations for makerspace leaders, function one: Addressing "what?" and "why?". TechTrends, 60, 160–166. doi: 10.1007/s11528-016-0028-5. https://doi.org/ten.1007/s11528-016-0028-5

• Ownen-Jackson, Gwyneth (2015). Learning to Teach Design and Technology in the Secondary School, A companion to school experience, tertiary Edition, Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Learning-to-Teach-Pattern-and-Engineering science-in-the-Secondary-Schoolhouse-A-companion/Owen-Jackson/p/book/9781315767956#

• Papert, S. (2005). You tin can't think about thinking without thinking about thinking about something. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Educational activity, 5(3/4), 366 -367.

• Preddy, 50. B. (2013). Creating school library "makerspace." Schoolhouse Library Monthly, 29(5), 41-42.

• Preddy, L. B. (2013). School library makerspaces: Grades 6 - 12. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.
  • Interview with Leslie Preddy (three/2014).

• Sousa, D. A., & Pilecki, T. (2013). From Stalk to STEAM: Using brain-compatible strategies to integrate the arts. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.

• USC Rossier (2017). The Guide to Maker Education http://usctea.ch/2oGz1xa (A drove of online articles)

• Wong, T. (2013). Makerspaces take libraries past storm.Library Media Connection,31(6),34-35.

• Yokana, L. (2015). Creating an authentic maker educational activity rubric. Edutopia. Retrieved from: http://www.edutopia.org/blog/creating-authentic-maker-education-rubric-lisa-yokana.

4.ane Cited with footnotes

1. ↑ ^{1.0 one.1} Wenger, Etienne. (2000), Communities of Do and Social Learning Systems, Organization, Book 7(two): 225-246
2. ↑ Chu, S. 50., Quek, F., Bhangaonkar, S., Ging, A. B., & Sridharamurthy, K. (2015). Making the Maker: A Ways-to-an-Ends approach to nurturing the Maker mindset in elementary-aged children. International Periodical of Child-Reckoner Interaction, 5, xi–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2015.08.002
3. ↑ O'Donovan, C., & Smith, A. (2020). Engineering and Human Capabilities in Great britain Makerspaces. Journal of Human Evolution and Capabilities, 21(one), 63–83. https://doi.org/ten.1080/19452829.2019.1704706
4. ↑ Jack Z. Bratich, & Heidi M. Brush. (2011). Fabricating Activism: Utopian Studies, 22(ii), 233. https://doi.org/10.5325/utopianstudies.22.2.0233
5. ↑ Reynolds, F. (2004, p. 65). Textile Fine art Promoting Well‐beingness in Long‐term Illness: Some General and Specific Influences. Journal of Occupational Science, 11(2), 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/14427591.2004.9686532
6. ↑ Forehand, Leslie. (2019). Needle Point Cloud. Journal of Architectural Educational activity, 73(two), 211–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/10464883.2019.1633201
7. ↑ Katz-Buonincontro, Jen, and Aroutis Foster. 2012. "Examining students' cultural identity and player styles through avatar drawings in a game-based classroom." Assessment in Game-Based Learning. Springer, New York, NY, 2012. 335-353.
8. ↑ ^{eight.0 8.one} Zoran, Amit (2016). A manifest for digital imperfection. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students, 22(three), 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/2893491
9. ↑ Wiessner, P. Style and social information in Kalahari San projectile points. American Antiquity 48, 2 (1983), 253–276.
10. ↑ Zoran, A., Shilkrot, R., Nanyakkara, Due south., and Paradiso, J. A. The hybrid artisans: A example written report in smart tools. ACM Transactions on Computer-Homo Interaction (TOCHI) 21, iii (2014).

kimouteriesself.blogspot.com

Source: http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Digital_design_and_fabrication_in_education

Share this post