My main takeaway from my visit to Barron Park was that the teacher is the key component of a successful maker space. Ms. Kolhatkar has identified the needs of her students and develops projects that will interest them, not always necessarily using the flashiest and newest technology. The Margolis, Goode, and Chapman article mentions that the “secret sauce” of success is “passionate, creative teachers who are interested in the problem solving of computer science, with a variety of secondary subject credentials.” The issue of access to these teachers is vital to the success of the Maker Space movement.

Most of the children interviewed in the Barron, Martin, Takeuchi, and Fithian don’t even need to make it to school to learn about computer science–they have parents that are well-connected in the technology industry. For instance, we have stories of Alex’s father expressing his colleagues’ interest in reviewing his son’s code or the parent who paid his daughter $25 to debug his software. Only in the wealthy enclaves of Silicon Valley could these kind of experiences be viewed as a possibility.

What about all the other kids? How can the fantastic learning opportunities of students with fantastic maker space instructors and tech savvy parents be made available across the economic spectrum? I saw that Marc also posted this excellent video: https://vimeo.com/110616469. Leah Buechley’s talk really gets at the heart of the issue–it is up to the Maker Movement’s leaders (who are mainly teachers themselves) to expand access. Perhaps its an unfair burden to ask of overtaxed educators, but without a true step towards equality in representation, the Maker Movement will fail precisely because of its success with wealthy engineers. This group has effectively blocked others from joining.

]]> https://ed342.gse.stanford.edu/week-9-response-3/feed/ 0 https://ed342.gse.stanford.edu/week-8-informal-science-learning/ https://ed342.gse.stanford.edu/week-8-informal-science-learning/#respond Thu, 25 Feb 2016 06:55:32 +0000 http://ed342.gse.stanford.edu/?p=1547 This week’s readings looked at how scientific habits can be formed, fostered, and adapted. Crowley et al.’s look at parents’ explanations to their children featured specific, though “inconclusive,” evidence of its findings that parents explain scientific phenomena more to boys than to girls. Parents have go beyond simply bring their children to the museum, they must overcome gender stereotypes in order for their daughters to have the same relationship to science as their sons. Is this something that museum facilitators could be trained to encourage in the museum? If children of all genders receive the same explanations, they can develop scientific reasoning, a skill they just might need to play WoW.

While video games were considered “torpid” by researchers of the past, Steinkuehler and Duncan find that WoW can actually be a place of learning, specifically in informal science literacy. By giving these players a platform for collective knowledge gathering, they learn from each other about how to play the game. The knowledge does not come from above, but can be the result of one player’s shared experience which is then debated and built upon by other players. This kind of community collaboration could definitely be used for “bridging third places” — Steinkuehler’s name for the space between school and home that allows for student learning.

Zimmerman and Land discuss the design guidelines that can be used in these “third places,” specifically in place-based learning at the Arboretum. These researchers find some really compelling applications of place-based informal learning. However, I still struggle with this approach: how much is the app a distraction from the nature at hand? Is it important that the kids learn outside? In different life stages, would they learn as much in an informal discussion with mom and dad or as a player in a video game with an active scientifically minded-community?

I can see why the place-based framework works. I think that tapping on individuals’ previous knowledge gives them confidence to continue to expand their knowledge in that particular area.

Also, I am wondering how we can equip and motivate parents with very limited education to get involved in creating and writing with their children. These parents may have a low self confidence because of their limited skills.