Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The History and Prospects of the Maker Movement in Education

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Technology Education

Part of the book series: Springer International Handbooks of Education ((SIHE))

Abstract

The maker movement in education has been a revolution in waiting for a century. It rests on conceptual and technological pillars that have been engendered in schools and research labs for decades, such as project-based learning, constructivism, and technological tools for “making things,” such as physical computing kits, programming languages for novices, and inexpensive digital fabrication equipment. This chapter reconstructs the history of the maker movement in education analyzing five societal trends that made it come to life and reach widespread acceptance: (1) greater social acceptance of the ideas and tenets of progressive education, (2) countries vying to have an innovation-based economy, (3) growth of the mindshare and popularity of coding and making, (4) sharp reduction in cost of digital fabrication and physical computing technologies, and (5) development of more powerful, easier-to-use tools for learners, and more rigorous academic research about learning in makerspaces. The chapter also explicates the differences and historical origins of diverse types of spaces, such as Hackerspaces, FabLabs, Makerspaces, and commercial facilities such as the Techshop, and discusses educationally sound design principles for these spaces and their tools. Finally, strategies for adoption in large educational systems are suggested, such as the inclusion in national standards and the local generation of maker curricula by schools.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrahamson, D., Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2007). Classroom model, model classroom: Computer-supported methodology for investigating collaborative-learning pedagogy. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Rutgers University, New Brunswick.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bean, J., & Rosner, D. (2014). Making: Movement or brand? Interactions, 21(1), 26–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, C. A. (1937). History of manual and industrial education, 1870 to 1917. Peoria: The Manual Arts Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blikstein, P. (2013a). Digital fabrication and “making” in education: The democratization of invention. In J. Walter-Herrmann & C. Büching (Eds.), FabLabs: Of machines, makers and inventors (pp. 203–221). Bielefeld: Transcript Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blikstein, P. (2013b). Multimodal learning analytics. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, Leuven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blikstein, P. (2015). Computationally enhanced toolkits for children: Historical review and a framework for future design. Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction, 9(1), 1–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blikstein, P., & Worsley, M. (2016). Children are not hackers: Building a culture of powerful ideas, deep learning, and equity in the Maker Movement. In K. Peppler, E. R. Halverson, & Y. Kafai (Eds.), Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environments (Vol. 1, pp. 64–79). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buechley, L. (2006). A construction kit for electronic textiles. Paper presented at the IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers (ISWC), Montreux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buechley, L. (2013). Plenary talk at FabLearn 2013. Paper presented at the FabLearn 2013, Stanford. http://edstream.stanford.edu/Video/Play/883b61dd951d4d3f90abeec65eead2911d

  • Buechley, L., & Eisenberg, M. (2008). The LilyPad Arduino: Toward wearable engineering for everyone. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 7(2), 12–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buechley, L., Eisenberg, M., Catchen, J., & Crockett, A. (2008). The LilyPad Arduino: using computational textiles to investigate engagement, aesthetics, and diversity in computer science education. CHI 2008 Proceedings. April 5–8, Florence, Italy, margaritabenitez.com/readings/lilypad.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, S., Dann, W., & Pausch, R. (2000). Alice: A 3-D tool for introductory programming concepts. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 15(5), 107–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1902). The child and curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, D. (2013). The maker mindset. In M. Honey & D. E. Kanter (Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 7–16). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, M. (2002). Output devices, computation, and the future of mathematical crafts. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7(1), 1–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freire, P. (1974). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freudenthal, H. (1973). Mathematics as an educational task. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fröbel, F., & Hailmann, W. N. (1901). The education of man. New York: D. Appleton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gershenfeld, N. (2007). Fab: The coming revolution on your desktop – from personal computers to personal fabrication. New York, NY: Basic Books (AZ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, E. (1995). How a cockpit remembers its speed. Cognitive Science, 19(3), 265–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Illich, I. (1970). Deschooling society. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 5(1), 4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom. Torrance: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikhak, B., Lyon, C., Gorton, T., Gershenfeld, N., McEnnis, C., & Taylor, J. (2002). Fab Lab: An alternative model of ICT for development.“development by design”(dyd02). Bangalore: ThinkCycle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montessori, M. (1965). Spontaneous activity in education. New York: Schocken Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemirovsky, R. (2011). Episodic feelings and transfer of learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 308–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For States, by States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/document/33/0,3343,en_32252351_32236191_37462369_1_1_1_1,00.html#HTO

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms : Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (2000). What’s the big idea: Towards a pedagogy of idea power. IBM Systems Journal, 39(3&4), 720–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peppler, K., & Bender, S. (2013). Maker movement spreads innovation one project at a time. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(3), 22–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peppler, K., Halverson, E. R., & Kafai, Y. (2016). Makeology: Makers as learners (Vol. 2). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perner-Wilson, H., Buechley, L., & Satomi, M. (2010). Handcrafting textile interfaces from a kit-of-no-parts. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction. New York: ACM, 61–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, M., & Siegel, D. (2013). A different approach to coding. Bright. Retrieved from https://medium.com/bright/a-different-approach-to-coding-d679b06d83a#.d45mbi757

  • Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., et al. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherin, B. L. (2001). A comparison of programming languages and algebraic notation as expressive languages for physics. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(1), 1–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 1(32), 5–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1991). Epistemological pluralism and revaluation of the concrete. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 161–192). Norwood: Ablex Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Glaserfeld, E. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gail (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 3–15). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky, U. (1999, updated 2006). NetLogo [computer software] (version 3.1). Evanston: Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling. Retrieved from http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo

  • Worsley, M., & Blikstein, P. (2013). Towards the development of multimodal action based assessment. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, Leuven, Belgium, 94–101.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This chapter was made possible through the generous support of the Google Making and Science program, and Stanford’s Lemann Center for Educational Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Brazil.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Education and (by courtesy) Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Paulo Blikstein

Authors
  1. Paulo Blikstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paulo Blikstein .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Delft University of Technology , Delft, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands

    Marc J. de Vries

Section Editor information

  1. Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheba, Israel

    Moshe Barak

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this entry

Cite this entry

Blikstein, P. (2017). The History and Prospects of the Maker Movement in Education. In: de Vries, M. (eds) Handbook of Technology Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38889-2_33-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38889-2_33-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-38889-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-38889-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation