Tag Archives: Makerspaces

INF506 OLJ Task 18: Thoughts for the future

Posted on by

Choose a resource and write a 400 word analysis that addresses the following issues:

Mersand, S., Gasco-Hernandez, M., Udoh, E., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2019). Public libraries as anchor institutions in smart communities: Current practices and future development. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 

Using a diversified research approach, Mersand et al. identified five dimensions of innovative strategies, programs, services, and tools that illustrate the potential of the public library as an anchor institution in smart communities.

These five dimensions include: infrastructure, technology, programs and services, partnerships, and citizen engagement which in combination, allow public libraries to offer multi-disciplinary services and spaces to suit the needs of their patrons.

What is the potential for the future of an organization you are familiar with?

Future-proofing public libraries means adapting to the ever-changing needs of the community (Julian et al.2017).  By rethinking existing services and spaces, looking at ways to expand their user base, maximising community engagement, collaboration and co-creation, and developing a culture of lifelong learning (Boyle et al. 2016), public libraries, no matter their size, can become an anchor institution in the community or leverage their existing role to a higher level as shown below (Ross, 2018).

Figure 1: Model for an integrated communications infostructure (Ross, 2018 p. 137)

 

Small public libraries with limited funding, resources and space face many challenges in developing and implementing  multi-disciplinary programs, services, and tools and are looking for ways to incorporate flexible, fluid learning spaces, performative spaces, makerspaces and community spaces that can be easily converted  when needed. Delimiting spaces according to content and communication, distributing the different types of makers spaces across library branches such as the Yarra Valley Regional Library Science & Technology Maker Space at Mill Park Library, or the Textile & Craft Maker Space at the Thomastown Library, mean libraries do not need to compromise on the level of service available to patrons within the broader community.  Open Leaning Spaces or a mobile or pop-up makerspace modeled on San José Public Library’s (SJPL) STEAMstacks maker programs may be the answer to space and access/distance constraints.

What impact might the future have on us as information professionals?

Libraries enjoy a high degree of public confidence as a trusted source of information and have consolidated their place in the community as a third space (Horrigan, 2016) as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. “Libraries 2016” survey conducted by Pew Research Center.

 

Technology has changed the way we learn, think and communicate and the modern public library must reflect this change. The role of the information professional in public libraries has also evolved, encompassing ‘third space’ activities ranging from access and outreach, equity, community engagement, careers advice and public relations not previously on the job description. For information professionals, finding the balance between public service policy, market agendas and practice (Whitechurch, 2015) remains a challenge as does resolving the identity disconnect between custodian and enablers of learning (Elmborg, 2011).

References

Boyle, E., Collins, M., Kinsey, R., Noonan, C. & Pocock, A. (2016). Making the case for creative spaces in Australian libraries. The Australian Library Journal, 65(1), 30-40, DOI: 10.1080/00049670.2016.1125756

Elmborg, J. K. (2011). Libraries as the spaces between us: Recognising and valuing the Third Space. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 50(4), 338–350. https://doi-org.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/10.5860/rusq.50n4.338

Horrigan, J.B. (September, 2016). Libraries 2016. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/09/09/2016/Libraries-2016/

Julian, K.D. & Parrott, D.J. (2017). Makerspaces in the library: Science in a Student’s Hands. Journal of Learning Spaces, 6(2). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1152687.pdf

Mersand, S., Gasco-Hernandez, M., Udoh, E., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2019). Public libraries as anchor institutions in smart communities: Current practices and future development. [Conference paper]. Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Retrieved from https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/59766

Ross, J. M. (2018). Role of public libraries in rural communication Infostructure. [Dissertation]. University of Alabama. https://pqdtopen.proquest.com/doc/2118097779.html?FMT=AI

Whitechurch, C. (2015). The rise of third space professionals: Paradoxes and dilemmas. In U. Teichler & W. C. Cummings (Eds.), Recruiting and managing the academic profession. Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-16080-1_5

OLJ Task 6: Virtual and augmented reality

Posted on by

 

