Tech evolves continuously, Schools lag behind

I argue that the relevant metaphor to build a successful tech group these days is “low floor, high ceiling, wide walls and open windows”.

This approach, promoted by Mitch Resnick at MIT and Yasmin Kafai (source), led to the tremendous growth of Scratch, from 2007. In April 2024, the Scratch team announced that one billion projects had been developed. See Footnote(1) for more of this history and explanation of the house metaphor.

After thought: I ought to mention too, my favourite article about the design of construction kits, written by Mitch Resnick and Brian Silverman. I wrote a summary of this back in 2019, with a link to the original. Their point 5: Simplicity works; their point 7: You can achieve a lot with a little.

All the technology has continued to evolve rapidly. It becomes cheaper and more user friendly. This applies to coding tools, design tools and making tools. Many of the tools are Free or Open Source (FOSS) which reduces barriers to access and attracts communities.

The 21stC making tools which are not free (eg. 3D printers - although some companies such as Prusa do have Open Hardware; laser cutters and more) continue to reduce in cost. One aspect of this is that 21stC making becomes more accessible to a wider audience. This should mean that a tech group should have no problem growing. School students can be part of this since schools are notorious for not keeping up with new developments.

I argue for a beginner’s courses accessible to Middle School students which then lead into more advanced courses (aka mechatronics, making devices which integrate electrical and mechanical processes).

Coding: With block coding, eg. Scratch, MakeCode, students can make something interesting with the process being transparent within 10 minutes.

Design: With Tinkercad you can quickly make 3D objects. This can lead onto more advanced design tools later (eg. KiCAD, openSCAD, Fusion 360)

Making: You can begin with cardboard and then move onto LEGO, 3D prints and laser cuts to make interesting constructions readily. Free designs are available at thingiverse, Printables and other sites.

Micro-controllers: The microbit or Circuit Playground can control neopixels, servos and communicate with each other. They also have A and B control buttons on the board. This can lead onto more complex controllers such as arduino, bread boarding and circuit construction / printed circuit boards.

Microbit or Arduino? I argue for microbit usage in the middle school (years 5-9) and then move onto arduino in the senior school (years 10-12). Start with the low floor and move onto the high ceiling will engage more students. See Footnote 2 for three articles, microbit versus arduino, which support my viewpoint here.

It should be acknowledged that the arduino was a revolution which began in 2005. Open hardware, low cost and easier to use than what came before. The thesis which kicked off the arduino was titled, “Arduino–La rivoluzione dell’open hardware” (“Arduino – The Revolution of Open Hardware”). Reference

Similarly, the micro:bit was a revolution which began in 2015. The floor was lowered further given more users access to microcontrollers. Reference

Project based learning: Many diverse projects can be made where an interesting or inspirational idea can be designed, made and controlled. This builds skills and whets the appetite for more. Once this pattern is established more complex design, coding and making techniques can be further developed.

This is a well established international educational trend beginning with Seymour Papert 50 years ago. LEGO Mindstorms was named after his book, "Mindstorms", written in 1980. He initiated a learning theory called constructionism. The 21stC Maker Movement kicked off in a big way around 2005 when Neil Gershenfeld built the first FabLab at MIT and offered a course called “How to Make almost Anything”.

Some schools are coming on board in Australia (especially Privates) because there is a recognition that STEM or STEAM is both important and engaging. But it is also true that many schools are locked into an ACARA curriculum tick the box model and so fall well short of utilising the full potential of the 21stC Maker movement.

Some brief additional information about existing groups, international and local:

Constructing Modern Knowledge (CMK). Gary Stager has been actively promoting constructionist learning in Australian schools for decades. His group offers workshops and books.

FabLabs: The Fab Labs grew exponentially around the world after 2005. See the map.

Paulo Blikstein has promoted Fab Learn Labs, a school version of FabLabs. Search this blog for some summaries of his outstanding articles.

Whittlesea Tech School, Melbourne PolyTechnic STEAM engine offer a range of courses to surrounding schools in Melbourne

Tech Explorations: Peter Dalmaris, Australia offers advanced online courses. mmm ... even if you don't go lower floor (eg. with the microbit), you can still go wider walls, as illustrated by the diverse options on Peter's site.

