children are not hackers

Children are not hackers by Paulo Blikstein & Marcelo Worsley (2016) - pdf available

This is a cautionary argument against people like me who have been known to say “we are all makers” without thinking deeply enough about the issues. See the footnote for more about this.

The authors begin with the counter intuitive claim that the cultural roots of the modern maker movement are a threat to its flourishing or even survival in schools! The one eyed warriors may sew the seeds of destruction of what they love. How ironic but not unusual. After this introduction I had to read on to understand.

They explain this claim. The people that created the first Fab Lab at MIT (Gershenfeld eta la in 2001) were hackers. By the way I don't use the term "hackers" as a pejorative. Hackers are those curious people who want to look inside and understand how things work. A better term for those who steal your data is Crackers.

This led to the creation of Maker Faires for those and other hackers to show off their cool products and the MAKE magazine (which originated in 2005). Those people were sophisticated publishers. Furthermore, Maker clubs have flourished more outside of schools in informal settings (eg. museum, after school programs and competitions) rather than inside schools.

Then there has been a push for STEM education due to a perceived shortage of qualified engineers and scientists. Those considerations involve the industrial workplace, not the school workplace.

All of these influences (hackers – publishers – informal educators – industrial workplace) have a middle to upper class origin and elite appeal. Such a culture will not win the battle to introduce modern maker education into schools in a mass way.

Hacker culture is self-sufficiency, autodidacticism, individualism and competition

“The popular image of the hacker is that of a disheveled, unshaven White male in his twenties, doing all-nighters in a messy electronics lab, capable of learning anything by him­self by scouring the Web or doing late-night runs to the library ...”

This is an extreme minority. To promote this won’t help most students.

Publisher culture: The initial culture of the Maker Movement which began in earnest around 2005 was college-educated, affluent, White men. They published MAKE magazine and organised Maker Faires where makers showed off their innovative finished products. This was a culture of Product before Process where unfinished “half baked” efforts are not rewarded.

Also the types of projects developed by this elite group downgrades and devalues projects such as traditional crafts, costumes, pottery, technology-augmented wearables and jewelry, among many others

Informal spaces Within these spaces the Keychain Syndrome prevails - the “30-minute” workshop model: fast, scripted, perpetually “introductory” workshops. The problem here is that the demonstrations often never get past trivial objects.

Job Market culture: It is argued that we need more STEM students because of shortages of engineers and scientists and other countries, such as a threatening China, are way ahead of us here.

The pathway pioneered by Papert and others is different: that software such as Logo (the precursor to Scratch) and hardware such as LEGO are tools for self expression and ways for transforming traditional subjects such as maths into something that is more interesting and natural to learn.

Summary from this section about the hackers – publishers – informal educators – industrial workplace influences: Promoters of modern maker education such as myself should not take the efficacy of “making” for granted.

TOWARDS A MAKER ED CULTURE THAT WILL WORK

Hard fun (Papert): The lesson for educators is that the work in FabLabs and makerspaces can be enjoyable but should never be “easy” fun, devoid of frustration and difficulty

Abstract and Concrete Thinking: The maker space approach does not reject the abstract but attempts to make the abstract more concrete. The examples provided by the authors are:

Supposedly abstract mathematical ideas suddenly become concrete when, for example, a student needs to design a laser-cut object using the least amount of material, or when a very “con­crete” 3D printed object gives rise to a discussion about Boolean operations

I can think of other examples arising from design work using Turtle Art. I asked students to make a right angled triangle. Some did this by trial and error which was fine. I also showed them how to get the lengths exactly right by using Pythagoras theorem. In another shape the outside octagon by trial and error the size was 121 (good enough), when calculated using trig it was 120.7 (exact). I would say the trial and error approach is acceptable but it's good to show the more precise way to obtain the values and some of the students (not all) will pick it up.

Gut feeling or Research? Doing or Theorising? Some maker ed advocates rely on gut feeling (doing is learning – list of attributes) but of course many educators want to see the real research done before they accept this. Deep learning doesn’t happen by magic. Maker ed advocates have to make strategic choices here. IMO a combination of both constructionist and instructionist methods are required. The authors are building a case here for a coherent theory of maker ed, not just hands on and she'll be right mate.

For example, in one class where we were making and coding with the microbit, I took the opportunity to try explain where the 255 came from in some MakeCode parameters. I talked about bits and bytes and 1s and 0s. It wasn’t very successful. It was too abstract for most of the students. It made me realise I need to prepare this sort of break from the making and coding more carefully.

