Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies

2020 Edition
| Editors: Arthur Tatnall


  • Michael TanEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10576-1_114



The “maker” and “STEM” (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) movements have recently become an outsize influence in the discourse around science and mathematics education in the English speaking world, if not globally, not least due to the juggernaut of United States media and business interests’ reiteration of its message (of the confidence in its innovative practices for the future). Part of its appeal must lie in its promises of economic success to the communities that “get it right”, not to mention the human fascination with new devices and technologies that are supposed to lift us from the drudgery of hard work. In this chapter, I seek a different perspective to the essential problems of science education and propose how educators may meaningfully integrate a design and engineering perspective to learning, idiosyncratic school system concerns...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Barbrook R, Cameron A (1996) The Californian ideology. Sci Cult 6(1):44–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barsalou LW (2010) Grounded cognition: past, present, and future. Top Cogn Sci 2(4):716–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blikstein P (2013) Digital fabrication and “making”in education: the democratization of invention. In: Walter-Herrmann J, Büching C (eds) FabLabs: of machines, makers and inventors, vol 4. Transcript Publishers, Bielefeld, pp 1–21Google Scholar
  4. Borko H, Whitcomb J, Liston D (2008) Wicked problems and other thoughts on issues of technology and teacher learning. J Teach Educ 60(1):3–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bracey GW (2003) April foolishness: the 20th anniversary of a nation at risk. Phi Delta Kappan 84(8):616–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bratus S (2007) What hackers learn that the rest of us don’t: notes on hacker curriculum. IEEE Secur Priv 5(4):72–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burbules NC (2016) Technology, education, and the fetishization of the “new”. In: Depaepe M, Smeyers P (eds) Educational research: discourses of change and changes of discourse. Springer, Cham, pp 9–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carr N (2015) The glass cage: where automation is taking us. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Clarke AC (1977) Profiles of the future: an inquiry into the limits of the possible. Harper & Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Coyne R (2005) Wicked problems revisited. Des Stud 26(1):5–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crawford M (2009) Shop class as soulcraft. Penguin Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Cuban L (2001) Oversold and underused: computers in the classroom. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  13. Cuban L (2004) The blackboard and the bottom line: why schools can’t be businesses. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. Davies SR (2018) Characterizing hacking: mundane engagement in US Hacker and Makerspaces. Science, Technology & Human Values 43(2):171–197.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243917703464
  15. Gallagher JJ (2013) Educational disarmament, and how to stop it. Roeper Rev 35(3):197–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goldinger SD, Papesh MH, Barnhart AS, Hansen WA, Hout MC (2016) The poverty of embodied cognition. Psychon Bull Rev 23(4):959–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grand JKJ (2006) Research lessons from hardware hacking. Commun ACM 49(6):44–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ingold T (2013) Making: anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. Routledge, OxonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kelley D, Kelley T (2013) Creative confidence. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Labaree DF (2008) The winning ways of a losing strategy: educationalizing social problems in the United States. Educ Theory 58(4):447–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lawson AE (2010) Basic inferences of scientific reasoning, argumentation, and discovery. Sci Educ 94(2):336–364MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. Lindtner S (2014) Hackerspaces and the internet of things in China: how makers are reinventing industrial production, innovation, and the self. China Inform 28(2):145–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lindtner S (2015) Hacking with Chinese characteristics. Sci Technol Hum Values 40(5):854–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lindtner S, Lin C (2017) Making and its promises. CoDesign 13(2):70–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martin L (2015) The promise of the maker movement for education. J Precoll Eng Educ Res 5(1):30–39Google Scholar
  26. National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983) A nation at risk: the imperative for educational advance. U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  27. Nelson HG, Stolterman E (2003) The design way: intentional change in an unpredictable world: foundations and fundamentals of design competence. Educational Technology, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  28. Papert S, Harel I (1991) Situating constructionism. In: Harel I, Papert S (eds) Constructionism. Ablex Publishing, WestportGoogle Scholar
  29. Peddiwell JA (1939) The saber-tooth curriculum. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Pickering A (1995) The mangle of practice: time, agency and science. University of Chicago Press, ChicagozbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pickering A (2008) New Ontologies. In: Pickering A, Guzik K (eds) The mangle in practice: science, society, and becoming. Duke University Press, Durham, pp 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pickering A, Guzik K (eds) (2008) The mangle in practice: science, society, and becoming. Duke University Press, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  33. Polanyi M (2009) The tacit dimension. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. (Original work published 1966)Google Scholar
  34. Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4(2):155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ryle G (1946) Knowing how and knowing that: The Presidential address. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 46(1):1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aristotelian/46.1.1
  36. Shapiro L (2007) The Embodied Cognition Research Programme. Philos Compass 2(2):338–346MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Simon HA (1996) The sciences of the artificial. MIT press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  38. Stebbins R (2009) Serious leisure and work. Sociol Compass 3(5):764–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Toombs A, Bardzell S, Bardzell J (2014) Becoming makers: hackerspace member habits, values, and identities. J Peer Prod 5. Retrieved from http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-5-shared-machine-shops/peer-reviewed-articles/becoming-makers-hackerspace-member-habits-values-and-identities/
  40. Toyama K (2015) Geek Heresy: rescuing social change from the cult of technology. PublicAffairs, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. White R, Gunstone R (1992) Probing understanding. The Falmer, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Research in Pedagogy and PracticeNational Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Section editors and affiliations

  • Don Passey
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Educational ResearchLancaster UniversityLancasterUK