Adelaide groups: I am just listing Adelaide tech groups I have become aware of over the past year. I am not attempting to publicly evaluate their success based on the broad criteria outlined in this article, at this stage:

Maker Space
TechSpace Learning
Hackerspace Adelaide
South Australia Micro Controller group (SAMG)
42 Adelaide
Computer Science Education Research Group at Adelaide Uni run online courses in computing fundamentals and lend out construction kits to schools.

Footnotes:

(1) This tests the memory. The Logo language, which preceded Scratch was popular at educational computing conferences in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The educational rationale back then was, in part, to provide a more interesting and engaging way to teach maths. However, when the www came along that popularity died. Living then in Adelaide, Australia, I knew only one other Logo enthusiast. However, I used to participate in the Usenet comp.lang.logo group. Description by Brian Harvey; archive. I remember it as being down the bottom in the usage statistics of all the Usenet groups. However, with the advent of Scratch, Logo was transformed into a multimedia, story telling fun machine. With the conversion to block code (low floor), diverse project multimedia features (wider walls) and remixing / online comments and Likes (open windows) the Scratch version of Logo flourished again.

(2) Three article which argue that the microbit is better for beginners but that to continue the path to mechatronics, you can do more with the arduino:

https://mp.moonpreneur.com/blog/microbit-vs-arduino/
Extract:

Both micro:bit and Arduino offer unique strengths and benefits for DIY electronics projects. Micro:bit excels in simplicity, accessibility, and educational applications. This makes micro:bit a good choice for beginners and educational settings. 

Conversely, Arduino provides versatility, expandability, and a robust community support system, making it ideal for more complex and ambitious projects.

https://www.instructables.com/Comparison-Between-Microbit-and-Arduino/
https://picobricks.com/blogs/info/microbit-vs-arduino

Fab as a new literacy

Literacy: From Writing to Fabbing (2012) by James Gee (extract, read the full essay here)

best quote, although there are many great ones: the word becomes flesh; the flesh becomes word

IMO a very elegant argument about how Fab is becoming a new, two way street, literacy. Design literacy for digital fabrication is every bit as fundamental as reading and writing. Yes, we have some way to go but we are on that path.

The Maker Movement opens up yet another set of design kits, another set of literacies, what we can call “maker literacies”. Maker literacies are not new. People have been making things like quilts and furniture at home of hundreds of years. What is new is the proliferation of making and the ways in which everyday people can compete with businesses, experts, and industry today thanks to digital media. The special part of the Maker Movement I want to concentrate on here is digital fabrication, what we can just call “Fab”. Fab is the newest literacy beyond digital literacies.

Fab is also a code that allows humans to produce and consume meanings interactively and to engage in joint activities. The code is a mapping from ideas (concepts) to real things via computational computer code.

Oral language refers to things in the world. Language is indexical in the sense that it points to or refers to things, but it cannot touch and handle them. Things always stay just out of reach. Digital literacies simulate things, virtual things that can be handled and transformed by the very code that produces them. But like language, digital media cannot touch and handle real things; it can just manipulate them on a screen.

Fab makes real things. It can handle and transform them. It has been argued that what constituted human intelligence in the beginning was our ability to think and plan in our heads deeply prior to acting . Digital media greatly enhanced this human trait. Such media allow us to think and plan on screens in forms that go far beyond the powers of unaided human thought.

Humans have always, of course, been able to make things. Indeed, some scholars have defined humans as tool makers and homo faber. But prior to Fab making was a one-way street. You could go from conception to construction, but not back again. Fab makes making a two-way street. We can now turn bits (digital code) into atoms (things) by “printing” the code and we can turn atoms into bits by reality capturing devices that digitize things and make them into digital code. “Printing” here means machines that can add or subtract material to make things on demand from digital code.