RECOMMENDED LEARNING CULTURE FOR MAKER SPACE

How does a learning culture differ from a hacker culture?

From the perspective of where actual students are at these are bad slogans: “every child should be a maker”, “making mistakes is good”, “every child should hack”

Reality check: many students need support! If they don’t get it they will feel lost or frustrated. They drift into doing the less demanding parts of a task (colouring in).

Without help (sink or swim approach) those who feel uncomfortable in a maker space will become further disempowered

One possibility: Pair more competent with less competent and make the less competent the driver (in control of computer, mouse and keyboard). I thought this was a great idea and have been angling for an opportunity to try it out:

“ In half of the mixed pairs, the low-achieving student was mandated to be the “driver” of the activity (having control over the computer mouse and key­board, etc.). In those groups, the learning outcomes were almost the same as the groups with two high-achieving students, and dramatically higher than mixed groups in which the high-achieving student was the “driver” instead (Schneider & Blikstein, in press).”

The authors refer to other researchers about the stereotype threat (Cohen, Garcia, Apfel, & Master, 2006) which shows that individuals can perform below their ability level when they suspect that they belong to a group that historically does not do well at a particular activity

Key points from this section

• include tasks that are meaningful to all students
• avoid too much “learn from failure” rhetoric
• find ways to get students out of their comfort zone (eg. instruct lower ability in a pair to be the driver)
• be aware that some groups expect to fail

From jobs culture to literacy culture:

There is often lots of talk about STEM (and also STEAM) in education systems these days. Some of this originates from social shortages of engineers and scientists. This can be a source of an educational problem rather than a solution to a social issue.

There is a deep cultural abyss separating the corporate world and K–12 schools. Educational materials should be designed for children

• microbit not arduino
• Scratch not Java

The authors argue that the point of STEM literacy is to provide a lens through which to interpret the world and act upon it – “consciousness of the possible” Friere 1970. I have often advanced a similar argument, that Scratch is a multimedia fun machine for making stories and games.

From keychain culture to deep projects culture:

The “keychain syndrome” is ok for an introduction to 3D printing but we are not achieving much if we don’t go beyond that. One version of this is downloading a great design from thingiverse and printing it. I do that and again it has its place. But in the bigger scheme of things it is too easy, no design or remix skills happening here. How do we go beyond that to a culture of deep projects?

To develop a school culture of engaging cross curricular projects does require administrative support. Teachers are time strapped and so it is not realistic to expect them to develop such materials on top of their normal workload.

Unfortunately curriculum guidelines such as ACARA, which separate the what from the how, do not help here. A good curriculum ought to have more flexibility about WHAT we teach (eg. design a project around an idea that interests the student). Then the teacher helps the student HOW to do that. In other words the HOW should be guiding the WHAT. But what does ACARA do? Tells the teachers the WHAT like Moses' stone tablets and leaves it to the teacher to figure out the HOW. (Thanks here to Mitch Resnick)

We think outside of the “STEM box”: We have seen students creating fascinating musical instruments, clothes, costumes, and visual arts projects, working with and augmenting traditional crafts, and creating interactive art. We have also seen teachers from non-STEM areas create very compelling units, combining history and math, biology and engineering, language arts and physics. Allowing teachers to “pair up” and design curricula together, even if they are from different areas, greatly expands the range of activities that can be done in the labs and makes it possible to attract students with a variety of different interests.

Project ideas and themes should be connected to students’ lives, interests, passions, and their communities. Lives, interests, passions, communities covers a lot of ground

From product culture to process culture:

Priming students helps their performance. eg. if students have been previously taught that triangles make stronger structures (and are reminded) then rather than using readily available objects to build bridges (eg, a chair) they are more likely to build with triangles.

A product culture sees a great finished product suitable for a Maker Faire as the end goal. A process culture looks at things like collaboration, management (eg. planning ahead) and preparedness to go outside of their comfort zone. It’s a different form of assessment.

THE MAKING OF THE FUTURE

Maker education has made significant inroads into many schools and even official curricular. For this progress to continue so that maker ed flourishes advocates such as myself need to understand the issue of what cultures are more attractive to most members of a school community.

Footnote: An extract from a previous article where I went a little overboard about humans as makers:

We, humans, are homo faber (Latin for Man the Maker), the concept that human beings are able to control their fate and their environment as a result of the use of tools.

