Acknowledging the Critics

Like with many,  if not all things, there is always a side that is strongly for or against an idea or approach. As I sift through academic literature, I am faced with a myriad of positive examples and outcomes of implementing maker education into the curriculum. How can one ignore that there must be literature out there that is actually weary or sees issues with this curricular approach? 

After all as Newton's third law goes: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. (The Physics Classroom, 2019) In the spirit of having a balanced approach to one’s perspective, it’s important to acknowledge the issues too in order to make content accessible to all learners. The following outline the main concerns around the integration of maker education:

1. “Maker Pedagogies” need to work on better defining the role of the teacher (Baldwin & Ching, 2017) (Godhe, 2019)
2. Efforts need to be placed in developing students “critical digital literacy” (Godhe, 2019)
3. Efforts need to be placed on rethinking the alignment of maker technologies with school knowledge (Godhe, 2019)
4. Reconcile “maker learning” and “school learning” (Godhe, 2019)
5. Having well stocked makerspaces to ensure a sustainable program, (Baldwin & Ching, 2017) and
6. The need to equip educators with theory, knowledge, and skills about making are needed to integrate making in formal learning settings. (Baldwin & Ching, 2017) 

Personally the one concern that stood out the most for me was the last one. Had I not taken the initiative to learn about the uses of the Raspberry Pi, and educate myself on physical and code computing, digital maker spaces would be a mystery for me. On the other hand, if makerspaces are to be integrated into a school environment, an effort needs to be placed on:

• Training staff specifically on what it’s all about, 
• An ongoing discussion on how and where it could be integrated, 
• Discussions also need to take place on what elements need to be introduced in order to support the approach at a curricular level, and 
• Start small with a few volunteer teachers who could model the approach.

I believe as educators we are not ‘purists’ when it comes to planning. There is flexibility and insight on appropriate ways of integrating activities that would encourage critical thinking, creativity, STEM to STEAM, self-regulated learning, and understanding by design - to mention a few. That’s where the art of teaching comes in to create a balanced approach, where in our action there is an equal and opposite reaction which needs to consider the school, the class, but most importantly the individuality of our students.

References:

Baldwin, S. & Ching, YH. TechTrends (2017) 61: 589. https://doi-org.proxy.queensu.ca/10.1007/s11528-017-0172-6
​
Godhe, A. (2019). Making sense of making: Critical issues in the integration of maker education into schools. Technology, Pedagogy and Education,1-12. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2019.1610040
 
Henderson, T. (2019). Newton's Third Law. Retrieved from https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law