Language and digital media are complementary. Language is good at creating abstractions out of lived experience by finding and naming patterns in that experience. Writing takes abstraction to its furthest extent, especially in special symbol systems like mathematics. Digital media is good at creating new experiences or mimicking old ones. Digital media allow us to think through external images and simulations and not just through conceptual abstractions. One of the greatest powers of digital media is that it can allow people to have experiences that are hard for humans to have in the real world (or to have more than once), experiences that, nonetheless, words can refer to, such as being an electron or sky diving without a parachute. Digital media can, thus, greatly enhance the ability humans have to find and name patterns in experience, the basis of language and learning.

Think of Dungeons and Dragons played as a role playing game with paper and pencil. This is traditional literacy. Here players use words and other symbols (and the occasional plastic figures) to create images in their heads (imaginations) and in the other player’s heads. A video game (including a D&D game like Neverwinter Nights) involves players manipulating images on a screen, not in their heads. Imagination becomes externalized. One is not better than the other. They are complementary ways of thinking, learning, and problem solving.

Fab, our newest literacy, involves a code that maps from ideas to atoms (and back again) via bits. What you can design in a computer, you can order machines (“printers” and “extractors”) to make. What is in the world can be captured digitally (“reality capture”), put in a computer, re-designed, and “printed” back out into the world. The atoms can be materials, cells, or chemicals. Humans are on the verge of erasing the lines between the imaginary, the digital, and the “real” and moving effortlessly back and forth among them. Bits no longer need to create just virtual things; they can now create real ones. In turn, real thing can now easily become virtual ones.

The day may come where we can “print” an organ like a liver or even (the initial cellular plan for) a living thing like a dog. As of now we can print skin, cells, cakes, and houses. Fab is not indexical. It doesn’t point to things. It is not a simulation. It does not make just virtual things. Fab is material. It makes and manipulates matter. Fab trades not in concepts or simulations alone but in physical things as well. It is the “word become flesh”, formerly the domain of magic and religion. The ideas in our minds and the images on our screens can now be born in the world and the world can enter our minds and computers to be re-born as something new. A whole new material form of thought and planning opens up for humans.

Fab is a set of design kits to make things into bits and bits into things. It creates an entirely new way of writing and reading the world. Fab will proliferate into different literacies, different ways of producing and consuming meaning for different functions, accompanied by new registers of oral language. Fab is a cultural invention like literacy. It will without doubt create social gaps and inequalities if we let it.

Fab is a form of literacy where production (“writing”) is the main form. It finally reverses the polarity of traditional literacy and digital literacy, where consuming (“reading”) proliferates, but production (“writing”) does not, creating priests and laity. To be literate in Fab you must be a maker or at least know how a digital object will translate into a real one (and vice versa). It is as if we had demanded that to be literate in writing you had to be a writer and not just a reader, to be literate in digital game literacy, you had to be a designer and not just a player. In fact, a culture of Fab could lead to just such demands.

Just as writing made new demands on and demanded new skills in oral language, and digital lieracy made new demands on and demanded new skills in both oral language and written language, Fab makes new demands on and demands new skills in oral language, in literacy, and digital literacy. The ecology of oral language, of writing, and of digital literacy—and their various combinations and integrations—will change. Language, literacy, and digital literacy will become yet more complicated. The social gaps in each will compound, along with whatever gaps Fab literacy creates unless we will it otherwise.

Fab could create a world with yet deeper inequalities than we currently have, a world where only a few engage in the alchemy of turning ideas into bits into atoms and back again. The rest will live in a world where the stuff of life and the world--objects, cells, materials—are owned and operated by only a few. Fab is a new literacy and we have as yet no real idea how it will work out. But it is a special and, in some sense, final one. For centuries, since Shakespeare at least, being modern has meant to fashion oneself and writing has played a massive role in this process. Now being modern will mean to fashion ones world as the stage on which one plays and lives

Each new literacy ups the ante on ethical questions beyond issues of inequality. Words can hurt and harm, we know. Writing can greatly spread that harm. Digital media can spread it yet faster and further. But Fab can literally remake the world we live in, exhausting it or expanding it, destroying it or renewing it. Fab can make and remake the very stage on which we humans act for good and ill.