- Thoughts on reading Paulo Blikstein (the founder of the Fab Learn Schools Movement)

I think now even in pre modern societies there was a division of labour (eg. hunters and gatherers) and that in our present youth culture, with the influence of social media, people are more likely to become consumers than makers. However, the modern maker movement does provide a promising way for many to break out of this.

student engagement is a variable

All teachers experience this but it is not always pointed out. We like to emphasise the positives. But the reality is that our well thought out programs don't always work for all students. This paper profiles three different types of students found in the Stanford Learning Fabrication Laboratory. The authors then make some recommendations of how to develop classroom environments which have a better chance of engaging all students.

Marcelo Worsley & Paulo Blikstein. Designing for Diversely Motivated Learners (2013). pdf available.

Based on the research of others the current authors develop a descriptive framework for levels of interest and commitment: ‘hanging out’, ‘messing around’ and ‘geeking out’

Jason
Geeking out

• interested in video games, programming and curious about science
• spends his lunchtime in the lab
• frustrated by structured tasks, wants to do own thing
• indifferent to peer connections

Delia
Messing around

• would start any description of her project with, “it’s complicated.”
• Extremely diligent, including HW – Powerpoint slides, Visual Basic, GoGo Board coding, questions to staff by email
• expected just in time help
• She needs structure
• High satisfaction when the project worked
• socially interactive across domains

Shawn
Hanging out

• Disruptive, disrespectful, inability to remain on task
• more interested in socialising than working
• Found he was better at Corel Draw than his peers
• a task of making a key chain for others appealed to & motivated Shawn & his group
• Their ambitious CREAM (Cash Rules Everything Around Me) project was abandoned as too hard

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHERS IN A FAB LEARN LAB ENVIRONMENT

1) Identify student interest & motivational level.
2) Develop a curriculum that has alternative, easier tasks for students with low interest or motivation, eg. hands on mini projects. Try to provide multiple entry and exit points with different levels of scaffolding. It's hard to do this first time you teach a new course but as you get to know all the possibilities better you can offer more options to students.
3) Additional interesting lab demos may spark interest for some who are not motivated

I would add another point here. Set up an expectation that students will either help others or ask for help.

FOOTNOTES
Marcelo Worsley bio

Not directly relevant to this article but when googling for a pic of the Stanford Learning Fabrication Laboratory I was blown away in discovering how many making classes and making spaces they have. Follow the links and you'll see what I mean.

turtle art tiles project

Do you want to make this? Looks interesting!

Pics from Turtle Art Tiles Project Guide

I’ve been in possession and an admirer of Josh Burker’s Invent to Learn Guide to Fun book for a while now. My interest was further piqued when Sylvia Martinez and Gary Stager made an online offer of a version of his “Turtle Art Tiles” Project. Then, recently, I was given the opportunity to teach a Year 8 “Inventiveness” class at my school. So, I thought this would be an ideal project for this class.

This project involves some significant transformations from bits to atoms: from Turtle Art, to Tinkercad to 3D prints and then to a painted clay product. I’ve previously had some experience in the first three but working with clay is something new for me.

First up, you make a design in Turtle Art. I didn’t copy either guide here but decided to make a well known tessellation that I had done before:

Through Turtle Art you can then save as an SVG and from there import it into Tinkercad. Once there I used the ruler to resize the shape to 90x90x7.5 mm. Then export the file from Tinkercad as an STL and import it into PrusaSlicer.

Next 3D print the shape and use the print to imprint the clay and, finally, paint the clay:

OK that’s one down and I can probably do better next time, especially with the clay and paint section.

I will now write in more detail about bringing this activity into my Year 8 "Inventiveness" class, which is due to start in a couple of weeks.

I can anticipate issues that will arise. It’s a large (22) mixed ability class. Some of the students will be enthused and eat it up, others will struggle with the complexity of it … coding, variables, file management, the transformations, messy clay and other technical / personal / attitudinal issues I can’t even imagine yet.

Economics: Currently my school is cash strapped. There is no shortage of computers or internet but for the clay steps to happen probably I will have to buy the materials myself. Partly because of that I’m thinking about alternative pathways. But I have other reasons too.

Bottlenecks: I’ll be taking my own Prusa 3D printers to school for students to use. I own 4, two MINI+’s and two MK3S+’s. But four is not enough given that 3D printers are slow. So, at this stage of the process I’ll need to create larger groups, perhaps size 4, and students will decide on which print will go ahead.

