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-9-response/ https://ed342.gse.stanford.edu/week-9-response/#respond Thu, 03 Mar 2016 01:47:51 +0000 http://ed342.gse.stanford.edu/?p=1583 I am taking the “Beyond Bits and Atoms” course with Prof. Blikstein this semester so I was very familiar with the content in his article and that of Peppler and Bender. I think it’s important to share with the students in this class some of what we’ve discussed there, because there are critical tensions between the theory in Blikstein’s article and the reporting in Peppler and Bender.

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.”

The lack of encouragement and development girls receive around STEM at a young age is incredibly disheartening. I think we are moving towards attempting to create tools to give girls access to STEM. Tools like GoldieBlox are incredibly exciting. However, I believe the true problem is cultural and subconscious. How do we change the ways parents approach girls and science? I think everyone wants their children to succeed but I do think that there are perceptions around how to raise girls that need to change. I wonder how we can make that change possible. I wonder if it must be through awareness and assuring that parents take a very active approach in assuring that they are motivating a girl to pursue STEM as much as they would a boy.

In homes and schools, how do we breakdown this gender gap once and for all? For my female classmates in STEM fields, do you remember what sparked your interest in STEM? Did parents or teachers speak to you in a particular way? How can we support the movement to open STEM fields up to more women? Does anyone think that a great deal has changed since the study was published in 2001?

A site that exposes students to the design process and design challenges, while providing access to advice from real engineers.

URL: https://www.curiositymachine.org/

Focus: “We support parents, STEM mentors and educators to inspire children to build their curiosity, creativity and persistence, one design challenge at a time.”

Target Age: K-12 (Seems to be a primary focus on K-8)

PDF : Assignment1_Hardson-Hurley

After reading this quote, I could feel frustration bubbling through my body. Why is it that today, in a world through which women should be perceived equal, female children are still socialized to hold themselves to lower academic expectations?

I passionately hope that large companies such as Mattel, Fischer Price, etc. begin to rethink the manner in which they market their products, especially with regard to gender. While products such as the Barbie Girls site promotes creativity, they also limit the scope of subjects accessible to girls.

One question I have: what would a Barbie with more substantial learning goals look like? Would it be well received by girls?

I look forward to the day in which gender is not a limiting factor for female development!

The first set, GoldieBlox and the Spinning Machine, tells the story of Goldie who builds a spinning machine to help her dog, Nacho, chase his tail. What ultimately gets built is a simple Rube Goldberg-inspired machine that spins many characters. GoldieBlox is designed for girls aged 4-9 years old. The characters, colors and storylines intentionally appeal to girls. For example, two storybooks involve princesses. GoldieBlox seems to be taking a page out of Lego’s recent Friends Collection playbook, to “earnestly meet girls halfway in an attempt to stoke their interest in engineering” (Orenstein, p.2). Executives at Lego found that “in order to be gender-fair…they have to be gender-specific” (Orenstein, p. 2). However, not everyone feels this way. Many believe these toys targeted towards girls run the risk of reinforcing stereotype (Gray).

Personally, I commend GoldieBlox for creating a toy set that appeals to girls and can break down any stereotypes of girls as builders and engineers. As for the specific set I played with, the book’s storyline and instructions were simple to follow with great drawings. At the end of the book, there were suggestions for other ‘machines’ to build which offers some variety in play. One critique is around the text. Vocabulary varied throughout the book from simple to very complex (‘centrifuge’). I know GoldieBlox is introducing an app and website in addition to the set so these digital offerings might be great opportunities to be more consistent in lexical density and vary by age, allowing different reading levels. The physical set was mostly easy to handle, though I did have some trouble sticking the pegs onto the board. For younger ages, an adult might need to support. One area to consider for future sets is an opportunity to make the set a more social experience – whether a friend or parent to join in the building fun. This might mean different storybooks for social play versus independent play or offering extra prompts through an app experience.

Finally, the GoldieBlox website offers a way for girls to upload videos of their own creation. It’s a fun sharing experience but I wonder how realistic it is for girls aged 4-9 to make/upload videos. Current videos are all very professional so serves only as inspiration. One feature I really like for the website is the warning prompt when you click to the iTunes store or YouTube. It’s not perfect but serves to draw kids attention and hopefully prevent them from leaving the page. As GoldieBlox moves towards more digital offerings, there will be more challenges in terms of matching digital ability, privacy and security concerns. Instead, I would recommend making these digital offerings geared towards parents or teachers on how best to leverage the physical toy sets and engage their tiny learners.