How many of us will get to be homo faber? Humans have always been the ultimate took makers. Soon the tools for world making will be cheap enough to be in the hands of everyone, should we want to make that happen. Will we, as a species, make a better world or a worse one when some or many or all of us become god-like creators, calling worlds into being?

Fab Labs haven't been growing exponentially

The Gershenfelds make the claim that Fab Labs are growing exponentially every 18 months in their 2017 book, Designing Reality (p 11 and pp 100-102) and follow up articles (Digital Fabrication and the Future of Work, 2018)

They actually claim that this new growth is a continuation of Moore’s Law and this fuels their “third digital revolution” rhetoric (book, p.102)

I wish this was true but it’s not.

This rose coloured glasses rhetoric has puzzled me. There remain significant barriers to setting up and maintaining a Fab Lab. The Gershenfelds point out themselves that training Fab Academy alumni to the daunting skill level required follows linear growth.

Here are the figures from their 2018 article:

In this article they speculate that there will be 25,000 Fab Labs by 2026

The Gershenfelds then predict that Fab Lab growth will level off because by 2026 the machines will be so cheap and improved that personal fabrication will replace Fab Labs

The 25,000 Fab Labs prediction corresponds very roughly to 4 doublings over the 10 year period, 2016-2026, ie a doubling every 2.5 years, not 18 months:

(1,300 2,600 5,200 10,400 20,800
or 1300 * 2^4 = 20,800

However, if we go to the Fab Foundation home page, the figure cited there for the number of Fab Labs currently in the world (December 2024) is 2300 +

So the doubling time since 2016 has been 8 years, not 18 months or 2.5 years! Also, as I pointed out in my earlier article, fab transformation hurdles, Fab Lab / Maker Space growth in Australia has stalled

There are plenty of reasons identified in the Gershenfelds book about why Fab Labs haven’t continued to grow exponentially. I think their book contains plenty of realism as well as hype.

But they still maintain their highly optimistic exponential growth rhetoric about digital fabrication. The most recent writing I have found by the three brothers is in 2021 on the "Centre for Bits and Atoms" site, where they say:

Digital fabrication today is at approximately the same stage that digital computation was in the early 1980s, when personal computers gave millions of people access to a capability that had previously been limited to large organizations. PCs were to be followed two decades later by billions of mobile devices and trillions of connected things.

Today we have thousands of fab labs, with the potential for making millions of personal fabricators — small-scale fabrication systems for individual use — and a research road map leading to a future with billions of universal assemblers, and then trillions of self-assembling systems in future decades. As with the exponential improvements of the earlier digital technologies, each of these stages of development promises to be faster, better, and cheaper.
- The Promise of Self-Sufficient Production

In all our arguments and discussions we need to avoid the hype cycle rhetoric.

Nevertheless, community Fab Labs and school based Fab Learn Labs are still great things with enormous potential IMHO. I have outlined some of the reasons why in my earlier article fab transformation hurdles

As the authors say in their original book digital fabrication is both hard and rewarding. This quote sums it up:

"Digital fabrication is hard. It introduces a set of new competencies, including the navigation of continually evolving CAD and CAM software as well as additive and subtractive hardware, embedded computing, and an understanding of the biological and chemical properties of the materials used in fabrication. It also requires design thinking, creativity, collaboration, problem solving and resiliency. These all require knowledge, skills and mindsets that cross very different disciplines and domains and, as a result, are not currently well integrated. We define fab literacy as the social and technical competencies necessary for leveraging digital fabrication technologies to accomplish personally and professional meaningful goals, as well as a commitment to the responsible use of the technologies. We cannot build towards a more self sufficient, interconnected, and sustainable society without widespread fab literacy." (p. 64)

Update 26/12/24:

I sent this to Neil Gershenfeld and he was good enough to respond, as follows:

But at FAB24:

https://fab24.fabevent.org/

I spoke about two reasons why counting labs was no longer relevant:

• With the proliferation of mini-labs, superlabs, biolabs, fab hubs, ..., a single number no longer applies
• What matters at this stage is counting the impacts of the programs that have matured -- student outcomes, fab city metrics, businesses incubated, ...

fab transformation hurdles

Background reading: Designing Reality: How to Survive and Thrive in the Third Digital Revolution by Neil Gershenfeld, Alan Gershenfeld and Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld.