Pathways for all: This project is really interesting but I wouldn’t describe it as easy. It fits more into the “hard fun” category first described by Seymour Papert and further pursued by Burker et al. Also, Paulo Blickstein & Marcelo Worsley warn us that most children are not hackers and good teachers should provide alternative pathways, something to suit all. It’s good to challenge students to leave their comfort zone but if we make it too hard then some are likely to shut down. This leads on to the next points.

SOME BRANCHING ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Turtle Art Colouring in: The patterns can be coloured in at the Turtle Art stage using the start fill and end fill blocks. There is room for artistic expression here.

This colouring has been done by Turtle Art

Shape making: Barry Newell has written a lovely book called “Turtle Confusion” which contains 40 shapes that gradually increase in complexity. Shape 1 is a square. From shape 16 on the shapes become combinations of earlier shapes. This sheet provides different levels of complexity and in that way suits a mixed ability class. I’m in the process of developing a new sheet based partly on Barry’s 40 shapes and partly on some of the shapes shown in the picture above, taken from the Turtle Art Tiles Project Guide.

Shape 32 from Barry Newell's sheet is composed from lines, squares and an octogon.

My refactored Barry Newell sheet showing pathways between shapes

Group work: Students should sometimes work individually (eg. when learning Turtle Art initially), sometimes in groups of two (eg. when working on more complex shapes) and sometimes in larger groups (eg. when working with the 3D printer and clay).

Open Source: At some stage I should make the Turtle Art work that the more capable students have produced available to all. Otherwise some of the less capable students won’t end up with a good design to go to the next stage.

Paper and pencil work from 3D printed templates: Instead of the clay step some students might opt for a paper and coloured pencil alternative. That is, using a modified 3D print to trace the pattern onto paper and then creatively colouring it in. For those who choose this path it would be better if their 3D print had narrow walls, which are set at the Turtle Art step (default pensize is 4, reset to 1). So there needs to be planning ahead for this option.

Actually, this is an old one I did use cardboard templates (hexagon, square, triangle)

Necklace option: I could offer students the choice of making a 3D printed necklace, rather than a clay tile finished product. This is described in Josh’s “More Fun” book using Beetle Blocks software (pp. 86-88) but that could be adapted easily to Turtle Art software.

Here are 3 random sized outputs of a rotated heptagon necklace in the slicer and after printing.

All of this strikes me as a pretty reasonable outline for my Inventiveness class – motivating, multifaceted learning and a safety net for challenged students. In the process I’ve revisited some of my established skills and learnt some new ones too.

Reference:
Blickstein, Paulo and Worsley, Marcelo. Children Are Not Hackers (2016)
Burker, Josh Invent to Learn Guide to Fun (2015), pp. 107-113
Burker, Josh Invent to Learn Guide to MORE Fun (2018), pp. 86-88
Newell, Barry. Turtle Confusion (1988)
Stager, Gary & Martinez, Sylvia. Turtle Art Tiles Project Guide (adapted from the original Josh Burker article)

Software:
Turtle Art https://www.playfulinvention.com/webturtleart/
Tinkercad https://www.tinkercad.com/
PrusaSlicer https://help.prusa3d.com/article/download-prusaslicer_2220

an innovative 21stC maker ed pathway (part one)

PART ONE: HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

Part One paints a brief historical overview of the development of the new maker education over the past 50 years.

Maker Ed 21stC: Although making is older than the wheel, the 21st C version combines something old (making) with something relatively new, digital technology. This combination opens up a broad range of new fruitful educational pathways.

50 year history: This new version of education (Maker Ed) recently celebrated its 50th birthday with the publication of a new book edited by Gary Stager (20 Things to do with a Computer: Future Visions ...) with contributions from roughly 50 authors from multiple countries.

The founding initiators were Seymour Papert and Cynthia Solomon with their prescient 1972 article (see reference section). The ideas and practice are not new. But, as so often happens, due to declining costs of the technology, these ideas are now far more accessible. (Footnote: see Blikstein’s 5 reasons for this trend)

Bits and Atoms: Both software (then called logo) and hardware (the floor turtle) were there from the beginning. There has been a massive proliferation in both software and hardware since.

The original floor turtle (1969)

Coding: The original logo software has been through several iterations. The current most popular version is Scratch 3. The Scratch website kicked off in 2007. Today, with more than 43 million registered users, Scratch is now the world's largest creative coding community for children.

