Note: This is an article about a makerspace speech translated by my student Zheng Yisu (edited by Liu Zhengyun). Excerpts have been published in the newspaper, but the full text has not been posted. The speaker’s language is fragmented, making the translation quite challenging.
Reading this speech brings a great sense of satisfaction.
Original link: http://hackeducation.com/2013/02/06/the-case-for-a-campus-makerspace (accessible, and you can follow the hackeducation website)
Speaker: Audrey Watters 2013.2.6
Translated by Zheng Yisu – Liu Zhengyun
This article is a rough draft of my speech given at the ELI annual meeting held in Denver today.
Regarding this conference, I have tweeted several times, including a link to my slides. Special thanks to Jentery Sayers (UVic) and Tim Owens (UMW) for their photos of their campus makerspaces.
This speech is not about MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses).
This speech is not about online learning.
This speech is not about learning analytics or learning management systems. It is also unrelated to the educational technology applications that those scheming investors, entrepreneurs, managers, educators, and indifferent students are concerned about.
This speech is not about David Brooks and his “campus tsunami,” nor is it about Thomas Friedman and his MOOC revolution. It is certainly not a response to the tech tabloid TechCrunch and its cheerful declaration—these all represent “the end of the university as we know it.”
Beyond that, this speech emphasizes other things.
It does not deny the existence of MOOCs, nor does it praise or refute them. The theme of this speech is: even if we focus elsewhere, we must look beyond the phenomenon to recognize the opportunities and challenges faced by teachers, learners, and educational institutions.
This speech aims to provide examples for those schools that aim to develop a makerspace culture to inject new vitality and maintain creativity, helping their students engage more meaningfully and autonomously in their learning, rather than in a market-driven manner.
I have recently heard many educational technology experts express admiration for the transition of education and learning to online formats. We certainly know that this trend is not new. Computers have been around for decades. The internet has also been around for decades. Educational technology is the same.
Educational technology, which is the subject of much debate, will make education more effective, scalable, and personalized. This will liberate students from the annoying large lecture halls… by recording these classes and uploading them to the internet.
Now, whether you believe this will be effective, scalable, or personalized, I think we need to have an open discussion about it—this is what we have been promised. More importantly, thanks to the shift to online formats and digitization, we now have the ability to do something “different” in our face-to-face teaching environments.
But what does this “different” look like?
It is now very clear that, apart from the internet and computers, I hope we can establish offline, face-to-face learning, better offline learning. And I believe we can create natural learning spaces, better and more beautiful learning spaces.
My example of a campus makerspace is quite lengthy. This example is intended to introduce some educational exercises (methods) that we often use: project-based group discussions, collaboration, peer learning, experimentation, inquiry, curiosity, and play. The value of these small exercises is to help students learn to build their own knowledge.
Makerspaces stem from the makers movement and have intricate relationships with software and hardware hackers as well as various hobbyists.
The makers movement is a contemporary term, just with updated technology; otherwise, you could refer to it as the old punk spirit and DIY culture. Perhaps you remember the previous explanation: “Here are three chords, and now a band is born”—now it has transformed into “Here is a motherboard and some cables, now go build a computer.”
A makerspace is the modern version of Silicon Valley’s “Homebrew Computer Club,” where both Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak were members. Compared to those individual DIY hobbyists and interest groups working in basements, garages, sewing rooms, living rooms, and studios, makerspaces are more community-oriented and socially adaptive.
The makers movement enables them to publicly share learning together.
The makers movement is closely linked to the magazine Make: and its organization of Maker Faires around the world. There are still many resources and traditions drawn upon by makers, and many places where makers gather.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The main text begins here ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I recently realized that the makers movement is one of the most important educational technology trends of 2012. Although it is entering schools, it is worth noting what we see from the makers movement: the joy of learning, lifelong learning, and a better fit for informal environments.
In the formal (mainstream) education system, we need to ask ourselves: Why is joy and interest over there and not here?
How can we get the makers movement “on track”? What can we learn from it?
Makers use Arduino, paper models, LEGO, playing cards, robots, rockets, welding machines, gears, circuit boards, drawing software on computers, strings, vinyl cutters (poster printers), LED lights, command lines, strings, rubber bands, wires, tubes, clay, game cloud storage platforms, sensors, hot glue guns, scissors, Raspberry Pi, gyroscopes, Tesla coils, instruments, fire, water guns, plastics, wood, motors, solar power, wearable computing devices, and 3D printers. For those just starting to explore the makers movement.
