DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.23925/1809-3876.2020v18i2p523-544
MAKER EDUCATION: WHERE IS THE CURRICULUM?
Paulo BLIKSTEINi
José Armando VALENTEii
Éliton Meireles de MOURAiii
ABSTRACT
The Maker Movement has been inspirational to many educational institutions, contributing to the
growing interest in implementing maker education in K-12 and higher education. However, the
examples of this implementation show that many maker activities are not yet integrated within the
curriculum. The objective of this article is to understand how maker education can be integrated into the
K-12 curriculum. Methodologically, this paper uses a qualitative approach, describing case studies in
schools implementing maker education. Based on these experiences, it was possible to categorize the
material collected into two groups of activities: those developed in schools, but not related to the
curriculum; and those related to one or two subjects in the curriculum. Finally, based on these cases, the
paper suggests how the implementation of maker education can be carried out in K-12 education. The
focus should not only be the teaching of disciplinary content through maker approaches, but be able to
create conditions for the student to become aware and understand the curricular topics that are
incorporated in the products they build.
KEYWORDS: Maker movement; Maker activity; STEM-rich; K-12 education; Educational
technologies.
EDUCAÇÃO MAKER: ONDE ESTÁ O CURRÍCULO?
RESUMO
O Movimento Maker tem inspirado instituições educacionais, contribuindo para o crescente interesse
pela implantação da educação maker tanto no ensino básico quanto no superior. No entanto, os
exemplos dessa implantação mostram que as atividades maker não estão ainda integradas ao currículo.
Portanto, o objetivo deste artigo é entender como a educação maker pode ser integrada ao currículo
do ensino básico. Para tanto, foram utilizadas a abordagem documental e visitas às instituições que
estão implantando a educação maker. Com base nessas experiências, foi possível classificar o material
coletado em dois grupos de atividades: as que estão associadas a uma ou duas disciplinas do currículo,
e as que não estão relacionadas ao currículo. Com base nesses estudos de caso, discutimos como a
i
PhD in Learning Science from Northwestern University (2008). Associate Professor at Teachers College,
Columbia University, and Affiliated Professor in the Department of Computer Science Department and in the
Data Sciences Institute, Columbia University, USA. E-mail: paulob@tc.columbia.edu.
ii
PhD from the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Division for Study and Research in Education at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology MIT (1983). Retired Professor from the Multimedia Department of the
Art Institute at the State University of Campinas (Universidade Estadual de Campinas – UNICAMP) in Brazil,
and a collaborator and researcher of the Nucleus of Informatics Applied to Education, (Núcleo de Informática
Aplicada à Educação – NIED) at UNICAMP. E-mail: jvalente@unicamp.br.
iii
PhD from the School of Education at the University of São Paulo (Universidade de São Paulo – USP) (2019).
Researcher at the Research Nucleus for Media in Education (Núcleo de Pesquisa em Mídias na Educação NUPEME) from the Federal University of Uberlândia (Universidade Federal de Uberlândia – UFU), and
researcher in the Group for the Study and Research of Educational Evaluation (Grupo de Estudos e Pesquisa
em Avaliação Educacional - GEPAE) at the same institution. E-mail: e.meireles@alumni.usp.br.
========
Revista e-Curriculum, São Paulo, v.18, n.2, p. 523-544 abr./jun. 2020
Programa de Pós-graduação Educação: Currículo – PUC/SP
http://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/curriculum
e-ISSN: 1809-3876
523
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.23925/1809-3876.2020v18i2p523-544
implantação da educação maker pode ser feita no ensino básico. O foco dessa educação não deve ser
apenas o ensino de conteúdos disciplinares por meio da educação maker, mas também ser capaz de
criar condições para que o aluno tome consciência e entenda os conceitos curriculares presentes nos
produtos que constroem.
PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Movimento maker; Atividade maker; STEM-ampliado; Educação básica;
Tecnologias educacionais.
EDUCACIÓN MAKER: ¿DÓNDE ESTÁ EL CURRÍCULUM?
RESUMEN
El Movimiento maker ha sido observado por las instituciones educativas, contribuyendo al creciente
interés en implementar la educación maker en la educación básica y superior. Sin embargo, los
ejemplos de esta implementación muestran que las actividades maker aún no están integradas con el
currículum. El propósito de este artículo es comprender cómo la educación maker puede integrarse en
el currículum. Con este fin, se utilizó el enfoque documental y la visita a las instituciones que están
implementando la educación maker. Con base en estas experiencias, fue posible clasificar el material
recolectado en dos grupos de actividades: las desarrolladas en las escuelas, pero no relacionadas con
el currículum; y los relacionados con una o dos asignaturas del currículum. Finalmente, con base en
los estudios de casos descritos y las lecturas realizadas, se describe cómo la implantación de la
educación maker puede llevarse a cabo en la educación básica. El enfoque de esta educación no solo
debe ser la enseñanza de contenido disciplinario a través del maker, sino también ser capaz de crear
condiciones para que el estudiante tome conciencia y comprenda los conceptos curriculares que están
presentes en los productos que construyen.
PALABRAS CLAVE: Movimiento maker; Actividad maker; STEM-ampliado; Educación básica;
Tecnologías educativas.
1 INTRODUCTION
Technology and science education have converged and diverged over the course of the
last century. This history, which is forgotten in current educational debates, can assist in
illuminating the role of maker education in schools. Historically, technology education focused
on vocational training, including carpentry and industrial trades (see, for example, DE VRIES,
2018). Even higher education in engineering, during the first half of the twentieth century, was
essentially practical, and contained a large number of “hands on” classes. The “scientific”
engineer, who must study calculus and physics before learning to build objects, is a creation
that originated in the second half of the last century (TRYGGVASON; APELIAN, 2006).