Block coding: Scratch has popularised block coding. Sadly, it seems that many teachers and education administrators still don’t understand the significance of block coding. Many still believe that coding is difficult and hence mainly for geeks. But the proven reality is that block coding makes it accessible to 99% of students. It is easy to build an engaging project in 10 minutes.

Year 7s can make the cat walk in 10 minutes

Microcontrollers: Although arduino has been around since 2005 the advent of the micro:bit (2014) and Circuit Playground Express (2017) marked a further advance due to the relative ease of block coding and controls on the board itself (buttons, touch, accelerometer). From early 2016, up to one million micro:bits were distributed to Year 7 students (or equivalent, aged 11-12), non-formal education settings and libraries across the UK in a project led by BBC Education

The micro:bit

Proliferation of block coding: In conjunction with the micro:bit Microsoft developed MakeCode, another block code variant.

Hardware: After the floor turtle, Seymour Papert then collaborated with the LEGO company to produce computer controlled robotics (LEGO TC Logo, 1985). Since then the floodgates have opened. There are so many computer controlled kits on the market now that it is hard to keep track and teacher’s do need guidance to evaluate the educational pros and cons: Makey Makey, Arduino, Little Bits, Ozobot, Micro:bit, Chibi Chip, Circuit Playground Express, Lilypad, Bee-Bot, Dash and Dot, Sphero, Edison, Drones – add or choose your favourite

By the way, with Scratch 3 a lot of hardware can be connected and controlled (Makey Makey, the micro:bit, LEGO Mindstorms EV3)

Fab Lab: Neil Gershenfeld (MIT) created a new course in 2003 called “How to Make Almost Anything” and found people queuing to take it. Since then Fab Labs have been growing exponentially around the world! Yes, exponentially! Fab stands for Fabrication or Fabulous, take your pick. The five machines found in a Fab Lab are the 3D printer, the laser cutter, CNC machine, Digital Embroidery machine and the Vinyl cutter. The ability to make almost anything potentially alters the relationship between consumers and producers.

A Fab Lab

Note that the most popular machine in a Fab Lab is not the 3D printer but the laser cutter, due partly to the quick production times

Maker Movement: The modern Maker Movement was created around 2005. The movement has a regular magazine (“Make”) and holds regular Maker Faires (“The Greatest Show-and-Tell on Earth”). In his chronology Dale Dougherty lists some of the many companies, websites and technologies that have grown up around this movement: Spark Fun, Arduino, Instructables, Adafruit, RepRap Darwin 3D printer, DIY Drones and many more.

Fab Learn Lab: Paulo Blikstein developed the Fab Learn Lab for schools (2008). A Fab Learn lab has the same machines as a Fab Lab but in the desktop variety. If schools value an activity then they build a space for it: Science labs, PE spaces, computer labs etc. A Fab Learn lab doesn’t have to have all the capabilities of a full Fab Lab, but needs to have enough to put students onto that pathway.

Part Two will focus on new courses that emerge from 21st C Maker Education environments.
Part Three will delve into the optimal teaching methodologies to deliver these programmes.


Footnote: According to Blikstein (2018), the interest in the creation, dissemination, and popularization of makerspaces can be attributed to five trends:

1. the greater social acceptance of ideas and principles of progressive education;
2. countries’ interest in establishing a base for an innovative economy;
3. the growth of public awareness, in addition to the popularity of computer programming combined with the creation and production of artifacts;
4. the sharp reduction in the cost of digital information and communication technologies (DICT), as well as digital fabrication technologies (DFT)
5. the development of tools that are more powerful and easier for students to use, along with studies and publications in academic research focused on the effect and impact of these new technologies on learning

REFERENCE
Blikstein, Paulo. Digital Fabrication and ‘Making’ in Education: The Democratization of Invention (2013)
Blikstein P. (2018). Maker Movement in Education: History and Prospects. In: de Vries M. (Ed.) Handbook of Technology Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Cham. Gershenfeld, Neil; Gershenfeld, Alan; Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld. Designing Reality: How to Survive and Thrive in the Third Digital Revolution (2017)
Dougherty, Dale. Free to Make: How the Maker Movement is Changing our Schools, Our Jobs, and our Minds (2016)
Make Magazine
Papert, Seymour. Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas. Harvester Press, 1980.
Papert, Seymour & Solomon, Cynthia. Twenty Things to do with a Computer (1972)
Stager, Gary (Editor). 20 Things to do with a Computer: Future Visions of Education Inspired by Seymour Papert & Cynthia Solomon's Seminal Work (2021)

Thoughts on reading Paulo Blikstein (the founder of the Fab Learn Schools Movement)

This article then is not a summary but thoughts arising from a 2013 article by Paulo Blikstein. First, a couple of starting assertions:

(1) We, humans, are homo faber (Latin for Man the Maker), the concept that human beings are able to control their fate and their environment as a result of the use of tools.