It can be said that 3D printers stimulate interest and imagination about building a new model of low-cost and on-site construction. The Economist and New Scientist both state that 3D printing will bring about the next industrial revolution. Forbes says it will revive the American construction industry.
Depending on your regional situation and the composition and goals of your engineering and business schools, your school may not condemn the American future of construction as part of their curriculum. Some colleges in your school may have rolled their eyes at all the speeches given by politicians and experts about STEM education and STEM professions and jobs; it is also possible that some are rightly concerned about what all these STEM lectures imply for budget decisions for other non-STEM colleges, such as non-21st-century colleges. (Note: STEM = Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics)
I believe we should all pay attention to the future of makers. As Dale Dougherty, the founder of Make: magazine, said, we must view makers as “a creative enterprise”—an invitation to solve problems and figure things out, rather than “being told what to do.” Additionally, beyond our disciplinary backgrounds, we should focus on the future of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. In fact, the makers movement and makerspaces are not just about engineering or computer science or design departments; they require broad democracy and participation.
This is a huge advantage for them.
Steve Jobs once said that Apple’s innovations arose from the intersection of technology and the humanities. With that in mind, I believe we can do more to bring colleges and universities to that intersection—not by buying iPads, and certainly not by abandoning the humanities to welcome maker culture into campuses.
For years, we have discussed “cross-curricular writing.” We have established rules applicable to all students—regardless of their degrees and majors—they should have good writing skills, be able to write critically, and write frequently.
So I must ask, what would “interdisciplinary creation” look like?
Hands-on learning opportunities in modern education are indeed too few, and getting fewer. Our education system has forgotten—or ignored, perhaps ignored is the better word—John Dewey and his theory of “learning by doing.” In K-12, woodworking, blacksmithing, sewing, cooking, art, hacking, and even science labs are disappearing—due to budget cuts and the time they occupy that should be used for “college preparation” and standardized testing.
Learning through practice. Learning through making, not learning through clicking.
Makerspaces give students (all students) a chance to experiment hands-on, build prototypes, solve problems, and think about design.
By allowing students to create, whether digital or physical, we can help them acquire these essential skills. For instance: building a catapult in physics class. Making paper or binding a book in literature class. Building an application for political science class. Creating a 3D model for archaeology class. 3D printing for nursing class. Blacksmithing for history class. The possibilities for these projects are endless.
The cost of establishing a makerspace is also not too high.
Let me reiterate: the basic components of making are very important. Using “making” as a final project for a class instead of “writing” also requires students to research and plan. At the same time, it also requires them to build a prototype framework, neither writing a paper nor taking an exam. Making a project can be a nightmare! Similarly, it can be experimental, technological, or can involve using technological tools during the construction process. Whether you are in a traditional profession or studying computer science, it can become technological. Yes, that is how it is these days.
Makerspaces allow students at the forefront of technology to gain an advantage in job hunting and various entrepreneurial opportunities. Because of the connection between makerspaces and open-source software and hardware, students learn not only how to use proprietary tools; they are not just learning a specific software. Instead, they learn how to find resources (that is the key); they learn how to learn.
Of course, there are some technical tricks—technological expertise, and when doing tech experiments and tinkering, it should be within a safe and comfortable range. This is becoming increasingly fundamental and widely applicable to all of us. Technology has changed the way we learn, communicate, play, and work.
Support for this type of learning and the cultivation of experimental makerspaces is growing. Some require a membership fee. Some require a materials fee. Some are for profit. Some are non-profit. Regardless of their charging situation, makerspaces are community-oriented. Predictably, makerspaces are suddenly appearing in libraries and community activity centers. They suddenly appear in K-12 schools. They suddenly appear on college campuses.
At the thinklab at Mary Washington University. At the makers lab at the University of Victoria. In the garage at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. In the science library at the University of Nevada, Reno. At the library of Valdosta State University. At the open hardware makerspace at North Carolina State University. At the fab lab at Stanford University.
According to a recent rough estimate, there are about 60 makerspaces on college campuses, while the number of makerspaces at home (those in college campuses) is nearly double that of those collaborating with Coursera.
Generally speaking, these makerspaces have no relation to any specific department. Indeed, this is why many librarians are establishing an open makerspace. These libraries are ready to open to the entire campus—all departments and students.