10 years ago, Virtual Reality (VR) & Augmented Reality (AR) were seen as the big trend for consumer applications (gaming and entertainment), but in response to COVID-19 related travel on-site work restrictions , enterprises are adopting VR twice as fast as consumers, (Forbes, 2020).  AR is increasingly being used for training, meetings and customer service and VR for conferences and events.  This video gives you an overview of these technologies and how they were developed:

For several years now, VR and Educational Virtual Reality Games (EVRGs) have been used as a teaching and learning support tool but it will be interesting to see the development of AR/VR applications as an widespread alternative to face-to-face teaching during periods of school closure. Volumetric video streaming and AR technology could make the distance learning environment more personal and engaging although the instructional effectiveness of Immersive Virtual Reality (VR) does not necessarily help students perform better in testing.  There is however, a significant increase in student interest and confidence (Parong & Mayer, 2018). AR applications which operate off a smart phone are more likely to become widely used.

Access to technology is still a huge issue in education. Considering that the German government is only now racing to equip many public schools with basic ICT devices so that it can continue distance learning, I have my doubts as to whether schools will be able to afford VR headsets for every pupil.  The era of virtual or augmented reality has the potential to increase the already damaging digital divide in education – but this is where dedicated spaces such as libraries and makerspaces can become hubs of collaboration and creativity and providers of a new level of digital literacy (Craig, 2020).

In makerspaces, Learning and Innovation Technology (LIT) is being used to support collaborative learning and informal STEM education. VR aligns well with constructivist theory (Oyelere et al. 2020) and the application of AR has the power to transform “tinkering” into a way of teaching students normally invisible concepts, such as electricity and sound,  through visualization and interaction (Schneider & Radu, 2018).

The attendant risks of using VR and AR for teaching young children relate to the psychological effect or “presence”, the sensation of being located in a media event (Bowman & McMahan, 2007) and whether children can differentiate between a representation of reality and reality itself.

The use of Immersive Virtual Reality (IVR) needs to be carefully considered to determine the appropriateness of this technology in the teaching of young children (Bailey & Bailenson, 2017), who experience IVR differently to adults. A specific pedagogy for VR in the classroom is a necessity in order to benefit from the affordances of VR in the classroom.

References:

Bailey, J. O., & Bailenson, J. N. (2018). Immersive virtual reality and the developing child. In Fran C. Blumberg & Patricia J. Brooks (Eds.) Development in Digital Contexts (pp.181-200). Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809481-5.00009-2

Bonner, E. & Lege, R. (2018). The state of virtual reality in education. The Language and Media Learning Research Center Annual Report. (Report No. 2017). 149-156. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328781017_The_State_of_Virtual_Reality_in_Education

Bowman, D. A., & McMahan, R. P. (2007). Virtual reality: How much immersion is enough? Computer, 40(7), 36–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MC.2007.257.

Craig, E. (2018). How we can prevent a digital divide 2.0 as virtual reality expands. EdTech. https://edtechmagazine.com/higher/article/2018/04/how-we-can-prevent-digital-divide-20-virtual-reality-expands

Oyelere, S.S., Bouali, N., Kaliisa, R. et al.(2020). Exploring the trends of educational virtual reality games: a systematic review of empirical studies. Smart Learning Environment 7(31). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-020-00142-7

Parong, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). Learning science in immersive virtual reality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(6), 785–797. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000241

Schneider, B. & Radu, I. [Data Bytes] (August 28, 2018). Using augmented reality to promote making with understanding. Educause Review. https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2018/8/using-augmented-reality-to-promote-making-with-understanding

 

 

 

 

 

INF530 Concepts and Practices for a Digital Age – Scholarly Book Review

Posted on by

Martinez, S.L., Stager, G. S. (2019). Invent to Learn: Making, Tinkering & Engineering in the Classroom 2nd edition. Torrance: CMK Press.

Throughout the world, makerspaces are becoming increasingly common in both school libraries, classrooms and in dedicated spaces.  Both teachers and administrators are required to ask critical questions about the promise of makerspaces for education and validate the cost/benefit of facilitating educational making. In light of ever-evolving trends in making, professional development and practical training for educators is a major consideration if making in education is to reach its full potential (Pye Tait, 2017).