Some write their stories in words. Some write their stories in code; some with materials; some with machines. My current story is a wobbly exploration through all these media to understand the Fab Lab.

Neil Gershenfeld has articulated his Fab Lab vision now for 2 decades: “How to make (almost) anything”. After a brief revisit of what a Fab Lab is this article outlines some of the hurdles that have to be overcome to achieve that vision.

The Gershenfeld interview with Lex Fridman was fascinating IMO

Digital computation has led to the smart phone. Digital communication has led to the Internet. These first two digital revolutions have created new jobs and transformed traditional jobs. Will digital fabrication continue this trend. Is it correct to claim, as the Gershenfelds do, that digital fabrication is the third digital revolution? See Footnote.

What is a fab lab? Digital fabrication is often misunderstood in that people think of it as being just 3D printing. It actually involves a wide range of additive and subtractive technologies, as well as computer-aided design and embedded electronics

The five types of machines found in a conventional fab lab are:

• Vinyl cutter
• Laser cutter
• 3D printer
• CNC machines
• Digital Embroidery machines

The MIT course that Neil Gershenfeld initiated in 2003 named “How to make (almost) anything” was a huge hit which led to the creation of Fab Labs around the world. An inspirational slogan!

What sort of things can we make? Well in theory the list goes food, furniture, and crafts to computers, houses, and cars.

What is the overall goal here? The short term killer app is personal fabrication, the ability to make or modify what you can't or can buy in a store. Personal fabrication can take many forms since it depends on each person. My 3D printed personal favourite so far is the Sierpinski Pyramid Lamp.

One possible social goal is to transform consumers into producers. The Gershenfelds approve the Blair Evans vision:

A potential vision for this new blend is represented in the inspiring work of Blair Evans, an accomplished automo­tive engineer and educational leader who is now developing a local ecosystem of fab labs in an economically distressed part of Detroit. His vision is about what he calls “thirds”— building out the digital fabrication capability to the point that people might spend one-third of their time in paid labor to buy what they can’t make, one-third of their time using digital fabrication facilities to make what they can (with a focus on furniture, housing, aquaponic food pro­duction, and other practical things), and one-third of their time to follow their passions in whatever way they choose
- Digital Fabrication and the Future of Work

However, in practice, what you can presently make depends on whether your local Fab Lab has million dollar machines or thousand dollar machines. In practice many fab labs can make very cool small things (eg. an articulated dragon on a 3D printer) but are not making big things. To make the bigger things you would need the big machines, like a CNC milling machine. Yes, the price will drop and access will improve over time. But for now it depends on where you live.

Not every Fab Lab or project ends in success. Neil’s brothers, Alan and Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld sometimes play the devils advocate in their book. When things don’t turn out the inspirational slogan “How to make (almost) anything” transforms into “How to (almost) make anything”

A case in point. I tried for 3 years to initiate a Fab Lab in Alice Springs. See my 2021 article Your town needs a community Fab Lab

I lobbied government, industry leaders, education leaders and citizens there. But to no avail. My calls were sometimes not returned and in the instances where interest was initially shown it never led anywhere significant.

I did have more success in introducing new innovative subjects and 3D printer technology at the school where I taught. The admin could see the need for a more engaging STEM or STEAM curriculum. But at no stage was I offered the opportunity to explain Neil Gershenfeld’s full Bits to Atoms vision. It felt like being at a banquet but only allowed to eat the grapes.

My failure to kick start a community Fab Lab in Alice Springs could be put down to my poor persuasive powers. However, it might also have been due to deficiencies of the local ecosystem, a troubled town of 25,000 people, to nurture innovation. Neil Gershenfeld points out that MIT isn’t an isolated technology park but is embedded in an ecosystem or environment “that mixes long-term research, short-term development, small start-ups and large corporation, along with cafes, clubs and parks” (p.49)

Furthermore, I notice that Fab Labs are not growing exponentially in Australia, unlike some other countries. On the contrary, if you look at the map some Australian Fab Labs have become inactive (Perth, Ballarat, Sydney). As the two sometimes critical brothers point out, “Digital Fabrication is hard” (p.64)

So, in this article, I want to discuss the hurdles as well as the tremendous potential of setting up a Fab Lab. In 2024, I moved back to Adelaide so will reference the Maker Spaces here.

