Exploring the Implementation Pathways of Maker Education in China

This article is an exclusive manuscript for Modern Educational Technology magazine and cannot be reproduced without authorization. For usage, please submit an application to the WeChat account “Modern Educational Technology Magazine”.

Statement

Based on educational technology, promote academic research, facilitate work exchanges, and serve industry development.

Abstract

The global maker movement has significantly impacted education, providing opportunities for innovative transformation in education. This article clarifies the connotation and philosophy of maker education, as well as its connections and differences with STEM education and innovation education, through an analysis of makers, the maker movement, and maker education. Based on the analysis of the connotation, philosophy, and practice of maker education, the article constructs an implementation framework for maker education in China from specific practical aspects such as maker spaces, maker teachers, maker courses, and open-source hardware and software technologies, as well as planning aspects such as the development planning of maker education and the evaluation system of maker education, and points out the specific implementation paths for maker education in China to promote its better development.

1. From Maker Movement to Maker Education

The development of 3D printing technology, open-source hardware, and various digital desktop tools has greatly promoted the development of the maker movement. The collision between the maker movement and education has given rise to maker education, which is triggering a new educational revolution, changing traditional educational methods and providing opportunities for innovative transformation in education. The “New Media Consortium 2015 Horizon Report: Higher Education Edition” points out that within the next 1-5 years, self-owned devices, flipped classrooms, maker spaces, wearable technology, adaptive learning technology, and Internet of Things technology will have a significant impact on higher education, with maker spaces for maker education being a technology that can be adopted in the next 2-3 years [1].

The maker movement originated from the Fab Lab (personal manufacturing laboratory) initiated by MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms, with the core philosophy of personal creativity, personal design, and personal manufacturing. The emergence of open-source hardware platforms like Arduino has lowered the threshold for invention and creation, and the emergence of various open-source communities for sharing and exchanging online has further promoted the rise of the maker movement. The maker movement refers to an increasing number of people beginning to create novel items in their daily lives and sharing the process and products of their creations through various online and offline forums. Chris Anderson [2] points out that the maker movement has three basic characteristics: people design new products using digital desktop tools and create model prototypes, sharing design results and collaborating in open-source communities has become a cultural norm, and using common design standards to promote sharing and rapid iteration of products.

The maker movement first occurred in higher education and has since been widely developed in primary and secondary schools. The proposal of maker education began with the development of the maker movement, aiming to reshape education through maker philosophy, emphasizing turning creative ideas into tangible works through hands-on operations, and focusing on learning during the process of creation.

2. Maker Education:

A New Type of Innovation Education Supported by Technology

1. The Connotation and Philosophy of Maker Education

Regarding “what is maker education,” there is currently no clear answer in China. For example, Zhu Zhiting et al. [3] believe that maker education is based on the integration of information technology, inheriting the thoughts of experiential education, project-based learning, innovation education, and DIY concepts; Zheng Yanlin et al. [4] point out that maker education advocates “learning based on creation,” emphasizing that learners immerse themselves in creative situations and engage in the creative process; Yang Xianmin et al. [5] believe that maker education is a new educational model that integrates information technology, adhering to the educational philosophy of “open innovation, inquiry experience,” with “learning through creation” as the main learning method and aims to cultivate various innovative talents. This study believes that maker education is a new type of education supported by information technology, emphasizing that learners learn during the process of creation, aiming to cultivate learners’ innovative awareness, innovative thinking, and innovative ability, thereby achieving innovative education.

The most important philosophy of maker education is the “learning by doing” proposed by pragmatist philosopher Dewey. Dewey believes that the knowledge people initially and most firmly retain is knowledge about how to do things; thus, the teaching process is the process of doing. “Learning by doing” means learning from activities and experiences, linking the acquisition of knowledge in school with activities in life. Another important philosophy of maker education is DIY (Do It Yourself). DIY refers to the process of designing, manufacturing, or creating things oneself, emphasizing self-experience, self-challenge, pursuing individuality, and enjoying happiness. In addition, the philosophy of maker education also encompasses problem-solving, project-based teaching, task-based teaching, and participatory teaching concepts.