Major schools of engineering in the beginning of the twentieth century were temples for the
practical “hands on” engineer. However, these same schools, as of the 1970s, worshiped
engineering theory and “science” above all else.
Paulo BLIKSTEIN, José Armando VALENTE, Éliton Meireles de MOURA
Maker Education: where is the curriculum?
524
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.23925/1809-3876.2020v18i2p523-544
The same occurred in K-12 education. Courses such as carpentry, sewing, and the
“manual arts” were considered a refuge for students who did not perform well in subjects such
as mathematics, reinforcing the idea that intellectual work is superior to manual labor.
Nevertheless, as of the 1980s, many researchers noticed that the seclusion of technology in
“manual” classes, and the glorification of “pen and paper” science and mathematics
contradicted new cultural, social, and economic trends being established. The UK, in 1989,
created a curriculum for technology in education, and researchers began to notice that scientific
and technology education had fundamental differences: while science tries to find one equation
that would solve many problems (convergent), engineering tries to discover diverse solutions
for a single problem (divergent) (ATKIN, 1990).
The inclusion of engineering and technology into K-12 education, therefore, faced a
turbulent environment for decades, trying to impose a traditional model that prioritizes
convergent thinking to a type of divergent content, encountering few viable solutions. Bullock
and Sator (2015, p. 71) claim: “Current science curricula fail to frame the relationship between
science and technology as a symbiotic relationship and thus fail to understand that technology
education creates a space for science education, and vice-versa”.
Maker education, which focuses on the implementation of activities that combine
science and technology (both in terms of space, and curricular themes), is a new chapter in this
history. Nevertheless, this education is based on a series of digital technologies, which for
decades have been difficult to integrate into the classroom. A study by Iannone, Almeida and
Valente (2016) points to the fact that these technologies are present particularly in
administrative settings and in computer labs, and are already part of the lived experience of
many teachers and students. However, they cannot be found in the classroom, nor were they
incorporated into curricular practices. This reality currently impacts the implementation of
maker education. Nonetheless, considering that technology is a part of contemporary society,
which is increasingly digital, mobile, and connected, it is impossible to think of them as not
being a part of pedagogic and curricular activities in the classroom. The historic and cultural
moment of the beginning of this century brought maker education to the schools’ doorstep.
This article aims to understand how maker education can be integrated into K-12
curriculum, considering the particularities of “divergent” content (typical of maker activities)
combined with other forms of knowledge from other disciplines, and different ways for
organizing curriculum. In order to do so, data collected during previous studies were used to
========
Revista e-Curriculum, São Paulo, v.18, n.2, p. 523-544 abr./jun. 2020
Programa de Pós-graduação Educação: Currículo – PUC/SP
http://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/curriculum
e-ISSN: 1809-3876
525
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.23925/1809-3876.2020v18i2p523-544
answer the following questions: How to characterize maker education? What is the concept of
curriculum that can be used in the development of maker activities? How to assist in the
development of concepts related to “STEM-rich” (BEVAN, 2017)? How to implement maker
education in K-12 education?
In order to answer these questions, documents and examples of maker education
activities and spaces visited by the authors were used, as well as the authors’ experiences in the
development of maker spaces, and conducting workshops for teacher development. The article
is divided into five sections, and the first of them addresses the connection between curriculum
and maker activities. The following sections focus on the integration of maker activities into
the curriculum, presenting and discussing practical examples; the implementation of maker
education in K-12 education; and, finally, the conclusion.
2 THE PILLARS FOR MAKER EDUCATION AND THE CURRICULUM
In this section we present topics concerning the origins of maker education, its vision
of the curriculum, and the relationship between maker education and STEM-rich.
2.1 The origins of maker education
The Maker Movement, basing itself on the “Do-it-Yourself” (DIY) culture, is but one
of the pillars for maker education. This movement has at its core the idea that people can build,
fix, modify, and fabricate the most diverse array of objects and projects. The collective of
Makers gathers its members in physical spaces, equipped with traditional objects and digital
fabrication tools, known as makerspaces, hackerspaces, FabLabs, FabLearn labs, and other such
designations.
FabLabs are an important pillar for the maker movement. During the beginning of the
2000s, Neil Gershenfeld and his collaborators from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT) Media Lab created a space for digital fabrication with relatively low costs, and began to
take the model outside MIT’s campus. In these spaces, through access to digital fabrication
tools, students studied the “boundary between computer science and physical science”
(GERSHENFELD, 2012, p. 46). Since then, the network of FabLabs has expanded to
Paulo BLIKSTEIN, José Armando VALENTE, Éliton Meireles de MOURA
Maker Education: where is the curriculum?
526
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.23925/1809-3876.2020v18i2p523-544
communities, museums, libraries, science fairs, and has finally reached institutions of
education.
Maker education has other historic pillars – the Maker Faire and the MAKE Magazine,
created in the USA in 2006, popularizing the practice of DIY; the FabLearn project, which
disseminated communities of maker educators, and, since 2010, created the first maker spaces
in schools in a dozen of countries (MARTINEZ; STAGER, 2013). However, the idea of handson and “Do-it-Yourself” in education is not new: it was proposed by educators such as Dewey
(1916), Freinet (1998), Montessori (1965), and Freire (2008), who discuss pedagogical
approaches based on “hands on” using technologies from their time period, such as letters,
wood, etc. Pedagogy based on “hands-on” utilizing digital technologies was proposed by Papert
and collaborators (who coined the term “constructionism”), which is based on the idea that
knowledge is developed when the learner is engaged in the production of an object of their
interest (PAPERT, 1986). Digital technologies, particularly computers, play a central role for
they “provide an especially wide range of excellent contexts for constructionist learning”
(PAPERT, 1991, p. 8). Constructionism’s intellectual tradition is, therefore, another important
pillar, as it prepared the theoretical grounds for maker educators to develop a deeper
understanding of their own practices.
