Anchored in the past?
Posted June 4, 2016on:
I read a tweet like this and the linked article more critically than most.
I am glad that the school is doing something different, but is it doing something qualitatively better?
As much as maker spaces seem to be the flavour of the moment, how many school authorities have asked themselves whether they need such spaces to make?
Why are students not already making and creating in mainstream curriculum? Unless extremely dangerous or specialised, why must these activities only happen in special spaces or rooms?
In April I questioned the validity and purpose of maker spaces. Others more articulate than me have blogged about the same issues.
- AJ Juliani declared You Don’t Need A Makerspace to Be a Maker.
- Randy Scherer argued that Every Classroom Should Be a Maker Space.
- Katrina Schwartz described how maker spaces were not available to all.
- Krissy Venosdale gave examples of making that do not require a maker space.
- Will Richardson wondered if schools knew the fundamental reason why they had maker spaces.
Why is the whole school not a maker space?
Is much of the curriculum and practice driven by design thinking, exploring, tinkering, learning from mistakes, and reiterating?
Does a maker space help school leaders and teachers question the assumptions of schooling?
Can having a maker space for robotics or coding really be setting sail to the future while the rest of schooling is anchored in the past?