A Fab Lab needs machines, software, spaces and people who understand (mentors, volunteers)

Space is a huge issue. There are two maker spaces in Adelaide. The Adelaide Maker Space has a huge space in the basement of the WEA Building. The Parks Library Maker Space is part of the library system and has only a smallish room, which does restrict things.

Machines: I listed the 5 types of machines above. An important issue here is enough commonality to allow for interoperability between different Labs around the world. From my reading the most popular machine is the laser cutter. The problem with 3D printers is that they are slow. I noted with interest that Neil Gershenfeld’s favourite machine is the CNC miller. The Fab Foundation site has a page where they specify how to get started and their ideal Fab Lab. For those interested in starting or understanding a Fab Lab there are lots of important details on that page.

Software: Free and Open Source Softwar (FOSS, eg. Inkscape for 2D vector graphics design) lowers the barrier to interoperability but this is not always possible. I’ve noticed some comments in the book (eg. from Nadya Peek, p. 73) about the need to improve CAD / CAM software to make it more intuitive for users

Network effects aka Metcalfes law: the value of a computer connected to the Internet is proportional to the square of the number of computers in the network.

When the digital fabrication hardware and software is interoperable across locations, it enables network effects, greatly accelerating the innovation in a way that is not possible with analog fabrication. I'm wondering if the Maker Spaces in Adelaide could exploit this more. For example, one thing that has surprised me is that although it is very easy to find free 3D print designs online (thingiverse etc.) it is not easy to find laser cut designs. If this global sharing of designs which is embedded in the Fab Lab charter is a reality then why are laser cut designs hard to find?

In this sense digital fabrication is revolutionary but only when linked to the earlier digital revolutions of computation and communication. I have a sense that the Australian Fab Labs are operating too much in isolation from each other and the world global movement.

People: The Adelaide maker space in the WEA basement is staffed entirely by volunteers. This surprised me but it seems to be working. There are induction sessions to get started on particular machines, projects or rooms. There isn’t a formal ongoing mentoring system. If people are stuck then they can ask a volunteer for help. This often works but not always. eg. I had a problem where the laser cutter simply stalled at the start which neither I nor the volunteer could solve.

The Parks library is staffed by a couple of paid workers who are expert makers. They have an induction system and you can make appointments if you need to skill up in a particular area.

Community: I spoke above about killer apps and how I made a Sierpinski Pyramid Lamp. Another way to look at this is about "must haves". What "must haves" do Fab Labs offer? The Blair vision of making one third of your consumables in a Fab Lab may be achievable in the futue but not in the present. The Gershenfelds argue a strong point here: that one of the "must haves" is the sense of community attained through the meeting and making process (p. 77 and 81)

Fab literacy and the Fab Academy: Given that expert people are the main limiting factor for Fab Lab expansion the Fab Academy runs a 24 week course to train people. I’ve had a look at this course and find it quite daunting. There are only two places in Australia where you can complete this course:

• Lake Macquarie's Fab Academy
• Core Electronics

Course details (look here to understand why I find it daunting):

• Program details
• Assignments and Assessment
• Tutorials

Neil Gershenfeld calls this a distributed learning model (a hybrid between F2F and online learning, since part of the learning is done socially at a FabLab). Online MOOCs are notorious for their high drop out rates so it’s an improvement on that model.

Money: Sherry Lassiter from the Fab Foundation estimates that the average budget for launching a community fab lab and running it for 2 years is $250,000. (p. 76)

The Adelaide maker space has various sponsors, scroll down to the bottom of their home page. They have membership fees and fees for visits, inductions and workshops for those who aren’t members.

Neil Gershenfeld has some interesting discussion about who pays on page 42 of the book. He says that selling things made in the lab doesn't work partly because Fab Labs are not setup to make things at scale. He goes on to point out that enlightened government can utilise Fab Labs to help disadvantaged youth stay out of trouble, that is a better option than what happened in Alice Springs (lock 'em up and get more police).