First published in 2013, Martinez and Stager’s completely revised and updated second edition of Invent to Learn: Making, Tinkering, and Engineering in the Classroom is both an accessible, practical guide for stakeholders in education and an impassioned rationale for transforming learning through making. The book’s purpose is to advocate for “tinkering and making because they are powerful ways to learn”,  to act as inspiration to “teachers (who) hold the key to liberating the learner” (Martinez & Stager p.34) and to guide those aspiring to change the current and much criticized standardized-test based system to a constructivist/constructivist learning philosophy which has its roots in a long tradition of making.

Co-authors Sylvia Martinez and Gary Stager are highly regarded, much published experts in the field of digital technology in education.  Dr. Gary Stager is a journalist, teacher educator, consultant, professor, software developer, publisher, and school administrator who has spent his career influencing the politics of education and helping teachers embrace technology as way of redefining the way children learn. As principal advisor to the Stanford University FabLearn Fellows and an advocate for student-centered, hands-on, minds-on learning, Sylvia Libow Martinez is much in demand as a speaker on the topics ranging from the maker movement in education, project-based and inquiry-based learning and digital citizenship, to gender issues in STEM education. Gary Staber is the founder of the Constructing Modern Knowledge institute for educators. CMK Press is run by Gary Stager and Sylvia Martinez and is part of CMK Futures, creating teaching resources and providing professional development for educators. Both are evangelical proponents of the use of computers to change education. Whilst there are numerous resources currently available for educators on the role of making in education, few have the credentials of the authors of Invent to Learn: Making, Tinkering & Engineering in the Classroom.

After the initial chapters which deal with the “Big Ideas” – the history of making and learning (Constructivism and Constructionism), thinking, defining a good project and how to teach, the authors dedicate Chapters 7 – 11 to specific things teachers can do – digital making, programming, materials and equipment, and designing spaces for making, before concluding with chapters on equity, access and inclusion, the question of advocacy – getting students on board, advocating for making to administrators, funders and parents, and professional development and curriculum.

 „Children’s seminal learning experiences come through direct experiences with materials” (p.2).

 Educational pioneers such as Pestalozzi, Froebel, and Montessori and Dewey advocated an active rather than passive, hands-on, skills-based learning method (Martinez, 2014). Invent to Learn makes a strong case for the link between making and learning, calling on the educational research of Jean Piaget’s constructivist theory of “learning-by-discovery “and Seymour Papert’s constructionist or “learning-by-doing” theory (Halverson & Sheridan 2014).

„Papert built on Piaget’s theory of constructivism with a learning theory of his own: constructionism. It proposed that the best way to ensure that knowledge is built in the learner is through the active construction of something shareable – a poem, program, model or idea“ (Stager, 2016).

Martinez and Stager often refer to current-day pioneer of the maker movement, Dale Dougherty, founder of Make magazine, which since 2006 has moved making from the realm of geeks to the mainstream. Dougherty (2012) has described the early days of the computer industry, where makers “learned by making things and taking them apart and putting them back together again, and by trying many different things“ and in line with Papert’s principle of thinking and talking about ideas (Papert, 2000), went on to develop a community of like-minded tinkerers to collaborate with and share discoveries. The maker movement extolled in Invent to Learn now enjoys an infrastructure of community engagement that allows people „to socialize, read, share project details, watch videos, joke around, and engage in other forms of hanging out and geeking out“ (Ito et al., 2010). This real-life playing out of the connected learning model has been called “mentor matchmaking” (Ito, 2012) and enables everyone to participate in peer-to-peer and mentor-to-peer learning, eliminating the “capacity bottlenecks” (Ito, 2012) of the pre-Internet era in which students were restricted only to teachers and experts as sources of information and learning. Co-author of Invent to Learn, Dr. Gary Stager, has long been a proponent of cooperative learning to create, „a multi-age, interdisciplinary technology-rich learning environment to support the development of personally meaningful projects based on student interest, talent and experience “ (Stager, 2005).