Yet the fact that maker learning has many historic pillars resulted in its never being
properly defined. This created a wide range of possibilities, from the use of simple objects, such
as sticks, cardboard, glue, etc., to the use of fabrication tools, such as laser cutters, digital CNC
routers, and 3D printers. This wide range of possibilities and resources offered by the maker
movement has provided different scenarios for schools to incorporate these ideas. Many
researchers have observed that the production of objects or the development of learning based
on constructionist methodologies, such as those offered by maker activities, can provide the
conditions for learners to be creative and critical, as well as capable of solving problems and
working in groups (MARTINEZ; STAGER, 2013; HALVERSON; SHERIDAN, 2014;
KURTI; KURTI; FLEMMING, 2014; BLIKSTEIN; WORSLEY, 2016).
Nevertheless, there is still the challenge of connecting maker activities to the
curriculum, seeking not to forget the richness of the process of constructing objects, without
losing sight of the need to generate learning, as argued by Valente and Blikstein (2019). This
requires not too “enchanted” with the infinite number of possibilities and resources available
for these activities, forgetting the initial educational objective.
========
Revista e-Curriculum, São Paulo, v.18, n.2, p. 523-544 abr./jun. 2020
Programa de Pós-graduação Educação: Currículo – PUC/SP
http://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/curriculum
e-ISSN: 1809-3876
527
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.23925/1809-3876.2020v18i2p523-544
Furthermore, Valente and Blikstein (2019) argue that there is a huge diversity of
objectives within maker education, despite its apparent unicity. In this study, the authors note
that even neighboring schools had diverse objectives. In one school, the objective was not
necessarily to work on curricular content, but rather to increase the students’ self-esteem. The
social and cultural contexts in which these students lived was highly unfavorable, which
resulted in their low self-esteem regarding their ability to execute tasks successfully and learn.
Therefore, the teacher’s concern was to create an environment in which students were capable
of creating something successfully, and sharing their product with colleagues and family
members. In another school in this same district, the objective of the activity was to develop
something with high aesthetic value, a professionally finished product. Therefore, in some
situations, it is important to consider the students’ and the communities’ circumstances and
needs. Thus, maker education is not always aligned with objectives in the school’s curriculum,
but when it is, one must be clear that action does not necessarily entail learning: there is a need
for explicit elements of the educational design to connect maker education and the curriculum.
2.2 Vision of the curriculum
In Brazil, the National Curricular Parameters (Parâmetros Curriculares Nacionais –
PCN) (BRASIL, 1997), the National Curricular Directives for K-12 Education (Diretrizes
Curriculares Nacionais para a Educação Básica – DCNEB) (BRASIL, 2013), and, more
recently, the National Common Core Curriculum (Base Nacional Comum Curricular – BNCC)
(BRASIL, [n.d.]) were created with the objective of guiding K-12 schools. One of BNCC’s
competencies, digital culture, is to provide the opportunity for activities with technologies in
the sense of stimulating students’ curiosity, as well as “creative, logical, and critical thinking,
through the development and strengthening of their ability to ask questions and to evaluate
responses, to argue, to interact with various cultural productions” (BRASIL, [n.d.], p. 58). Thus,
the pedagogical process must consider the development of distinct languages, methodologies,
and multi-directional interactions between learners, teachers, teaching material, and the use of
digital technologies, which should be part of the curriculum and the school’s pedagogic plan.
The possibility of giving new meaning and adapting the curricula is shared by different
authors, such as Gimeno Sacristán (1998; 1999; 2000), who understands curriculum as a social
Paulo BLIKSTEIN, José Armando VALENTE, Éliton Meireles de MOURA
Maker Education: where is the curriculum?
528
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.23925/1809-3876.2020v18i2p523-544
praxis that encompasses content, method, procedures, cultural tools, previous experiences, and
activities. For this author, the school coexists with an official curriculum, that is prescribed, and
with a real curriculum, which is established in the formative context and is experienced through
concrete practice in the relationship between teachers and students, and amongst students.
However, both prescribed curricula and the real curricula, according to Freire (2008) and
Pacheco (2000), should involve the social, the political, and the cultural. Pacheco (2016)
emphasizes that knowledge, conceptualized as a historic product, is at the core of curriculum.
Since the real curriculum is a fundamentally deliberative space, according to Pacheco
and Paraskeva (1999), it is part of a project that involves intention and praxis, which implies a
continuum of decision making, and, therefore, an unfinished process that integrates options, and
values, attitudes and techniques. Value and attitude dimensions contribute to guaranteeing that
curriculum experienced in the classroom is not neutral.
It is important to assume that curricula in maker education are not neutral. Everyone is
a “curricular actor”, as suggested by Macedo (2013), who understands the curriculum as a
procedural concept, and curricular scenarios function as “curricular moments”. In other words:
“time-spaces in which all and any social actor involved in curricular ‘things’ are heard as
important for the democratization of the socially invented artifact” (MACEDO, 2013, p. 429).
In this sense, the concept of curricular acts is relevant to understand the learning contexts
created in maker spaces, for curriculum should not be something developed by educational
authorities to be applied by educators. The activities to be developed in maker spaces should
be thought of as curricular acts so that learning, meaning negotiations, and meaning making
originate in the social interaction with people, with materials, and with the technologies present
in that space. Curriculum is not defined from the start and imposed, but is based on the teacher’s
pedagogic intentions, and reconstructed through the students’ and teacher’s actions.
For maker education to support curricular acts and interdisciplinarity, it is important that
the integration of maker activities into the discipline’s curriculum take place in a manner that
is substantiated, and not based on fad. First, technology should have an auxiliary role for the
carrying out of something that cannot be done using conventional methods. Second, it is
important to match the technology to the educational proposal. In other words, it is not realistic
to use various technologies to address content that does not demand a given equipment.