Philosophy: The how, what and why all need to be addressed. "How to make (almost) anything" implies that users have open slather on the what. But in practice that depends on their expertise. Learning works best when the users make something that is personally or socially meaningful, the why. The how is mastery of all the hardware and software which is a big task. But to focus only on that would be a mistake.

Conclusions:

1. How to make many interesting things is not as inspirational as How to make (almost) anything but is more realistic at this stage
2. Third digital revolution and turning consumers into producers are probably over hyping the case
3. Fab Labs / Maker Spaces can have many great outcomes: rapid prototyping, training ground in useful skills for all and joyful community development for starters
4. The future is bright since the technology will continue to improve, become more user friendly and cheaper
5. Australian Fab Labs / Maker Spaces need to tap more into the global movement by sharing their designs (open source philosophy)

FOOTNOTES:

I tend to agree with this amazon reviewer that all the Gershenfelds are wearing rose coloured glasses with their "third digital revolution" rhetoric. Note, however, that in a 2018 article they said that exponential growth of Fab Labs would die out by 2025:

If you want to be proselytized about fab labs, this is the book for you. A key premise is that an analogy of Moore's law will (or should?) apply to digital fabrication. This is based on a few years of doubling of the number of fab labs out there. Moore's original paper was based on 10 years of data but the trend there has continued for 50 years. If that holds for fabbing, yeah, it'll change the world bigtime. But the case has yet to be made. I liked that the Gershenfeld brothers wrote different chapters of the book, with quite different life experiences they bring different perspectives. But it's all based on that exponential premise, one that I'm quite skeptical about. The last of Neil's chapters envisions how fabbing might eventually get to assembling very tiny parts so you could really make anything, but this is almost laughably sketchy and technically infeasible. There's something called chemistry that Neil doesn't seem to be paying attention to. Still, fabbing is a fascinating new technology with lots of possibilities and this book will give you a good feel for how it's affecting some people's lives. There are some good stories mixed in with the questionable extrapolation of trends.

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)

the 3 game changers: high level overview of the possibilities

The 3 game changers are: (i) block coding (ii) physical computing with microcontrollers such as the microbit (iii) Fabrication Labs, called Fab Labs if community based and Fab Learn Labs if school based.

The 5 types of machines found in a Fab Lab are laser cutter, 3D printer, vinyl cutter, CNC milling and digital embroidery machines.

Here are some possible outcomes that I am seeking support to create. They can be framed as community initiative or school based initiative. The educational and community goals overlap and reinforce each other. They are synergistic.

1) Campaign for an Alice Community Fab Lab (open to the community). This would be great for Alice Springs but also for your town / city where ever it is
The Fab Foundation
Welcome | FabLabs

2) School based Fab Learn Lab (same sorts of machines but desktop variety and school based)
FabLearn Digital Fabrication in Education

FabLearn Labs are a growing network of educational digital fabrication spaces around the world. These labs, developed in collaboration with K12 schools and university partners internationally, put digital fabrication and other cutting-edge technology for design and construction into the hands of middle and high school students.
- source

3) Introduce new subjects at primary, secondary and tertiary level into the existing curriculum based on the

• 3 game changers (block coding, physical computing with microcontrollers, Fab Lab, and
• 5 types of machines: laser cutter, 3D printer, vinyl cutter, CNC milling, digital embroidery)

I have provided a list of possible new subjects, many of which have already been well developed. My list will grow further as I deepen my knowledge about the third game changer.

4) A Fab Lab or Fab Learn lab can be introduced incrementally machine by machine spelling out how they meet local needs.
Eg. The Fab Lab in India, Vigyan Ashram grew out of and was synergistic with local work performed earlier by Yogesh Kulkarni

5) Significant structural curriculum reform in schools. Everyone knows there has been a computer revolution but many schools, in fact most schools, have yet to figure out how this revolution can enhance student learning in amazing ways. We have been procrastinating for 50 years now. The Constructing Modern Knowledge group has been leading the way here, see CMK Press – Invent To Learn. Interestingly, I recently discovered that Kurt Seemanns one of the founders of the Centre for Appropriate Technology in Alice Springs has been promoting similar ideas for a long time, which he calls Technacy.