2. Maker Education and STEM Education, Innovation Education

(1) Maker Education and STEM Education

STEM education focuses on knowledge and abilities related to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, emphasizing the improvement of students’ STEM literacy [6]. The establishment of STEM is based on the integration of different subjects, forming a whole from originally scattered subjects, thus belonging to the category of meta-disciplines. In STEM education, engineering education is a weak point, while maker education can fill this gap— the integration of maker education and STEM education makes information technology classes no longer limited to the use of operating systems and multimedia software, introducing technologies such as APPInventor, Scratch, robotics, and 3D printing into primary and secondary school classrooms. More and more primary and secondary school students, guided and inspired by teachers, are creating innovative works through brainstorming and hands-on activities [7]. It can be said that maker education provides a new effective way for the development of STEM education, optimizing the original STEM education; STEM education, in turn, provides a knowledge and capability foundation for cultivating innovative talents.

(2) Maker Education and Innovation Education

Innovation determines the comprehensive strength and competitiveness of a country and a nation, and innovation education plays an important role in cultivating students’ innovative abilities. Zhu Yongxin et al. [8] point out that innovation education is based on innovation principles, aiming to cultivate students’ innovative awareness, innovative thinking, innovative abilities, and innovative personalities. Maker education provides a practical pathway for implementing innovation education, with the ultimate goal of achieving innovation education. Innovation education is a complex system project that requires various educational forms to work together— in addition to maker education and STEM education, quality education, traditional cultural education, etc., are also important forms to promote innovation education.

3. Implementation Pathways of Maker Education in China

The term “maker education” was first proposed by Teacher Wu Junjie from Beijing Jingshan School, who believes that “conducting maker education in primary and secondary schools should become an educational action strongly promoted by the government,” which has attracted the attention of domestic peers to maker education [9]. Subsequently, some universities, primary and secondary schools, and social organizations in China began to create maker spaces and promote the development of maker education through various forms such as hosting maker competitions, maker carnivals, and maker education seminars.

This study constructs the implementation framework for maker education in China based on the analysis of the connotation, philosophy, and practice of maker education, from specific practical aspects such as maker spaces, maker teachers, maker courses, and open-source hardware and software technologies, as well as planning aspects such as the development planning of maker education and the evaluation system of maker education, as shown in Figure 1. Specifically, China needs to promote the implementation of maker education under the guidance of project-driven and multi-party support policies, adhering to the concepts of openness, sharing, cooperation, and communication, from the creation of maker spaces, development of maker courses, training of maker teachers, application of new technologies such as open-source hardware and software, formulation of maker education development planning, and construction of maker education evaluation systems.

1. Create Maker Spaces to Provide Practical Locations for Maker Education

Maker spaces provide practical locations for the implementation of maker education, allowing makers to use tools such as 3D printers and laser cutters to realize their ideas and creativity. In other words, maker spaces are open laboratories with processing workshop and studio functions, where makers can share resources and knowledge to realize their ideas [10]. Initially, the understanding of maker spaces only included physical spaces; however, with further research, Luo Liang et al. [11] constructed version 2.0 of maker spaces based on the O2O framework. Therefore, maker spaces not only encompass physical spaces for activities, open laboratories for communication, studios, and machining rooms but also include online virtual spaces— makers can discuss, communicate, and share experiences in virtual spaces, which provide various support services for makers.

Depending on their functions and positioning, maker spaces can be categorized into original DIY enthusiast gathering places “Hackerspace,” innovative 2.0 model maker spaces “Fab-Lab,” profit-oriented spaces “TechShop,” and places where everyone can design and work “MakerSpace,” among others. Different types of maker spaces serve different purposes; some are groups formed based on interests, while others are community maker spaces, school maker spaces, etc. These maker spaces provide important practical locations for the implementation of maker education. To maintain and operate maker spaces, corresponding financial support is necessary. Currently, most school maker spaces in China rely on self-funding and corporate sponsorship. To provide references for the construction of school maker spaces in China, this study summarizes the profit models of other types of maker spaces, as shown in Table 1.