========
Revista e-Curriculum, São Paulo, v.18, n.2, p. 523-544 abr./jun. 2020
Programa de Pós-graduação Educação: Currículo – PUC/SP
http://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/curriculum
e-ISSN: 1809-3876
529
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.23925/1809-3876.2020v18i2p523-544
Figure 1 illustrates a balance that must guide the development of educational maker
activities: on the one side of the balance is the curriculum that, to be put into practice, involves
teacher training, scientific development, and the knowledge to be addressed. On the other side
of the balance is the maker activity, which involves creation, technology development, and the
real world. The metaphor of a balance indicates that both of these components must be in
equilibrium – one must not loose on the side of curriculum, nor on the maker side.
Figure 1 – Balance between Curriculum and Maker.
Source: The authors
To find equilibrium on this balance means to consider training and creativity,
simultaneously developing scientific and technological aspects. Projects that involve digital
fabrication and advanced technology are almost exclusively related to activities in the STEM
disciplines, though authors such as Bevan (2017) have considered activities in other disciplines
(STEM-rich).
2.3 The relationship between maker education and STEM-rich
One of the arguments used to justify the implementation of maker education in US K12 education is the possibility of supporting the curricular integration of the sciences,
technology, engineering, and mathematics, what is known as STEM. Though the integration of
STEM disciplines is desired, it does not occur satisfactorily, as seen in a report by the National
Research Council (2014).
Maker education has been considered a solution to integration (BLIKSTEIN, 2013;
HALVERSON; SHERIDAN, 2014; RILEY, 2015; ROSE, 2014; SHERIDAN et al., 2014). In
addition to this integration into maker education, there are conditions needed for students to be
protagonists, develop projects using traditional objects and technologies, and able to work on
authentic projects in flexible and collaborative spaces (VUORIKARI; FERRARI; PUNIE,
Paulo BLIKSTEIN, José Armando VALENTE, Éliton Meireles de MOURA
Maker Education: where is the curriculum?
530
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.23925/1809-3876.2020v18i2p523-544
2019). In addition to STEM disciplines, maker education has allowed for activities in the arts
(PEPPLER, 2016) and design (MARTIN; DIXON, 2016), broadening the scope of disciplines,
what Bevan (2017) coined as STEM-rich.
Another important aspect is that the activities taking place in maker spaces can
contribute to the learners’ personal and social development. Clapp and colleagues (2017)
identified that students take on a more proactive role regarding real world problems and develop
character – they can take risks, learn to handle failures and achieve success, and develop a
mentality that includes creativity, curiosity, persistence, social responsibility, and group work.
Finally, there is an increased concern in maker education with the equal participation of
all students. In 2013, Buechley identified that 89% of the authors, and 81% of the readers of
the Maker Magazine were men (BUECHLEY, 2013). Particularly in the USA, this issue has
been the research focus of many groups and authors, so that maker education does not become
elitist, catering to a privileged group of students (BLIKSTEIN; WORSLEY, 2016;
VOSSOUGHI; HOOPER; ESCUDÉ, 2016; CALABRESE BARTON; TAN, 2018). The
objective is to be able to value the cultures, experiences, and values students bring to the
learning and teaching process.
In the following sections we will present and discuss examples of how curricular themes
can be identified in activities students develop during maker education.
3 INTEGRATION OF MAKER ACTIVITIES AND THE CURRICULUM
In this section we will discuss examples of educational activities executed in schools,
being that one case is not related to the curriculum, and the other concerns STEM-rich.
3.1 Maker activities that are not related to the curriculum
The maker activity discussed in this section was reported in Moura (2019), and observed
during a visit to a US institution of public education in the suburbs of the city of Palo Alto, in
California, described as a case study (“The boats in an aquarium.”)
During one of his educational activities, the technician responsible for the maker space
promoted a competition for a group of students between 5 and 6 years old. As they entered the
school’s maker space, the students came upon an aquarium filled with water, in the middle of
========
Revista e-Curriculum, São Paulo, v.18, n.2, p. 523-544 abr./jun. 2020
Programa de Pós-graduação Educação: Currículo – PUC/SP
http://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/curriculum
e-ISSN: 1809-3876
531
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.23925/1809-3876.2020v18i2p523-544
the classroom. Once students were sitting and facing him, the technician began to explain the
dynamic of that day’s activity. Each student would build a boat and, in order to do so, they
would be given a few materials that are easily manipulated, present in the maker space, such as
different types of paper, plastic, yarn, glues, and recycled materials. Due to the students’ age
range, and because this was an activity planned to be executed during a single class period,
other options were not considered for this activity, such as the use of a 3D printer. The
technician further explained that, after having constructed their boat, each student would go up
to the aquarium and test their vessel. The boat had to hold a large number of marbles without
sinking. The “winner” of this task would be student who constructed a boat that could hold the
largest number of marbles.
Students then set off to begin the activity. They constructed their boats and would walk
up to the aquarium to test it. They would deposit the boat in the water, and then place marbles
in the boat, counting them, up to the moment their boat sunk. Instructions to use different
materials, or to not place too many marbles on the boat at once, were constantly iterated by the
technician. He also questioned the students as to why some of their projects were not successful.
By the end of the activity, one the kids, a girl, was declared the champion, having placed 12
marbles on her boat, which was built out of aluminum paper, ribbons, and pieces of styrofoam
glued onto the vessel’s edges. At the end of the lesson, the technician asked that students to sit
in circle in the patio so that they could discuss the activity. At this time, the technician carried
out a debate on the importance of planning before executing a project. Not long thereafter, the
school bell rang indicating the end of class, prompting students to run back to their regular
classroom. Figure 2 illustrates different moments of the activity. The image to the left depicts
the students constructing their boats; in the center image, one can see attempts to make a few
boats float; and in the image to the right, one sees the students in a circle talking.