It is its openness—to society, to all disciplines, to people of all levels—that makes makerspaces unique. For example, science labs and art studios—these two places may be the closest to makerspaces—at least in terms of equipment.
But you do not need to take several introductory courses to use the tools in a makerspace, although they will always provide help and guidance for those interested in these devices. Courses in makerspaces are casual and usually not for credit (only for those who take them)—offering limitless possibilities, especially when it comes to learning skills like coding and welding—skills that students may not have the confidence or opportunity to learn in other contexts.
Makerspaces are safe learning environments.
Unlike the step-by-step experiments that often appear in undergraduate science labs—look at this slide, identify this rock, add this chemical, measure this angle, etc. In makerspace experiments, the basis is infinite questions. It is learner-centered. It is interdisciplinary and unbound in the best way.
The increasingly thriving makers movement tells us about people and their needs (for such activities). We want to play, build, hack, and create. We certainly want to, because we are human.
Easy learning opportunities are actually everywhere. As the saying goes: “You can learn anything you want from the internet.” In many cases, these (easy learning) opportunities are far more attractive than formal learning, especially when school can cost a lot of money, often with many required and mandatory assignments. You must learn this and that to pass this course, complete this major, and so on.
But regardless of your level, with whatever materials, you can create. Caine’s Arcade, a beautiful arcade made from cardboard, was built by a nine-year-old child in his father’s auto parts store. This is a great example of what cardboard can do and the richness of imagination.
This is not just for 9-year-olds. Below is a blog post from Tim Owen’s freshman seminar at Mary Washington University about makerbots (a brand of 3D printers) and mashups (software for those without programming skills):
When I registered for the freshman seminar, I had no idea what mashups and makerbots would lead us to. All I knew was that I needed to take an extra class after 3:15 on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Imagine my surprise when I thought the course title was misspelled, only to find out it meant cooler things: 3D printing. Now imagine my surprise when I found out the next day we were going to make something out of cardboard. Yes, the first task with no set direction. Just make something out of cardboard… and it has to move.
Many people looked at examples of finished products online when making their “automatic cardboard” and then sketched out what this box could do, how it worked, and what it looked like. And I, completely differently, started making this box with no ideas at all. The first part I made was the drive mechanism. As I cut them out, I realized I might be able to discover their purpose. Then, I fixed them to a wooden rod, combined them, and saw how they worked.
After 10 minutes of exploring how they composed a box, I decided to empty all my ideas and come up with new ones.
The second day of the class was about design and making prototypes, and I would say this was quite a big class for freshmen, a class learning through cardboard. A class learning through making.
Let me reiterate what I said at the beginning of the speech: “Educational technology, which has some controversy, will make education more efficient, scalable, and personalized.” It will free students from the dreadful large lecture classes by recording lectures and putting them online.
Educational technology is a driving force that gives makerspaces different meanings. We recognize that learning is a tricky issue. We acknowledge that details and regional factors matter. This is not about easy (for students) learning tools and software; this is not the “personalized” learning that marketing messages claim; this is personal learning. Of course, it is certain that makerspaces must provide different choices from large lecture halls—not through the internet, but through the campus itself.
What does building an informal learning space on a college campus mean? Are makerspaces coexisting harmoniously with academia? That’s an interesting question, and I would answer that they may coexist more harmoniously than the market and academia.
What kind of institutions will participate in makerspaces and support students’ needs? How can we make everyone feel welcome? Will students create just for grades or credits? If creative courses become mandatory, will that affect students’ willingness to experiment? Will college campuses change creativity by themselves? Perhaps.
But it is also possible that by bringing makerspaces to college campuses, it will showcase its impact from another perspective. The makers movement will shift the academic form from a teacher-centered approach to a student-centered approach. It can allow us to reflect on our mission timely. It can allow us to develop our expectations of college students’ capabilities timely.
With makerspaces on campus, we will see more experiments, I think this is more daring. We will see more interdisciplinary exchanges—3D printers are the new topic of conversation. More sharing. More relevant, more technical projects.
Most importantly, this technology is in the hands of learners. Makerspaces mean that students are no longer limited by technology; they are proactive. They play a role in the makerspace. They are not consumers of technology; they are creators. They are makers and builders and thinkers.
Isn’t this what we hope for?
Thanks to translators Zheng Yisu and Liu Zhengyun, and thanks to teachers like Zhu and Muguo!
Wishing everyone a happy Labor Day!
Click to read the original text to see the English version