In Invent to Learn, Martinez and Stager explore the evolution of the maker movement and pinpoint not only the benefits of making to learn but the challenges confronting the current education culture, a cultural change described in the paper, Shaping Future Schools with Digital Technology. Perspectives on Rethinking and Reforming Education, as, “a shift from didactic teaching towards student-centred, self-regulated learning. This shift does not herald the demise of teachers; to the contrary, it calls for imaginative and appropriate responses in teaching practice“ (Mason et al., 2019 p. 201). If schools want making in education to reach its full potential, they not only need digital tools and a community infrastructure, they need to adopt the “maker mindset” (Honey & Kanter, 2013 p.5) and develop, “a playful, asset- and growth-oriented, failurepositive and collaborative curriculum” (Martin, 2015 p.35).

First and foremost, however, is the adoption of a participatory culture in schools.  This shift is one that has been slow to emerge although it is at the heart of the maker mindset which fosters social skills developed through collaboration and networking (Jenkins, 2006).

Martinez and Stager discuss a range of makerspace issues ranging from the digital divide in schools, the gender bias common in the maker movement (Buechley, 2016), to the devaluation of craft in deference to high-tech making (Silva, 2020). Invent to Learn examines whether making has moved too far away from,‘‘to build or adapt objects by hand“ (Honey & Kanter, 2013; Sheridan et al.,2014), towards the use of digital technologies for manufacture or design (Martin, 2015) but postulate that “Computer as material” may be the “most powerful idea” their book contains (p.39).

“Digital tools are often seen as providing access points to powerful ideas about mathematics, logic, computational thinking, and scientific experimentation “(Martin, 2015)

“Design thinking” and “computational thinking” have become the new watchwords in education but Martinez and Stager argue that only by engaging in design activities and computer programming can students acquire these skills.  Faced with the rigid constraints of curriculum assessment criteria and lack of time, teachers fall back on the typically linear “design process” which forces students to conform to a pre-defined outcome and robs them of authorship (p.48).

Invent to Learn discusses the tendency of schools to fall back into old educational habits while paying lip service to new trends in education (Martinez & Stager p. 46). The authors confront the key question of whether educational institutions can deal with the mind-shift required or will there be a tendency to fit a square peg into a round hole or worse, fall into the trap of equipping spaces for making and not using them to their full potential, harking back to the era in which computers where introduced to the classroom and primarily used as word processors (Cuban, 2001; Doyle, 2004). As early as the 1980s, “procedural thinking” (Papert, 1980) and later, Jeannette Wing’s “universally applicable attitude and skill set” make it clear that “computational thinking is a way of solving problems, designing systems, and understanding human behavior, by drawing on the concepts fundamental to computer science“ (Wing, 2006 p.33).

Despite efforts such as the U.K. Department of Education’s Computing At School

(http:// www.computingatschool.org.uk/), a national curriculum for computing in K-12 schools consisting of: computer science (CS), information technology (IT) and digital literacy (DL) (Kemp, Berry & Wong, 2017) and the Computer Science for All Initiative (http://1.usa.gov/21u4mxK)in the US, evidence provided by the Royal Society in their 2017 report, After the roboot: computing education in schools, shows that computing education in the UK is “patchy and fragile” and that “a majority of teachers are teaching an unfamiliar school subject without adequate support“ (Pye Tait, 2017 p. 7).

According to Martinez and Stager, a major impediment to the introduction of making as learning is the lack of professional development; teachers fear their training does not prepare them to successfully scaffold the learning process for their students (p. 71). The findings of Hira (2014) and Horton (2019) show that teachers are justified in their trepidation; considerable teacher training is required to develop IT competencies, to fully understand the new pedagogies and to become confident with new materials and challenges.  Similarly, teacher librarians require professional development in order to successfully collaborate in curriculum development and support (Purpur et al., 2016). Most critical is the need to convince teachers that making “has a place in the classroom beyond its origins as an after-school, enrichment activity” (Oliver, 2016a p. 163). According to Harlow et al.