Figure 2 - Maker Activities “The Boat and the Aquarium”.
Source: Moura (2019).
Paulo BLIKSTEIN, José Armando VALENTE, Éliton Meireles de MOURA
Maker Education: where is the curriculum?
532
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.23925/1809-3876.2020v18i2p523-544
The activity was well accepted and developed by the students, with high levels of
involvement. The technician presented this as a fun activity, which was proven true in the
students’ attitudes. Though this was not made explicit, this activity allowed for students to work
on various competencies, such as autonomy when faced with the choice of materials, the
commitment to achieve the proposed objective with enthusiasm and dedication, as well as
persistence, resilience and versatility. Nevertheless, it is important to take note of two very
significant absences: one, of the teacher, and consequently, of curricular content.
A technician in an educational maker space, as a rule, is responsible for maintaining and
managing the environment. It is the teacher’s responsibility to be ahead of a class in an
educational space. Therefore, having been justified or not, the teacher’s absence obliges the
technician to take on the role of the teacher, having to develop and carry out school activities
with the students. To take on this teaching role is inappropriate, as this professional usually
does not have any pedagogic training, and, for this reason, is not, and should not be, responsible
for providing academic content. As a result of this condition, the curricular content is
abandoned. Consequently, Moura (2019) mostly points to how maker activities have not been
developed to address curricular content, but rather cognitive, motor, and socio-emotional
competencies. On the other hand, in a few maker spaces, one can observe the development of
maker activities that are related to the curriculum, including STEM-rich disciplines.
3.2 Maker activities related to STEM-rich
In “Digital Fabrication and Making in Education”, Blikstein (2013) presents a project
developed by a history teacher who wanted to give classes in the maker laboratory. Though the
teacher was not familiar with digital prototyping, aided by the technician in the maker space,
she sought to understand the possibilities offered by the resources present in the lab. She then
proposed that her students learn about important women in US history (such as Rosa Parks) by
building historic monuments in their honor, using a 3D printer and a laser cutter. The math
teacher also participated in the project, creating the wooden base for the monuments. The base
was marked with a grid of one-inch squares. The teacher then challenged students to construct
all objects to scale – thus establishing an authentic and rich connection to his discipline. Figure
3 depicts three of these monuments.
========
Revista e-Curriculum, São Paulo, v.18, n.2, p. 523-544 abr./jun. 2020
Programa de Pós-graduação Educação: Currículo – PUC/SP
http://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/curriculum
e-ISSN: 1809-3876
533
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.23925/1809-3876.2020v18i2p523-544
Figure 3 – Three examples of projects from the “Historic Monuments”, depicting the one-inch grid suggested by
the math teacher to guide the development of objects to scale.
Source: Blikstein (2013).
This is a project that can be described as an educational maker activity that is not
completely related to the hard sciences, since it includes, in addition to mathematics, history
content. The first step to create a curricular maker activity, thus, is to think of the learning
objective – which should come prior to the choice of the technology.
Another project in a Brazilian school focused on the people of ancient civilizations as
part of the World History curriculum. The objective was to evaluate various techniques and
materials used by different civilizations, relate this information to the society’s characteristics,
social organization, and historic context, and, based on this information, develop similar objects
using fabrication tools in the maker space.
To study major ancient civilizations, the history teacher proposed that the class be
divided into groups, each of which would select one of the principal societies in human history
to focus on. This selection could be based on region: for example, people who inhabited the
Mesopotamian region, such as the Akkadians, Babylonians, Assyrians and Chaldeans. Or the
selection could be based on epoch: selecting people from distinct regions but of a similar time
period (Chinese, Greek, Roman, Egyptian, etc.). After choosing a group to study, the first of
four phases thought of for this activity consisted of studying the culture of the selected group,
focusing primarily on the artifacts/objects they used, their materials, technologies, and types of
logographic writing. The next phase consisted of creating and producing historic artifacts such
as coins, utensils, signs with symbols, and scriptures similar to those that belonged to the given
civilization chosen by the group. To complete this task, students were encouraged to use various
maker technologies, such as 3D printers, laser cutters, polymer molding, woodworking, and
clay, amongst others. During the third phase, the proposal was to create excavations so that the
groups could exchange archeological sites amongst each other, and discover from which
civilization the produced objects belonged. Finally, during the fourth phase, prompted by the
Paulo BLIKSTEIN, José Armando VALENTE, Éliton Meireles de MOURA
Maker Education: where is the curriculum?
534
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.23925/1809-3876.2020v18i2p523-544
teacher, the students discussed the connections between the technologies, materials, and historic
context, for example, to understand how the discovery of new material or fabrication techniques
changed the civilization’s economy and social context. This is an activity that, in so being
developed, can be executed in a short time period, for example, of one or two weeks, or over a
longer period of time, taking months, depending on the teacher’s options and learning
objectives.
In these three cases, the important fact to be noted is the role of the teacher in relating
or not the activity to the curriculum. In the case of the Boats in the Aquarium activity,
considering the student’s age range, the activity could have been used to explore concepts from
the mathematics curriculum, such as the geometric shapes of the constructed boats, trying to
identify which are better suited to keep the boat floating. This project could also be used to
discuss with students their real or historic references to boats, or scientific concepts, such as
buoyancy, or even scientific practices, such as systematic experimentation. The lack of
curriculum to be addressed in this activity reinforces the absence of the teacher’s participation,
for teachers know how to explore the products that the students develop to understand the
disciplinary concepts addressed.