Making and the ability to make is a good thing. Although bad things can be made and most things can be used in a bad way, there is a general link between progress and making. I’m simply asserting this here as true. I have argued the case in the past (see reference) and am happy to continue the argument for those who want to argue.

It follows on from this (a corollary) that an enhanced ability for individuals or small groups to make can transform or at least complement commercial consumption. You may want to tweak the commercial design in a way that suits your needs, functional or aesthetic. You might think of a new design that hasn’t been produced yet. Or there may be local shortages or special needs or delays in a world ravaged by a pandemic.

(2) The other starting point is that new things replace or transform old things. We have known this for a while now. I grew up in a world without the internet or smart phones. They represent the first two digital revolutions: (i) Following Moore’s law computers shrank from house size to pocket size (ii) Internet revolutionised communication, cost and abundance of information and storage. Those revolutions continue. Most people want to jump onto those revolutions. They are overwhelmingly seen as a good thing.

The third digital revolution is the Fab Lab. This was developed by Neil Gershenfeld (from 2003) and then brought into schools by Paulo Blikstein (from 2008). Since then Fab Labs have been growing exponentially. Some might argue that this is a wrong reading of recent history and the future. There might be other legitimate candidates for the next digital revolution. Once again, argument is welcome.

So, why was the Fab Lab born? Because these things are desirables for self directed making:

• Design skills
• Powerful, multifunctional machines at reduced cost. There are 5 main types of machines involved: Vinyl cutter, 3D Printer, Digital Embroidery, Laser cutter and CNC machines
• Open source hardware and software

Blikstein’s article is worth reading for the discussion of the rocky path of the birth and evolution of Fab Labs in more detail.

SCHOOL or EDUCATIONAL ISSUES

If schools value an activity then they build a space for it: Science labs, PE spaces, computer labs etc. A Fab Learn lab doesn’t have to have all the capabilities of a full Fab Lab, but needs to have enough to put students onto that pathway. The space needs to be created. Then we can argue about the detail of what goes in there, what training is required etc.

Paulo Blikstein provides a theoretical base for this movement. He links Dewey (experiential learning) to Friere (cultural based learning) to Papert (constructionism). I’m well read in Papert but only know a little about Dewey and Friere. I plan to read another Blikstein article where he discusses Friere in more detail. See references.

Some good points made by Blikstein about the potential and dangers of introducing Fab Learn Labs to schools are summarised below. Read his article for much more detail.

Everyone has some experience in making. Hence, the Fab Learn approach augments existing skills and hence provides a solid starting point for nearly all students.

The new machines mean that to a large extent digital work replaces manual work in the making process. This creates opportunities to transform the “toys for boys” situation which prevails in most maker spaces.

You can make things with cardboard, true. The new machines mean you are making a more professional, durable, aesthetic and satisfying product

It is highly desirable that school curriculum be transformed (project based learning and a merging of subject domains) and that longer time slots be introduced to allow for completion of complex projects. Existing time slots (eg. 60 minute lessons) can be seen as more efficient but force the teacher to provide lots of scaffolding to get the job done. Learning new skills, some of them complex, properly always involves error correction and this takes more time.

The process of designing and making something you want to make provides a great boon for motivation and involvement. It also introduces the risk of despair when things go wrong. This does represent a transformation of a common school practice where things are sometimes (often?) dumbed down to a point where failure is rare.

In any school process there is always the danger of trivialisation. This can arise from both students and teachers, eg. Keep making keychains on the 3D printer rather than a more challenging task. The role of the teacher is to steer learners towards complexity.

Reference:
Digital Fabrication and ‘Making’ in Education: The Democratization of Invention (2013) by Paulo Blikstein

Travels in Troy with Friere: Technology as an agent in emancipation (2008) by Paulo Blikstein (I’ve promised myself to read that)

Meaningful Making Books 1 & 2 (free to download!)

Some old articles I wrote about technology and progress:
Technology and indigenous progress
Technology as Trickster, revisited