2. Train Maker Teachers to Provide Staffing Assurance for Maker Education

With the vigorous development of the maker movement across the country, various types of maker spaces have sprung up like mushrooms after rain. However, the development of maker spaces has not been satisfactory; frontline teachers have reported that although their schools have established maker spaces, there are no makers or maker teachers. Faced with such an awkward situation, school leaders need to consider their own staffing conditions while building maker spaces, rather than just building for the sake of building— if maker spaces are built without makers and maker teachers, then the implementation of maker education cannot be discussed.

In maker education, maker teachers are not only knowledge transmitters but also guides who organize students to engage in learning centered on maker projects and activities. Foreign scholars such as Bailey et al. [12] have found through interviews with online teaching teachers and related experimental research that in effective teaching, teachers must possess the following abilities: establishing teacher-student relationships, participating in activities, providing timely feedback, communicating and interacting, navigating and organizing, using technology, adaptability, and high expectations— this is also true for maker teachers. Among these abilities, the ability of maker teachers to use new technologies is particularly important. However, currently, teachers engaged in maker education in China are either information technology teachers or general technology teachers, while maker education requires a large number of professional teachers who can offer maker courses and guide students in maker activities, thus it is necessary to cultivate a group of teachers specifically engaged in maker education.

3. Develop Maker Courses to Build a Maker Education Curriculum System

Maker courses encompass the objectives, content, methods, and evaluation of schools’ maker education activities [13]. By implementing maker courses, schools lay the foundation for cultivating students’ innovative abilities and lifelong development. Most maker courses in Chinese schools are school-based courses, with no specialized courses specifically for maker education; whereas in the U.S., community maker spaces like FUSE have already provided two types of preparatory courses for makers: one is a basic knowledge and skills course about the use of creative tools and equipment, and the other is a specialized training maker course [14]. Therefore, China also needs to develop specialized maker education courses to build a maker education curriculum system.

The “Internet +” Action Plan Project Guiding Manual for Basic Education categorizes the maker curriculum system into basic courses, extension courses, and innovation courses, with the Scratch 2.0 creative design basic course shown in Figure 2. This course is divided into four parts: Introduction to Scratch 2.0, Mastering Scratch 2.0, Scratch 2.0 Sensor Board, and Applications of Scratch 2.0 Sensor Board, gradually introducing some basic functions of Scratch 2.0, enabling students to create simple games and animations under the guidance of teachers after completing the course. In addition to offering basic courses, schools can also provide extension courses, allowing students to engage in innovative activities through understanding and applying new-generation information technologies (such as intelligent control, sensors, etc.); at the same time, schools can offer innovation courses when conditions permit, guiding students to attempt developing innovative works such as robots based on intelligent machines, ultimately forming a maker education curriculum system centered on basic courses, supplemented by extension courses, and improved by innovation courses. It is important to note that the implementation of maker courses should neither completely replicate existing curriculum systems nor detach from existing information technology and general technology curriculum systems but should integrate with information technology and general technology subject courses to create a more suitable maker education curriculum system for students’ development.

Figure 2 Scratch 2.0 Creative Design Basic Course [1]

[1] Data source: “Guiding Manual for Basic Education ‘Internet +’ Action Plan Project”.

4. Apply New Technologies such as Open-source Hardware and Software to Provide Technical Support for Maker Education

The rise of the maker movement is closely related to the continuous development of new technologies (such as 3D printing and open-source hardware and software). The implementation of maker education relies on the support of open-source hardware and software, such as Arduino, BeagleBone, Raspberry Pi, and graphical programming tools like ArduBlock, Scratch, and Mixly [15]. Among them, Arduino is a convenient, flexible, and easy-to-use open-source platform that includes both hardware and software components— the hardware part can be used to connect circuits, including the mainboards (Arduino Uno, Arduino Nano, etc.) and expansion boards (Arduino GSM Shield, Arduino WiFi Shield, etc.); the software part mainly consists of the Arduino IDE, where program codes are written and uploaded to the Arduino board, instructing the board on what to do. The cross-platform, simplicity, and openness of Arduino make it a popular choice among makers. Scratch is a graphical programming tool designed and developed by MIT for teenagers. Using this tool, students can create cartoons, animations, and games without needing to memorize any programming commands, simply by dragging block modules, and can easily publish their works online for sharing with more people.