4 IMPLEMENTATION OF MAKER EDUCATION
The implementation of maker education should be based on four pillars: the
development of the maker space; teacher training; the projects being developed; and the student
as protagonist. The maker space is the location in which students develop activities. It would
be ideal if the school were, in reality, a huge maker space, in which students of different ages
and teachers from distinct disciplines could interact and develop projects, exploring various
concepts, abilities, and attitudes in an integrated manner. This already takes place in some
maker schools – for example, the Acera school - The Massachusetts School for Science,
Creativity and Leadership (ACERA, 2020).
Maker spaces in schools can take on various formats. In some schools, there are special
rooms with traditional educational materials (glue, cardboard, wood), recycled materials, and
digital technologies, such as 3D printers, laser cutters, and CNC routers. In other schools, there
are spaces that provide a combination of these same characteristics with materials that can be
employed in all subject areas. Finally, there are institutions that create a “maker corner” within
========
Revista e-Curriculum, São Paulo, v.18, n.2, p. 523-544 abr./jun. 2020
Programa de Pós-graduação Educação: Currículo – PUC/SP
http://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/curriculum
e-ISSN: 1809-3876
535
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.23925/1809-3876.2020v18i2p523-544
the classroom. In this final case, the construction of basic objects can begin within the classroom
and be complemented with the use of digital fabrication tools. Therefore, the maker space can
be understood as a combination of various locations present within a school, such as an art
classroom, a science laboratory, and a repair shop (LECORCHICK; SPIRES; GALLO, 2019).
However, it is important to emphasize that digital technologies are a major component
of the maker space, as argued by Valente e Blikstein (2019). They maximize possibilities: it is
one thing to paint with your fingers, or to use a single color of paint; it is quite another to have
a large amount of colors and various types of paintbrushes at your disposal. The quality of the
tools and the materials expand the possibilities for construction. In addition, the technologies
should serve as more than an aid to the manufacturing of a given product. One can create a vase
out of clay, but it is a drastically different task to program a robot to do the same thing (despite
the similar final product). In the case of the robot and digital fabrication tools, they must be
programmed in order to work, and the program constitutes the representation of the student’s
knowledge concerning concepts such as scale, distance, geometry, and programming. This
representation can be studied and analyzed at the level of the concepts and strategies used, and
can be perfected and ameliorated, helping the student achieve a new level of scientific
knowledge through a growing learning spiral (VALENTE, 2005).
The teacher, so as to be able to help in the process of constructing knowledge through
maker activities carried out by the students, should be prepared and knowledgeable not only of
the content of the given subject they teach, and of the use of the technologies available in the
maker space, but also as to how to integrate the students’ activities with curricular disciplines,
and how to challenge the students so that they may continue on their growing learning spiral.
Therefore, teachers become protagonists when they demonstrate a positive attitude in
relation to maker education. Despite claiming the contrary, the school does not demonstrate, in
practice, a concern in connecting curriculum to real life situations or to the students’ interests.
The possibility of thinking of the students’ activities as “curricular moments”, as suggested by
Macedo (2013), creates the conditions for teachers, based on their pedagogic intents, to
incorporate the students’ interests and needs.
The teacher, as the main agent in the schooling institution and the classroom, must be
conscious of the fact that, generally, teaching is not committed to creativity, since it is tailored
to the textbook, to prescribed curricula, or other things that are extraneous to what is taking
Paulo BLIKSTEIN, José Armando VALENTE, Éliton Meireles de MOURA
Maker Education: where is the curriculum?
536
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.23925/1809-3876.2020v18i2p523-544
place at that moment in the classroom. The teacher should not abandon such references or their
planning. Nevertheless, proposals for maker education that are prescriptive and excessively
rigid serve as “pedagogic crutches”.
Learning through action brings back the natural condition of experimentation, of
curiosity and creativity, allowing for learners to become involved in activities where they can
create things intuitively, going beyond simply interacting with the technology. However, this
curiosity should be epistemological, a “relentless inquiry”, as proposed by Freire (2000, p. 35).
On the other hand, to simply create something meaningful and creative does not justify the
teacher’s practice. The teacher must also be concerned with methodological rigor (WEFFORT,
1996), and, consequently, with the curricular content involved in the maker activity.
Regarding the projects developed by the students, as mentioned in other sections of this
article, they should be integrated into curricular subjects and to the schools’ pedagogic plan.
Kim and colleagues (2019), in line with Freire (1968), observe that students have a greater
chance at engaging with their activities and developing greater interest in learning, if the
projects they execute are related to their lived experience and environments. These authors
mention that projects can address themes from the schools’ community, or the contexts in which
students live, for example. Students can then apply the abilities and concepts learned in the
maker space to the maintenance of school objects, or objects that improve the school or the
places in which they live.
However, Kim and colleagues (2019, p. 10) found maker spaces that studied “preconstructed lessons, packaged instructions that came with makerspace kits or curricula
developed by governing organizations”. The interviewed technicians and teachers in these
maker spaces claimed that they preferred these lessons, for they were connected to a global
FabLab community and to available online resources. Some students also chose detailed
designs and creation processes, since this straightforwardness “reduced anxiety and provided a
guided opportunity through new makerspace experiences” (KIM et al., 2019, p. 10).
Other maker spaces studied by these authors, which were more broadly conceived,
emphasizing personalized projects, demonstrated that the “sense of empowerment and agency
[the students] developed through the flexible nature of the open curriculum allowed them to
apply their acquired skills outside of the makerspace environment.” (KIM et al., 2019, p. 10).
Therefore, the students’ actions, or the fourth pillar of maker education, are directly
related to the type of pedagogic and curricular approach developed. A pre-formatted curriculum
========
Revista e-Curriculum, São Paulo, v.18, n.2, p. 523-544 abr./jun. 2020
Programa de Pós-graduação Educação: Currículo – PUC/SP
http://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/curriculum
e-ISSN: 1809-3876
537
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.23925/1809-3876.2020v18i2p523-544
allows for the students to have access to the material provided by the maker community,
allowing for the student to receive hints as to how to construct their product most efficiently. It
seems like the focus in this case is to obtain a product with the least amount of challenges and
in the least amount of time. On the other hand, students in a more open approach from the
curricular standpoint can develop their personal interests, create products of their interest, be
more creative, and more highly engaged in their activities.
