sustainability-logo

Journal Browser

Journal Browser

The Future of the Maker Movement

A special issue of Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050). This special issue belongs to the section "Sustainable Education and Approaches".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (31 October 2021) | Viewed by 14812

Special Issue Editor


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Informatics & Education, University of California, Irvine, CA 46814, USA
Interests: arts; computational technologies; interest-driven learning
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

It has been over 15 years since the initial launch of the modern-day maker movement, and much has happened! We have seen a rise of interest in DIY culture, new commercial markets have opened, new makerspaces have launched nationally and internationally in schools, libraries, museums, homes and community centers, and a large number of scholarly publications have investigated these new learning contexts. Much of the success of the maker movement came from the incorporation of dazzling new tools and technologies alongside low-tech tools and forms of making, which has invited broader participation and forged strong ties to the arts and crafts movement. Alongside the rise of the maker movement, we have also seen a revival of the CS4All movement as well as a broader push for the inclusion of STEM in the curriculum, which has quickly been taken up within the movement.

On the 15th anniversary of the maker movement, this Special Issue aims to cover all aspects of the future of the maker movement, such as the future of makerspaces, engineering education, arts education, design thinking, environmental education, activism, computer science education, scalability and sustainability in education, among others. Our main goal is to bring ideas about the challenges and begin to illuminate provocative directions for the future of this powerful movement. Particularly, as the commercial aspects of the maker movement fade, how does the field of making and learning expand, rather than contract? Further, how do we reclaim making as a culturally, socially, and historically inscribed mode of participatory learning?

Prof. Kylie Peppler
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Sustainability is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • Assessment
  • Out-of-school learning
  • Scalability and sustainability in education
  • Learning sciences
  • Learning analytics
  • Constructionism
  • Entrepreneurship
  • Economic development
  • Equity
  • Gender
  • Globalization
  • Makerspaces
  • Maker culture
  • Engineering education
  • Artseducation
  • STEM and STEAM
  • Computer science education
  • Human-centered design
  • Schools
  • Design thinking
  • Environmental education
  • Activism and education
  • Higher education

Published Papers (5 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Review

21 pages, 603 KiB  
Article
On the Future of Computational Thinking Education: Moving beyond the Digital Agenda, a Discourse Analysis Perspective
by Vladimiras Dolgopolovas and Valentina Dagiene
Sustainability 2021, 13(24), 13848; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413848 - 15 Dec 2021
Cited by 7 | Viewed by 2736
Abstract
This article explores the development directions of the phenomenon of Computational Thinking (CT) from the perspectives of discourse analysis. The motivation is based on the understanding of CT as an advanced educational approach, methodology, and community, aimed at a set of learners’ digital [...] Read more.
This article explores the development directions of the phenomenon of Computational Thinking (CT) from the perspectives of discourse analysis. The motivation is based on the understanding of CT as an advanced educational approach, methodology, and community, aimed at a set of learners’ digital and further competences having a huge impact on modern education and society. The novelty of this study lies in the attempt to look holistically at CT and its perspectives, considering it as an evolving phenomenon per se, leaving aside discussion on its internal characteristics or applications. The study utilizes a comprehensive analysis, applying discourse analysis and social semiotics methods. The results present the most trended storylines associated with CT and its context, providing a thorough introduction to the CT discursive landscape. The findings and discussion present a reflective insight into the discursive landscape directions, focusing on meaning-makers and their identities, the transformative and transductive potential of CT, observing the phenomenon’s development paths from a metaphorical perspective and positioning it towards the development of the socio-technical networks it mediates. In the conclusion, the options for development and possible trends in the reconstitution of the CT phenomenon are outlined. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Future of the Maker Movement)
Show Figures

Figure 1

24 pages, 3302 KiB  
Article
The Women* Who Made It: Experiences from Being a Woman* at a Maker Festival
by Nathalia Campreguer França, Dorothé Smit, Stefanie Wuschitz and Verena Fuchsberger
Sustainability 2021, 13(16), 9361; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169361 - 20 Aug 2021
Cited by 5 | Viewed by 2060
Abstract
This paper examines the profile of 10 women* makers attending Schmiede, a 10-day maker festival, which is unique not least due to its almost equal gender distribution. Drawing on interviews with women* attendees, we describe general struggles in fitting in the culture of [...] Read more.
This paper examines the profile of 10 women* makers attending Schmiede, a 10-day maker festival, which is unique not least due to its almost equal gender distribution. Drawing on interviews with women* attendees, we describe general struggles in fitting in the culture of spaces for making, the role of mentorship in childhood and adulthood, motivations and different approaches for engaging in making, limiting factors in (art-)making, and the consequences of sexism for making practice. We then discuss the characteristics of these women* makers in relation to existing literature about the culture in maker spaces and festivals and conclude by highlighting characteristics of the observed festival that may have resulted in more inclusive access for women* and other underrepresented groups. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Future of the Maker Movement)
Show Figures