Both open-source hardware platforms like Arduino and graphical programming tools like Scratch provide technical support for the implementation of maker education. However, in maker education, technology should not merely be used as a tool but should play a greater role.

5. Formulate Maker Education Development Planning to Promote Maker Education Implementation at the National Level

The development of maker education relies on policy guidance and support. Zheng Yanlin [16] analyzed the implementation pathways of maker education in the U.S. and found that the U.S. places great importance on the overall design of maker education from a planning perspective, fully focusing on its linkage with the community, emphasizing the incorporation of maker education into school development, such as the establishment of an innovation initiative committee at MIT; it also emphasizes planning the conditions and support needed for maker education, and the promotion process of maker education while paying attention to community linkage to promote maker education from multiple angles. China needs to learn from the experiences of foreign maker education development and formulate dedicated maker education development plans to encourage and promote multi-party collaborative participation at the national level.

In January 2015, Premier Li Keqiang visited the Chaihuo Maker Space in Shenzhen and included “mass entrepreneurship and innovation” in the government work report, giving high praise to the maker movement. This indicates that the maker movement has gained national-level attention in China. Seizing this opportunity, China should initiate the development planning of maker education under the guidance of deepening educational informatization and achieving educational modernization, to systematically plan the implementation pathways and methods of maker education, promote the in-depth development of maker education in China, implement China’s innovation development strategy, and facilitate the cultivation of innovative talents.

6. Construct a Maker Education Evaluation System to Promote the Comprehensive Development of Maker Education

Currently, maker education in China is still in its initial development stage, and there is no evaluation system that is suitable for it. Maker education needs to evaluate the maker projects completed by students and the entire process of student participation in maker activities to provide references for the subsequent development of maker education— the evaluation of the maker projects completed by students can adopt a results-based, product-based evaluation approach, while the evaluation of the entire process of student participation in maker activities needs to be conducted from multiple dimensions. The main principles to grasp when constructing a maker education evaluation system include: ① ensuring a diversified evaluation subject, meaning evaluation should not only be conducted by teachers but can also be done by group members and parents [17]; ② adopting multiple evaluation methods to ensure objective and fair evaluation; ③ ensuring the comprehensiveness of evaluation perspectives, as students’ participation in projects or activities is rich and varied, thus evaluation should be conducted from multiple angles regarding students’ performances.

Additionally, forming a good incentive mechanism is also crucial for the development of maker education. On one hand, it is necessary to leverage the advantages and roles of various groups such as the government, society, schools, and enterprises by establishing special scholarships to support academic research in maker education; on the other hand, school-enterprise cooperation is needed, such as jointly hosting maker competitions and maker carnivals, and enterprises providing technical support to school maker spaces.

4. Reflections and Summary

As maker education emphasizes cultivating students’ learning abilities, practical abilities, and innovative abilities, more and more countries regard maker education as an important pathway for cultivating students’ creative innovation abilities and entrepreneurship skills. Some primary and secondary schools and universities in China have also begun to create maker spaces and actively explore the implementation pathways of maker education. However, there are still many challenges in the implementation and development of maker education, which requires researchers to focus on the following two questions:

1. Is Maker Education Only Suitable for Elite Education?

Due to China’s large population and uneven regional development, an important issue facing Chinese education is how to ensure educational equity, i.e., ensuring that every student has the right to education and enjoys equal enrollment opportunities, and ensuring that students in remote and underdeveloped areas also have access to education [18]. If maker education becomes normalized in China, how will it ensure educational equity? Currently, maker education is mainly conducted in economically developed areas, where makers have the conditions and opportunities to access various new technologies and participate in various robotics competitions and activities. However, in economically underdeveloped areas, even basic conditions cannot be met, so how will maker education be implemented? Naturally, people would raise such questions: Is maker education only suitable for elite education? Will maker education exacerbate educational inequities and widen the digital divide in education?