Related: Your town needs a community Fab Lab

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

your town needs a community Fab Lab

My town being Alice Springs

1) What is a Fab Lab?

A Fab Lab is a place where it becomes possible to make (almost) anything. Due to falling costs what was previously done by big corporations is now becoming accessible to everyone. The Fab Lab Charter insists that they are open to the whole community.

Here are the types of machines found in a fab lab:

• Vinyl cutter
• Laser cutter
• 3D printer
• CNC machines
• Digital Embroidery machines

The killer app is personal fabrication, the ability to make what you can't buy in a store

Fab labs communicate with other fab labs around the world. Design can be local with global help. The making is local.

Fab Labs have been growing exponentially around the world since the first one was developed by Neil Gershenfeld in 2005. There are now roughly 2000 fab labs in the world, 6 in Australia and none in the Northern Territory.

The cost of a fully equipped Fab Lab is roughly $100,000 plus a technician & manager's wages

2) How would a Fab Lab benefit Your Town?

It would be a hub for Learning (exchanging ideas and skills), Training, Innovation, Design and Manufacture. This is a combination of things that are sometimes difficult to achieve but also highly engaging. Engagement breeds motivation. It requires informed leadership and planning for it to work. But the experience world wide shows that it is doable.

Here are some of the possibilities:

• Produce meaningful things for personal use. Sale is also possible.
• Recycling “junk”into useful products
• Tap into the 21st C learning pathways being developed by future thinking schools (block coding, microcontrollers and digital fabrication)
• Help to put disadvantaged youth onto a meaningful path

One of the many implications of COVID is the need for manufacturers to become less dependent on long supply chains spread over the globe. The Fab Lab succeeds brilliantly here with its emphasis on its ability to make almost anything locally. Fab Labs have helped manufacture essential equipment during the COVID crisis.

More can be written about how anyone can buy into the Fab education process, with the Fab Lab being an endpoint.

3) Some other selected information of interest

Location of Fab Labs in Australia: Melbourne, Ballarat, Adelaide, Sydney, Perth and Brisbane (source)

In 2014 the Mayor of Barcelona pushed a button to start a 40 year countdown to urban self sufficiency. The aim is that the city can produce what it consumes. This is an illustration of the Fab City movement.

Fab Labs have been utlised to help at risk youth eg. South End Technology Centre, Boston; Incite Focus, Detroit, USA

Following on from the success of the Fab Lab movement the FabLearn movement was launched in schools by Paulo Blikstein in 2008

Neil Gershenfeld describes Fab Labs as the 3rd digital revolution, the first two being (1) Computation: the power of computers becoming available to all whether in the form of PC or smart phones and (2) Communication through the Internet. He provides the stats to show that Fab Labs are growing exponentially from 2005 until now.

Note the interconnections between the three digital revolutions here: (1) Computation (2) Communication (3) Fabrication.

The Fab Foundation site has a detailed spreadsheet showing the equipment and costs of setting up

Computing tends to be dominated by boys. The Fab Lab machines shifts the tradition tech environment more towards software design skills. Moreover, curriculum can be orientated to encourage girls, eg. Digital wearables.

Mobile Fab Labs have been used to extend the hands on learning and capacities of a stationary Fab Lab to a larger audience of users. (more information)

REFERENCE
Fab Foundation
Fab Labs
FabLearn
Gershenfeld, Neil; Gershenfeld, Alan; Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld. Designing Reality: How to Survive and Thrive in the Third Digital Revolution (2017)
REFERENCE UPDATE (23/4/23)
MIT Professor Neil Gershenfeld on How to Make Anything (Almost). (video, 28 minutes, 2023)
Gershenfelds. The Promise of Self Sufficient Production (2021)
Coronavirus tracking project for fab lab network development and deployment
Gershenfelds. Soon You’ll Be Able to Make Anything. It’ll Change Politics Forever (2018)