Recently, many Canadian provinces have started to integrate computer programming in schools. A trend towards engaging learners as producers of knowledge, and the availability of tiny and affordable computers and open-source technologies that enable complex knowledge production, are drawing interest to “maker culture”. Despite an increasing appetite for “digital making” we know very little about what students from a variety of contexts can learn from engaging in “maker” activities. Through maker workshops with learners from high school, college and university, our team studied both the process and the product of “digital making”. We interviewed participants, recorded their interactions during the workshops and conducted focus groups. We will present preliminary results emerging from a series of workshops conducted with a variety of learners who were eager to learn about “digital making”. We will discuss what our team observed, how learners experienced the workshops, what they learned and how those experiences shaped their attitudes towards problem solving.

1. Exploring the Movement
of “Maker Culture” in
Education
Ann-Louise Davidson PhD
Giuliana Cucinelli PhD
David Price
Nadia Naffi
Ivan Ruby
Tristan Matheson
Nathalie Duponsel
Margarida Romero PhD
Roland van Oostveen PhD
Evan Light PhD

2. Context
• Learning to code in schools (Dredge, 2014; Lucas, 2015; Romero,
2015)
• 21st century competencies (Conference Board of Canada, 2001;
World Economic Forum, 2016)
• Co-creative activities for 21st century kids (Romero & Vallerand,
2016): collaboration, creativity, problem solving, computational
thinking, critical thinking
• Push from STEM to STEAM to STEAMED
• Popularity of makerspaces
• Experiential learning

3. Literature
• Proof of concept (Abaya, Basa, Sy, Abad, & Dadios, 2014; Amir, Siddiqui,
Ahmed, & Chowdhry, 2014; Graven & Samuelsen, 2013; Hamidi, et al.,
2014; Lamine & Abid, 2014; Nguyen, et al., 2015; Nikhade, 2015;
Paramanathan et al., 2014; Pereira, Fernandes, & Sequeira, 2014; Sahani,
Rout, Sharan, & Dutta, 2014; Sandeep, Gopal, Naveen, Amudhan, & Kumar,
2015; Sundaram et al., 2013; Sivaranjani & Sumathi, 2015; Vamsikrishna,
Kumar, Hussain, & Naidu, 2015; Vujovic & Maksimovic, 2014)
• Schools (Cohen, Jones, Smith, & Calandra, 2016; Pringle, 2016; Romero,
Davidson, Cucinelli, Ouellet, & Arthur, 2016; Silcoff, 2016; Sheridan et al.,
2014; Somanath, Morrison, Hughes, Sharlin, & Sousa, 2016; Stager, 2013,)
• “Maker” movement (Andersson, 2015; Burker, 2015; Charny, 2012; Fox,
Ulgado, & Rosner, 2015; Harris & Cooper, 2015; Haug, 2014; Sheridan et al.,
2014)
• Social Innovation (Joyce, 2015; Nathan, 2015; Szczys, 2015; Taylor, Hurley,
& Connolly, 2016)

4. Activity Theory
Outcome
Tools
Division
of labor
Subject
Community
Object
Activity theory -Engeström
Rules

5. Vygotsky: ZPD
The zone of proximal development is the gap between two levels of
development
a b
a: where the learner is (able to accomplish without any help)
b: where the learner could be (cannot accomplish alone)
ZPD: able to accomplish
with the help of a more
knowledgeable other

6. Objectives
1) Study the collaborative learning processes within digital
"making" workshops demonstrated by learners from secondary
school, college (CEGEP) and university;
2) Analyze learner perceptions of digital "making" workshops to
better understand their experiences and challenges in converting
academic knowledge into digital fabrication and problem-solving
skills;
3) Develop a course for an institute of digital "making" to assist
educators with integrating tiny and affordable technologies into
educational experiences that engage learners as participants and
problem-solvers using the emerging Internet of Things (IoT).

7. • Collaborative action-
research tools and
techniques
• Informal interviews
• Semi-structured interviews
• Observations
Methodology

8. Participants
• Students from elementary, secondary, CEGEP
(college) and university
• Community members (7 to 77)
• Community centres
• Libraries
• Makerspaces

9. Findings
1. Advantages and pitfalls
of collaborative
problem-solving
2. Insight on the basic
knowledge needed to
engage in digital
“making”
3. Vignettes on collaborative
learning processes that
underlie digital “making”
4. Elements of a typology for
21st century skills to
innovate, tinker and
engage in maker culture

10. 1. Advantages and pitfalls
of collaborative problem-
solving:
•Feeling of group safety
•Feeling safe to make
errors
•Feeling interdependent
•Feeling challenged
•Changing group
dynamics

11. 2. Insight on the basic
knowledge needed to
engage in digital
“making”
•analyzing problem
•determining desired
outcomes and needed
inputs and outputs
•sequencing required
processing
•prototyping
•diagnosing failures

12. 3. Vignettes on
collaborative learning
processes that underlie
digital “making”
•Mini Maker Faire
•Maker Jams
•Prototyping workshops
•Arcade Tables
•3D Printer
•Accessibility challenge

13. Maker Faire
Discovering
Experimenting

14. Maker Jams
Developing basic
maker skills
Building a
community of
makers

15. Prototyping
Collaborating
Testing

16. Arcade Tables
Multidisciplinary
challenge
Development of
perception of
self-efficacy

17. 3D Printer
Scaffolding
Team work
Complex challenge

18. Accessibility
Challenge
From ideas
to reality

19. 4. Elements of a typology for
21st century skills to
innovate, tinker and engage
in maker culture
Technical skills
Foundational skills
Social skills
Personal management skills

20. Conclusion
• Shift from passive consumers of commercial
resources to active contributors of information and
participation in the production of objects
• Conditions required for risk-taking in education (to
tinker and innovate)
• 21st century skills