In Blikstein’s section 2, he explores the constructivist, constructionist, and critical pedagogy philosophical roots of Maker pedagogy. From this perspective, Maker learning is meant to buttress its students’ development in ways that extend beyond STEM classes. Very succinctly,it is meant to support their development in an object and creative-oriented atmosphere, and to expose them to ways of thinking that are nontraditional, for the learning of tangible and intangible skills and understandings.

Contrast this with Peppler and Bender’s article. Their description of the Maker movement is very community-oriented, with a focus on a Maker identity and movement. They focus quite a bit on the material aspects of Makerism and the concrete products to be made. There is no hint of the deep theory that Maker space pedagogy taps into, and they left me with the sense that the defining qualities of a Maker space are which gadgets they have.

Blikstein has written about this less-theoretical approach to Makerism. We see a little of this in the “keychain syndrome” portion of the reading, and for anyone interested in further critique, I recommend his and Marcelo Worsley’s article “Children are Not Hackers,” which concerns their fears about shallow interpretations of the Maker movement. I also recommend this speech by Leah Buechley about Maker magazine and Maker Faire (these were both readings in Beyond Bits and Atoms). In brief, there are serious equity concerns about an interpretation of the movement that focuses too much on product over process and on STEM over more general personal development, and identity worries that the pedagogical Maker movement may be overtaken by well-to-do, adult “hackers” who like tech and are demographically nearly homogenous.

I can’t do the issues justice in this small space so I hope you will explore these links. I think good Maker pedagogy has a lot of potential, but am concerned that Peppler and Bender’s profile of it leans more “hacker” than “maker.”

“This chameleonesque adaptivity [of machines], which is embedded in technology, permits the acknowledgement and embracing of different learning styles and epistemologies, engendering aconvivial environment in which students can concretize their ideas and projects with intense personal engagement.”

The idea of constructivist learning– one in which students take ownership of their own projects and learning tracts– has always fascinated me. On one hand, the idea of empowering students to be “makers” and “follow their passions” from a young age has tremendous potential. However, I do believe that a common core is crucial today.

My question this week surrounds the discussion on constructivist learning. Is it possible to provide students with a practical foundation of knowledge by still implementing project based innovative strategies (including digital fabrication)?

What are other limitations of constructivism?