2. Does Maker Education Conflict with Traditional Education Evaluation Systems?

In China, traditional education mainly uses test scores to distinguish students. Although teachers and parents understand the importance of maker education for cultivating children’s innovative abilities, they are more concerned about whether it will affect children’s academic performance and advancement [20]. If participating in maker organizations and activities affects students’ exam scores, then parents and teachers will definitely be worried, thus becoming an obstacle to the implementation of maker education. To manage the relationship between maker education and traditional education evaluation systems, it is necessary to first alleviate the concerns of parents and teachers, using research results and practical outcomes to demonstrate that participation in maker activities does not negatively impact students’ academic performance, proving that there is no absolute correlation between participation in maker activities and declining academic performance. Unfortunately, there is still insufficient research in this area in China.

In recent years, discussions about maker education in China have increased, but most focus on the connotation, characteristics, and foreign practices of maker education, while research on specific implementation pathways and methods of maker education in China is relatively scarce. Questions such as how maker education will develop and its impact on basic and higher education in China still require further research. In other words, integrating practice to deeply explore the development and value of maker education is the direction we need to strive for in the future.

References

[1] NMC Horizon Project. New Media Consortium 2015 Horizon Report: Higher Education Edition [J]. Modern Distance Education Research, 2015, (2): 3-22, 42.

[2] Chris Anderson. Makers: The New Industrial Revolution [M]. Beijing: CITIC Press, 2012: 27-28.

[3] Zhu Zhiting, Sun Yanyan. Maker Education: Information Technology Enabled Innovative Educational Practice [J]. China Educational Technology, 2015, (1): 14-21.

[4] Zheng Yanlin, Li Luyi. Technology-Supported Learning Based on Creation—The Connotation, Characteristics, and Implementation Path of Maker Education in U.S. Primary and Secondary Schools [J]. Open Education Research, 2014, (6): 42-49.

[5][20] Yang Xianmin, Li Jihong. The Value Potential of Maker Education and Its Controversies [J]. Modern Distance Education Research, 2015, (2): 23-34.

[6][7] Fu Qian, Wang Cixiao. When Makers Meet STEAM Education [J]. Modern Educational Technology, 2014, (10): 37-42.

[8] Zhu Yongxin, Yang Shubing. An Outline of Innovation Education Theory [J]. Educational Research, 1999, (8): 8-15.

[9] Xie Zuoru. From Robotics and STEM to Maker Education [J]. Information Technology Education in Primary and Secondary Schools, 2015, (7): 8-10.

[10] Henry A. How to Find and Get Involved with a Hackerspace [OL]. <http://www.lifehacker.com.au>

[11] Luo Liang, Zhu Zhiting. Maker Space 2.0: Design Research Based on the O2O Framework [J]. Open Education Research, 2015, (4): 35-43.

[12] Bailey C J, Card K A. Effective Pedagogical Practices for Online Teaching: Perception of Experienced Instructors [J]. The Internet and Higher Education, 2009, (3): 152-155.

[13] Guan Xuefang. The Construction and Implementation of Regional Maker Education Curriculum under the Background of “Internet +” [J]. Information Technology Education in Primary and Secondary Schools, 2015, (6): 59-60.

[14] Li Luyi, Zheng Yanlin. The Carrier of Community Maker Education in the U.S.—The Development Dynamics, Functions, and Applications of Community Maker Spaces [J]. Open Education Research, 2015, (5): 41-48.

[15] Luo Liang, Zhu Zhiting. Open-source Hardware: A Lever to Promote Maker Education Practice [J]. China Educational Technology, 2015, (4): 7-14.

[16] Zheng Yanlin. Path Analysis of Maker Education Implementation in American Universities [J]. Open Education Research, 2015, (3): 21-29.

[17] Wang Yonghua. Research on Learning Evaluation of Flipped Classroom Teaching Model [J]. Teaching and Management, 2015, (15): 86-88.

[18] Xue Eryong. On Three Basic Issues of Educational Equity Development [J]. Educational Research, 2010, (10): 24-32.

[19] Xie Zuoru. Why Maker Education Emphasizes “Making” [J]. Information Technology Education in Primary and Secondary Schools, 2015, (6): 70.