The implementation of maker education can follow two distinct paths: one more focused
on production, and the other on the students’ ideas, concepts, and attitudes. In this sense, it is
fundamental to think of the type of education that is being hoped for through this
implementation so that maker education does not become a frustrating experience, such as an
attempt to place a “squared nail” in a “round hole”; in other words, an innovative pedagogic
approach in an archaic educational system.
As argued by Gilbert (2017), maker education based on flexible curriculum, in the
model of “curricular moments”, with integrated disciplines, teachers working together, and
based on projects, have a greater chance of making traditional instructionist teaching even more
anachronistic. The question is whether maker education will be truly transformative, or if this
type of education will become one more pedagogic “make believe”, without bringing about
concrete change.
5 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
The aim of this article was to differentiate between maker activities conducted in school
contexts in two different modalities. In one, the activities are explicitly related to the
curriculum, and there is an intentional connection to the school’s subject-areas. In the other
modality, the activities do not have a clear connection to the curriculum. In both situations, and
primarily in the latter, though students are “building” and engaged, there is not guarantee that
this will translate into learning of disciplinary content. This does not occur satisfactorily without
the clear development by the teacher of original learning objectives, and the integration of
maker technologies in a way that is relevant and appropriate. To do so the teacher must
understand how maker technologies can, in fact, transform the activity and enrich its learning
objectives, rather than simply serve as “decorative” aspects of conventional curricula.
Paulo BLIKSTEIN, José Armando VALENTE, Éliton Meireles de MOURA
Maker Education: where is the curriculum?
538
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.23925/1809-3876.2020v18i2p523-544
Fads and deceitful revolutions pervade education since the beginning of the 21st century.
Theories (such as constructionism) are renamed, essential ideas are systematically trivialized
(such as Paulo Freire’s pedagogy), and the work developed by innovative educators (such as in
maker education) is at risk of being destroyed by traditionalist forces. We believe that the
integration of maker education technologies and ideas into the curriculum is a critical step to
solidify Papert’s, Dewey’s, Freire’s and others’ transformative agenda. By maintaining maker
education outside of schools and the curricula, we do not tackle the possibility of democratically
offering these opportunities to all students. But we also maintain maker education as an
optional, elective activity, which is simply “fun”, straying from its role as a transformative agent
of the school’s core – the curriculum.
Nevertheless, when we bring maker education to the curriculum as a simple adornment
to a fixed and inflexible didactic sequence that denies students of their role as protagonists, and
the teacher of their role as curricular creators, guides, and organizers, we also do a disservice
to the transformation of the school, for these expensive technological beautifications will not
bring about more learning, and, possibly, will be hastily discarded.
Therefore, it is our role to guarantee that maker education does not become a fad or
catchphrase, but rather a force of true reorganization of the school curricula. Without pedagogic
intent, without educational theory to act as a guide for the development of activities, without a
concern for the democratization of opportunities, and without an understanding of the mediating
and magnifying role of technology, maker education is at risk of becoming an empty and
generic brand; a marketing element, rather than of one of emancipation; a tool in the hands of
“consultants”, not educators. Therefore, once again, we could deny our students one more
opportunity of emancipatory education.
REFERENCES
ACERA. The Massachusetts School for Science, Creativity and Leadership. 2020. Retrieved
from: www.aceraschool.org. Access in: 9 abr. 2020.
ATKIN, J. Myron. Teach Science for Science’s sake; for global competitiveness, try
technology. Education Week (Commentary), v. 10, n. 4, p. 32, 1990. Retrieved from:
https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1990/09/26/teach-science-for-sciences-sake-forglobal.html. Access in: 12 abr. 2020.
========
Revista e-Curriculum, São Paulo, v.18, n.2, p. 523-544 abr./jun. 2020
Programa de Pós-graduação Educação: Currículo – PUC/SP
http://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/curriculum
e-ISSN: 1809-3876
539
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.23925/1809-3876.2020v18i2p523-544
BEVAN, Bronwyn. The promise and the promises of making in science education. Studies
in Science Education. London, v. 53, n. 1, p. 75-103, 2017. Retrieved from:
doi:10.1080/03057267.2016.1275380. Access in: 3 abr. 2020.
BLIKSTEIN, Paulo. Digital fabrication and “making” in education: the democratization of
invention. In: WALTER-HERRMANN, Julia; BÜCHING, Corinne (Eds.). FabLabs: of
machines, makers and inventors. Bielefeld: Transcript Publishers, 2013. p. 203-221.
BLIKSTEIN, Paulo; WORSLEY, Marcelo. Children are not hackers: building a culture of
powerful ideas, deep learning, and equity in the Maker Movement. In: PEPPLER, Kylie;
HALVERSON, Erica R.; KAFAI, Yasmin B. (Eds.). Makeology: makerspaces as learning
environments. New York: Routledge, v. 1, 2016, p. 64-79.
BRASIL. Ministério da Educação. Base Nacional Comum Curricular: educação é a base.
[s.d.]. Retrieved from:
http://basenacionalcomum.mec.gov.br/images/BNCC_EI_EF_110518_versaofinal_site.pdf.
Access in: 16 abr. 2020.
BRASIL. Secretaria de Educação Fundamental. Parâmetros Curriculares Nacionais:
introdução aos parâmetros curriculares nacionais. Secretaria de Educação Fundamental.
Brasília: MEC/SEF, 1997. 126p. Retrieved from:
http://portal.mec.gov.br/seb/arquivos/pdf/livro01.pdf. Access in: 2 abr. 2020.