Figure 1

13 pages, 560 KiB  
Article
Making with Shenzhen (Characteristics)—Strategy and Everyday Tactics in a City’s Creative Turn
by Siyu Chen and Jian Lin
Sustainability 2021, 13(9), 4923; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094923 - 28 Apr 2021
Cited by 4 | Viewed by 2121
Abstract
This paper investigates the government-led maker movement in Shenzhen, China by deploying Michel de Certeau’s concepts of “strategy” and “tactics”. While there is a growing body of literature surrounding the maker movement, the discrepancy between the maker movement presented in urban policies and [...] Read more.
This paper investigates the government-led maker movement in Shenzhen, China by deploying Michel de Certeau’s concepts of “strategy” and “tactics”. While there is a growing body of literature surrounding the maker movement, the discrepancy between the maker movement presented in urban policies and its participants’ actual practices is underexplored. Situating the exploration in the Chinese context, this article looks into how state intervention shapes the maker movement and actors’ participation. This work starts with considerations of political economy to demonstrate how the “Make with Shenzhen” campaign as a strategy fits into the government’s creative city agenda. It then draws upon the findings of a longitudinal ethnographic study to illuminate how discourses, institutions and apparatuses are tactically appropriated by individuals to mobilize symbolic, monetary, social and political resources to serve their interests. We argue that these tactical practices can potentially lead to meaningful changes in the city of Shenzhen and the everyday life of its people. By juxtaposing the strategy of the “Make with Shenzhen” campaign with the tactical practices surrounding it, this study offers insight into the challenges and possibilities brought about by the city-wide learning and making in the Chinese context. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Future of the Maker Movement)
Show Figures

Figure 1

23 pages, 2717 KiB  
Article
Student Development at the Boundaries: Makerspaces as Affordances for Engineering Students’ Development
by Yoon Ha Choi, Jana Bouwma-Gearhart, Cindy A. Lenhart, Idalis Villanueva and Louis S. Nadelson
Sustainability 2021, 13(6), 3058; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063058 - 11 Mar 2021
Cited by 11 | Viewed by 2395
Abstract
University-based makerspaces are receiving increasing attention as promising innovations that may contribute to the development of future engineers. Using a theory of social boundary spaces, we investigated whether the diverse experiences offered at university-based makerspaces may contribute to students’ learning and development of [...] Read more.
University-based makerspaces are receiving increasing attention as promising innovations that may contribute to the development of future engineers. Using a theory of social boundary spaces, we investigated whether the diverse experiences offered at university-based makerspaces may contribute to students’ learning and development of various “soft” or “21st century” skills that go beyond engineering-specific content knowledge. Through interviews with undergraduate student users at two university-based makerspaces in the United States we identified seven different types of boundary spaces (where multiple communities, and the individuals and activities affiliated with those communities, come together). We identified students engaging in the processes of identification, reflection, and coordination, which allowed them to make sense of, and navigate, the various boundary spaces they encountered in the makerspaces. These processes provided students with opportunities to engage with, and learn from, individuals and practices affiliated with various communities and disciplines. These opportunities can lead to students’ development of necessary skills to creatively and collaboratively address interdisciplinary socio-scientific problems. We suggest that university-based makerspaces can offer important developmental experiences for a diverse body of students that may be challenging for a single university department, program, or course to offer. Based on these findings, we recommend university programs and faculty intentionally integrate makerspace activities into undergraduate curricula to support students’ development of skills, knowledge, and practices relevant for engineering as well as 21st century skills more broadly. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Future of the Maker Movement)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Review

Jump to: Research

20 pages, 661 KiB  
Review
How Open Is the Maker Movement? Integrative Literature Review of the Openness Practices in the Global Maker Movement
by Hanna Saari, Maria Åkerman, Barbara Kieslinger, Jouko Myllyoja and Regina Sipos
Sustainability 2021, 13(24), 13559; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413559 - 08 Dec 2021
Cited by 4 | Viewed by 3908
Abstract
This article explores the multiple meanings of the concept of openness in the global maker movement. Openness is viewed as one of the key principles of the maker movement. As the global maker movement is a bricolage of diverse and situated practices and [...] Read more.
This article explores the multiple meanings of the concept of openness in the global maker movement. Openness is viewed as one of the key principles of the maker movement. As the global maker movement is a bricolage of diverse and situated practices and traditions, there are also many different interpretations and ways of practicing openness. We have explored this diversity with an integrative literature review, relying on the Web of Science™ database. We identified three interrelated but also, in part, mutually contested approaches to openness. Firstly, openness often refers to applying open hardware. Secondly, it is in many cases related to the inclusion and empowerment of various groups in making. Thirdly, openness appears to be seen as a means to pursue economic growth through increasing innovation activity and entrepreneurship. Our results also highlight the substantial barriers encountered by makers while aiming to open up their practices. These barriers include: value conflicts in which openness is overridden by other important values; exclusion of lower income groups from making due to a lack of resources; and difficulties in maintaining long-term activities. The different meanings of openness together with the barriers create tensions within the maker movement while implementing openness. We propose that engaging in a reflexive futures dialogue on the consequences of these tensions can enhance the maker movement to become more open, inclusive and resilient. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Future of the Maker Movement)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop