Advertisement

Makerspaces Promoting Students’ Design Thinking and Collective Knowledge Creation: Examples from Canada and Finland

  • Janette HughesEmail author
  • Laura Morrison
  • Anu Kajamaa
  • Kristiina Kumpulainen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering book series (LNICST, volume 265)

Abstract

Despite the growing popularity of makerspaces in education, we currently have little understanding of the conditions and processes that promote students’ design thinking and knowledge creation in these digitally-enriched learning environments. To address these research gaps in current research knowledge, we draw on two ethnographic case studies on students’ maker activities situated in Canada and Finland. In the Canadian study, the focus is directed to analysing students’ design actions carried out in a five day long “microcycle” of learning by individual students in a Maker Lab. In the Finnish study, attention is directed to investigating forms of students’ collective knowledge creation during an elective course in a makerspace, The Fuse Studio. This paper shows that design thinking is a potentially fruitful way to build students’ global competencies and to approach knowledge creation in a makerspace environment as students engage in interest-driven making, requiring various levels of instructor/peer support, from independent making to guided inquiry.

Keywords

Makerspaces Design thinking Knowledge creation Digital learning environment 

References

  1. Kajamaa, K., Kumpulainen, K., Rajala, A.: Digital learning environment mediating students’ funds of knowledge and knowledge creation. Stud. Paedagog. 23(4) (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  2. Kumpulainen, K.: Makerspaces: why they are important for digital literacy education. In: Marsh, J., et al. (eds.) Makerspaces in the Early Years: A Literature Review, pp. 12–16. University of Sheffield, Sheffield (2017). Makey ProjectGoogle Scholar
  3. Barab, S., Squire, K.: Design-based research: putting a stake in the ground. J. Learn. Sci. 13(1), 1–14 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berg, B.L.: Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, 6th edn. Allyn & Bacon, Boston (2007)Google Scholar
  5. Brown, T.: Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. HarperBusiness, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  6. Cahn, P.S., et al.: A design thinking approach to evaluating interprofessional education. J. Interprof. Care 30(3), 378–380 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2015.1122582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Creswell, J.W.: Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research, 2nd edn. Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle River (2004)Google Scholar
  8. Doppelt, Y.: Assessing creative thinking in design-based learning. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 19(1), 55–65 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Engeström, Y.: Innovative learning in work teams: analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In: Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., Punamäki, R.-L. (eds.) Perspectives on Activity Theory, pp. 377–404. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., Suntio, A.: Can a school community learn to master its own future? An activity-theoretical study of expansive learning among middle school teachers. In: Wells, G., Claxton, G. (eds.) Learning for Life in the 21st Century, pp. 211–224. Blackwell, Oxford (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gobble, M.M.: Design thinking. Res. Technol. Manag. 57(3), 59 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.5437/08956308X5703005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Honey, M., Kanter, D.: Design, Make, Play: Growing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators. Routledge, New York (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jordan, B., Henderson, A.: Interaction analysis: foundations and practice. J. Learn. Sci. 4(1), 39–103 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kafai, Y., Peppler, K.: Youth, technology, and DIY: developing participatory competencies in creative media. Rev. Res. Educ. 35(1), 89–119 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., Hakkarainen, K.: Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Rev. Educ. Res. 74(4), 557–576 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stevens, R., Jona, K.: Program design. FUSE studio website. https://www.fusestudio.net/program-design. Accessed 20 May 2017
  17. Vygotsky, L.S.: Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Mental Processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1978)Google Scholar
  18. Wartofsky, M.: Models, Representation, and the Scientific Understanding. Reidel, Boston (1979)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ICST Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janette Hughes
    • 1
    Email author
  • Laura Morrison
    • 1
  • Anu Kajamaa
    • 2
  • Kristiina Kumpulainen
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of Ontario Institute of TechnologyOshawaCanada
  2. 2.Faculty of Educational SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations