This paper explores the integration of Maker Education and DIY (Do-It-Yourself) culture in schools as a transformative approach to fostering innovation and creativity among students. Maker Education, characterized by hands-on, project-based learning, offers a dynamic alternative to traditional teaching methods. The DIY ethos, which emphasizes self-reliance and problem-solving skills, complements this educational model by encouraging students to become active participants in the learning process. This study investigates how schools are adopting these methodologies to create environments that not only promote critical thinking but also equip students with practical skills that are highly valued in the modern workforce. Through a review of existing literature and case studies, the paper highlights the benefits of Maker Education and DIY culture in schools, including improved engagement, enhanced problem-solving abilities, and the development of 21st-century skills. Furthermore, it discusses the challenges faced by educators and institutions in implementing these innovative practices and proposes strategies for overcoming these obstacles. The analysis suggests that the integration of Maker Education and DIY culture in schools can lead to a more equitable and inclusive educational system that prepares students for future success.
Anderson, D. (2022). Maker Education and DIY Culture in Schools. Perspectives in Innovative Education, 4(2), 32. doi:10.69610/j.pie.20220922
ACS Style
Anderson, D. Maker Education and DIY Culture in Schools. Perspectives in Innovative Education, 2022, 4, 32. doi:10.69610/j.pie.20220922
AMA Style
Anderson D. Maker Education and DIY Culture in Schools. Perspectives in Innovative Education; 2022, 4(2):32. doi:10.69610/j.pie.20220922
Chicago/Turabian Style
Anderson, Daniel 2022. "Maker Education and DIY Culture in Schools" Perspectives in Innovative Education 4, no.2:32. doi:10.69610/j.pie.20220922
Share and Cite
ACS Style
Anderson, D. Maker Education and DIY Culture in Schools. Perspectives in Innovative Education, 2022, 4, 32. doi:10.69610/j.pie.20220922
AMA Style
Anderson D. Maker Education and DIY Culture in Schools. Perspectives in Innovative Education; 2022, 4(2):32. doi:10.69610/j.pie.20220922
Chicago/Turabian Style
Anderson, Daniel 2022. "Maker Education and DIY Culture in Schools" Perspectives in Innovative Education 4, no.2:32. doi:10.69610/j.pie.20220922
APA style
Anderson, D. (2022). Maker Education and DIY Culture in Schools. Perspectives in Innovative Education, 4(2), 32. doi:10.69610/j.pie.20220922
Article Metrics
Article Access Statistics
References
Burbules, N. C., & Callister, T. A. (2000). Watch IT: The Risks and Promises of Information Technologies for Education. Westview Press.
Sarama, J., & Stage, F. K. (2009). Making mathematics meaningful: Learning and teaching with understanding. Routledge.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by 'realistic' problems? Some reflections on the nature of problems in simulations and serious games. Simulation & Gaming, 30(1), 3-21.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chinn, C. A., & Cokely, E. T. (2007). Primary challenges in designing problem-based learning curricula. Educational Psychologist, 42(3), 141-158.
Herring, E. K., et al. (2012). Building computational thinking in middle school: The effects of a creative learning environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 12(1), 1-27.
Kafai, Y., et al. (2004). The transformation of learning: What games and simulations teach us about pedagogy. In Proceedings of the 6th conference on International conference on Learning sciences (pp. 438-445). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Identifying and distinguishing between types of problem solving in the context of design learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(2), 193-225.
Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teacher expertise: A theoretical and practical framework. In B. J. duplicating & L. B. Vadeboncoeur (Eds.), The expert teacher (pp. 13-28). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kafai, Y., et al. (1999). Urban kids go digital: Learning and identity in virtual worlds. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theory and practice of computer-based learning environments (pp. 269-285). Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Puntambekar, S., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2009). Why is problem-based learning effective? A response to Ng et al. (2009). Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 87-95.
Squire, K., & Draper, S. W. (2003). Designing for learning in the digital age: Strategies for school reform. Teachers College Press.
National Research Council. (2012). AFramework for successful K-12 science education: Practices, policies, and outcomes. The National Academies Press.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Adamson, F. (2002). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What does student learning really tell us? Educational Leadership, 59(5), 30-37.
Seidel, D., & Jungwirth, S. (2010). Building capacity for PBL implementation: A case study of a professional development program. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 137-167.