The child learns first by encountering and then exploring an object or idea. Initially, the child tries to assimilate this new information into existing schema or thought structures. If the exploration of the object or idea does not match current schema, the child experiences cognitive disequilibrium and is motivated to mentally accommodate the new experience. Through the process of accommodation, a new schema is constructed into which the information can be assimilated and equilibrium can be temporarily reestablished. Disequilibrium reoccurs, however, each time the child encounters new experiences that cannot be assimilated. This is how construction of knowledge takes place (Harlow, 2006).

Chapter 15 – Making the case, discusses the broad topic of stakeholder advocacy – student, teacher, administration and parent. In an environment of high-stakes testing, it can be problematic to promote a project-based curriculum.  Martinez and Stager stress that, “the case for making, tinkering, or engineering should not be made based on achievement or higher test scores” (p.239) but rather stakeholders need convincing of the value of making through personal experience (Oliver, 2016a). High-ranking advocates of making include ex-President Barack Obama, who inaugurated the Educate To Innovate campaign to improve STEM education in 2009 (Schulman, 2013). Sustaining makerspaces in schools often requires parent volunteers, donations of materials and supplementary funding, all of which need strategies to be developed (Oliver, 2016b).

“The teachers learn through their own experiment that things don’t have to be as they seem, that their classrooms could be freer,” Stager https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/37236/how-to-turn-your-school-into-a-maker-haven

In the penultimate chapter of Invent to Learn, Martinez and Stager make a compelling plug for their Constructing Modern Knowledge (CMK) institute. CMK’s summer courses summer courses promise educators a perspective-changing professional learning experience which provides the same first-hand experience that works for their students. Participants model the collaborative and explorative nature of making to move from one project team to another, wherever inspiration takes them. The website for Invent to Learn and chapter 16 provide an extensive and detailed list of resources and there is a useful and informative bibliography.

Readers of Invent to Learn may feel overwhelmed by digital technology in the 21st century classroom and prefer to pursue a low-tech approach. Martinez and Staber do an excellent job of reassuring educators that makerspaces are doable on many different levels, and that making starts with a mindset rather than a set of tools.

 

References

Buechley, L. (2016). Stem is everywhere: Culture, stem education, & making. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1084&context=eldc

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Doyle, J. L. (2004). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. The International Journal of Educational Management, 18(2), 205-206. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540410527202

Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051

Davee, S., Regalla, L., & Chang, S. (2015). Makerspaces: Highlights of select literature. Retrieved from http://makered.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Makerspace-Lit-Review-5B.pdf.

Dougherty, D. (2012). The Maker Movement. Innovations: Technology, governance, globalization, MIT Press. Retrieved from https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/INOV_a_00135

Dougherty, D. (2013). The maker mindset. In M. Honey, & D. E. Kanter (Eds.), Design. Make. Play. Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 7–16). New York, NY: Routledge.

Davis, V. (2014). How the maker movement is moving into classrooms. Edutopia. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/maker-movement-moving-into-classrooms-vicki-davis.

Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103–120.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.x

Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational Thinking in K—12: A Review of the State of the Field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38-43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051

Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. M. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495-504,563,565. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/docview/1642662200?accountid=10344

Harlow, S., Cummings, R., & Aberasturi, S. M. (2006). Karl Popper and Jean Piaget: A rationale for constructivism. The Educational Forum, 71(1), 41-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720608984566

Hira, A., & Joslyn, C. H. & Hynes, M. (2014). Classroom Makerspaces: Identifying the Opportunities and Challenges. Proceedings – Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE. DOI: 10.1109/FIE.2014.7044263

Honey, M., & Kanter, D. E. (2013). Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of science innovators. In M. Honey & D. E. Kanter (Eds.), Design. Make. Play. Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 1–6). New York, NY: Routledge.

