MORE THAN SHINY NEW SPACES FOR TINKERINGFostering Design Practices & Critical Thinking in University Makerspaces

Carol Brandt, Temple University USARikke Toft Nørgård, Aarhus University

Makerspaces, also known as: Hackerspaces, Fab Labs, DIY spaces

Found in university libraries, student centers, former art studios, and student computer centers: drop-in, short courses, workshops, and seminars.

Interdisciplinary collaboration

Tools & training for constructing prototypes

Locations for developing creative ideas and problem solving

The promise of makerspaces

Makerspace literature: learning and ‘tinkering’ – focused on the individual. Makerspaces for creating more shiny new things?

Instead, we see university makerspaces as a social community where students from different fields can learn design thinking and take on reflective ‘academic citizenship.’

The problem of makerspaces

Looking at makerspaces through the lens of signature pedagogy we might ask:

Can we configure our university makerspaces through signature pedagogy to foster & promote design practices and citizenship that work to integrate people, society and university?

Can we use signature pedagogy to integrate Makerspaces as part of the ‘placeful university’ in terms of building ‘academic citizenship’ & ‘participatory academic communities.’

Looking at makerspaces

From space to stance

To do this we need to figure out:

What kind of teacher stance is necessary to promote design thinking for university makerspaces?

How might universities influence the productive use of these locations to promote a stance of interdisciplinarity, collaboration, and critical problem-solving?

Here signature pedagogy might help us as a structured tool for figuring this out

Makerspace as a design studio: Signature pedagogy (Shulman, 2005)Design practice and design thinking are vital for makerspaces to realize their potential:

Design thinking that forms the foundation of a making culture

• Surface structures• Deep structures• Implicit structures

Surface structures (the what of teaching)

Surface structures consist of concrete, operational acts of teaching & learning

Students undertake a series of design investigations to define the problem.

They iterate a range of design solutions and make low fidelity models to illustrate their thinking.

Deep structures (the how of teaching)

Teacher stance becomes more dialogic, facilitating, and co-creating.

Teacher

stance

From telling to

dialoguing

demonstrating & co-creating

From shiny layout to facilitating

Students & teachers engage in design crits & are able to receive critical feedback, to provide constructive criticism & integrate it into their designs

The teacher imparts an understanding of the way knowledge is socially constructed through the enactment of surface structures.

Implicit structure (the why of teaching)

From shiny things to ‘participatory academic communities’: participating in society through ‘academic maker citizenship.’ Questioning the role of technology in society

‘Placeful studios’: structures for the foundation of ‘academic maker citizenship’ integrating people, society and university through tackling wicked problems & getting wicked ideas

Hidden curriculum: attitudes, values, beliefs about what constitutes ‘good design’

Teaching beyond shiny new spaces

The emergence of co-operative placeful makerspaces that integrate university & society; teachers & students; individual & collective; head, hand & heart

Students and teachers as reflexive dialogic participatory makers integrating personal, professional & public responsibility through ‘accountable talk’: virtues and visions of the educated head, hand & heart

Signature pedagogy makes explicit what, how & why of teaching in makerspaces thus enabling a deliberate move beyond tinkering

Edu

catio

nal d

esig

n th

inki

ng

in u

nive

rsity

mak

ersp

aces

Surface structures – e.g. prototypes

Deep structures – e.g. design crits

Implicit structures- e.g. co-operative

citizenship

Student stance:

reflecting, relating,

integrating

Teacher stance:

dialoguing, facilitating, co-creating

Citizen stance:

designing for others

beyond the shiny space

Developing a signature pedagogy for future expert communities & academic citizenship

Beyond shiny new spaces for tinkering

Carol Brandt, Temple University USAcarol.brandt@temple.edu

REFERENCES• Aaen, J. H. & Nørgård R. T. (2015). Participatory academic communities: a

transdisciplinary perspective on participation in education beyond the institution. Conjunctions: Transdisciplinaru journal of cultural participation 2 (2), 70-98.

• Brandt, C. B., Cennamo, K., Douglas, S.,Vernon, M., & McGrath, M. (2013). A theoretical framework for the studio as a learning environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 329-348.

• Cennamo, K., & Brandt, C. (2012). The “right kind of telling”: Knowledge building in the academic design studio. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(5), 839-858.

• Hjorth, M., Nørgård, R. T., and Iversen, O. S. (forthcoming). Superpositional teaching: A call for co-creative teacher roles in the educational design studio.

• Nørgård, R. T., & Bengtsen, S. S. E. (2016). Academic citizenship beyond the campus: a call for the placeful university. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(1), 4-16.

• Schulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134 (3), 52-59.

Rikke Toft Nørgård, Aarhus Universityrtoft@tdm.au.dk