Horton, J. (2019). “Continuing education and professional development of library staff involved with makerspaces”, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 866-882. https://doi-org.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/10.1108/LHT-06-2018-0081

Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., Cody, R., Herr-Stephenson, B., Horst, H. A., Lange, P. G., Mahendran, D., Martı´nez, K. Z., Pascoe, C., (2010). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Ito, M. (2012). ‘Connected Learning: Everyone, everywhere, anytime’ [Video]. YouTube.| http://youtu.be/viHbdTC8a90)

Jenkins, H. (2006). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. Chicago: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. See: http://fall2010compositions.pbworks.com/f/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.pdf

Kemp, P., Berry, M., & Wong, B. (2017). The new computing curriculum in English schools: a statistical analysis of student participation. Poster session presented at Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education, Baltimore, United States. https://doi.org/10.1145/3159450.3162257

Martin, L. (2015). The Promise of the Maker Movement for Education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 5(1), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1099

Martinez, S. (2014). The maker movement: standing on the shoulders of giants to own the future. Edutopia. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/maker-movement-shoulders-of-giants-sylvia-martinez.

Mason J., Shaw G., Zhang D. (2019). Shifting Pedagogies and Digital Technologies—Shaping Futures in Education. In: S. Yu, H. Niemi, J. Mason (Eds.) Shaping Future Schools with Digital Technology. Perspectives on Rethinking and Reforming Education. Singapore: Springer. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9439-3_12

Moorefield-Lang, H. (2015). “Change in the making: Makerspaces and the ever changing landscape of libraries”, TechTrends, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 107-112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-015-0860-z

Oliver, K.M. (2016a). “Professional development considerations for makerspace leaders, part one: addressing ‘what?’ and ‘why?’ ”, TechTrends, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 160-166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0028-5

Oliver, K.M. (2016b). “Professional development considerations for makerspace leaders, part two: addressing ‘how?’ ”, TechTrends, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 211-217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0050-7

Paganelli, Andrea, Cribbs, J.D., Huang, X., Pereira, N., Huss, J., Chandler. W & Paganelli, Anthony (2017). The makerspace experience and teacher professional development. Professional Development in Education, 43:2, 232-235, https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2016.1166448

Papert, S. (1993). Mindstorms : Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York: Perseus Publishing.

Papert, S. (2000). What’s the big idea? toward a pedagogy of idea power. IBM Systems Journal, 39(3-4), 720-729. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/docview/743779548?accountid=10344

Purpur, E., Radniecki, T., Colegrove, P. T., & Klenke, C. (2016). Refocusing mobile makerspace outreach efforts internally as professional development. Library Hi Tech, 34(1), 130-142. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-07-2015-0077

Quinn, H., & Bell, P. (2013). How designing, making, and playing relate to the learning goals of K-12 science education. In M. Honey & D. Kanter (Eds.), Design. Make. Play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 17–33). New York, NY: Routledge.

Pye Tait, (2017). After the Reboot: The State of Computing Education in UK Schools and Colleges. The Royal Society.

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/projects/computing-education/computing-education-report.pdf

Schulman, K. (2013). White House Hangout: The Maker Movement. Retrieved from: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2013/03/27/white-house-hangout-maker-movement

Sheridan, K. M., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B. K., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T. (2014). Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 505–531. DOI: 10.17763/haer.84.4.brr34733723j648u

Silva, Adriana de Souza e., Glover-Rijkse, R. ed. (2020). Hybrid Play:Crossing Boundaries in Game Design, Players Identities and Play Spaces. London: Routledge

Stager, G. S. (2005). Papertian Constructionism and the Design of Productive Contexts for Learning. [Paper presentation] Plenary Session Paper – EuroLogo X, Warsaw, Poland. http://www.stager.org/articles/eurologo2005.pdf

Stager, G. S. (2016). Seymour Papert (1928-2016). Nature, 537(7620), 308. DOI:10.1038/537308a

Yokana, L. (2014). Capture the learning: crafting the maker mindset. Edutopia. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/capture-learning-crafting-maker-mindset-lisa-yokana.

Wing, Jeannette. (2006). “Computational Thinking.” Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi:10.1145/1118178.1118215.