BRASIL. Ministério da Educação; Secretaria de Educação Básica; Secretaria de Educação
Continuada, Alfabetização, Diversidade e Inclusão; Secretaria de Educação Profissional e
Tecnológica. Conselho Nacional de Educação; Câmara de Educação Básica. Diretrizes
Curriculares Nacionais da Educação Básica. Brasília: MEC; SEB; DICEI, 2013. Retrieved
from:
http://portal.mec.gov.br/index.php?option=com_docman&view=download&alias=13448diretrizes-curiculares-nacionais-2013-pdf&Itemid=30192. Access in: 16 abr. 2020.
BUECHLEY, Leah. Palestra de abertura. FabLearn 2013. Stanford University, USA,
October 2013. Retrieved from: http://leahbuechley.com/?p=60. Access in: 12 abr. 2020.
BULLOCK, Shawn M.; SATOR, Andrea J. Maker pedagogy and science teacher education.
Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, Lakehead University,
Ontario, Canada, v. 13, n. 1, 2015. Retrieved from:
https://jcacs.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/jcacs/article/view/40246. Access in: 8 abr. 2020.
CALABRESE BARTON, Angela; TAN, Edna. A longitudinal study of equity-oriented
STEM-rich making among youth from historically marginalized communities. American
Education Research Journal, v. 55, n. 4, p. 761-800, 2018. Retrieved from:
doi:10.3102/0002831218758668. Access in: 13 abr. 2020.
CLAPP, Edward P.; ROSS, Jessica; RYAN, Jennifer O.; TISHMAN, Shari. Maker-centered
learning: empowering young people to share their worlds. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 2017.
Paulo BLIKSTEIN, José Armando VALENTE, Éliton Meireles de MOURA
Maker Education: where is the curriculum?
540
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.23925/1809-3876.2020v18i2p523-544
DE VRIES, Marc J. (Ed.). Handbook of technology education. Springer, 2018. Retrieved
from: https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319446868. Access in: 17 abr. 2020.
DEWEY, John. Democracy and education. New York: The Free Press, 1916.
FREINET, Célestin. Educação pelo trabalho. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 1998.
FREIRE, Paulo. Pedagogia do Oprimido. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra. 1968.
FREIRE, Paulo. Pedagogia da indignação: cartas pedagógicas e outros escritos. São Paulo:
Editora Unesp, 2000.
FREIRE, Paulo. Pedagogia da autonomia: saberes necessários à prática educativa. São
Paulo: Paz e Terra, 2008.
GERSHENFELD, Neil. How to make almost anything: the digital fabrication revolution.
Foreign Affairs, v. 91, n. 6, p. 43-57, 2012.
GILBERT, Jane. Educational makerspaces: disruptive, educative or neither? New Zealand
Journal of Teachers’ Work, New Zealand, v. 14, n. 2, p. 80-98, 2017.
GIMENO SACRISTÁN, José. O currículo: os conteúdos do ensino ou uma análise da
prática? In: GIMENO SACRISTÁN, José; PÉREZ GOMEZ, Ángel I. Compreender e
transformar o ensino. 4. ed. Porto Alegre: Artmed, 1998. p. 119-148.
GIMENO SACRISTÁN, José. Poderes instáveis em educação. Porto Alegre: Artes Médicas,
1999.
GIMENO SACRISTÁN, José. O currículo: uma reflexão sobre a prática. 3. ed. Porto Alegre:
Artmed, 2000.
HALVERSON, Erica R.; SHERIDAN, Kimberly M. The maker movement in education.
Harvard Educational Review, Cambridge, v. 84, n. 4, p. 495-504, 2014.
IANNONE, Leila R.; ALMEIDA, Maria Elisabeth B.; VALENTE, José A. Pesquisa TIC
Educação: da inclusão para a cultura digital. In: BARBOSA, Alexandre F. (Coord.). Pesquisa
TIC Educação 2015. São Paulo: Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil, Centro de Estudos
sobre a Tecnologia da Informação e Comunicação, 2016. p. 55-67.
KIM, Youngmoo E.; EDOUARD, Kareem; ALDERFER, Katelyn; SMITH, Brian K. Making
culture: a national study of education makerspaces. Technical Report, ExCITE Center,
Drexel University, 2019. Retrieved from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336530623_Making_Culture_A_National_Study_of
_Education_Makerspaces. Access in: 9 abr. 2020.
KURTI, R. Steven; KURTI, Debby L.; FLEMING, Laura. The philosophy of educational
makerspaces: Part 1 of making an educational makerspace. Teacher Librarian, Bowie, MD,
========
Revista e-Curriculum, São Paulo, v.18, n.2, p. 523-544 abr./jun. 2020
Programa de Pós-graduação Educação: Currículo – PUC/SP
http://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/curriculum
e-ISSN: 1809-3876
541
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.23925/1809-3876.2020v18i2p523-544
v. 41, n. 5, p. 8-11, 2014. Retrieved from:
http://www.teacherlibrarian.com/2014/06/18/educational-makerspaces. Access in: 2 abr.
2020.
LECORCHICK, Douglas; SPIRES, Hiller A.; GALLO, Liz. Makerspace curriculum
development and implementation. Toward cross-cultural integrative STEM Learning: a
United States and China High School Collaboration. Anais..., 2019 American Society for
Engineering Education, Southeastern Section Conference. Retrieved from: http://www.aseese.org/proceedings/ASEE2019/papers2019/120.pdf. Access in: 14 abr. 2020.
MACEDO, Roberto S. Atos de currículos: uma incessante atividade etnometódica e fonte de
análise de práticas curriculares. Currículo sem Fronteiras, [s.l.], v. 13, n. 3, p. 427-435,
set./dez. 2013. Retrieved from:
http://www.curriculosemfronteiras.org/vol13iss3articles/macedo.pdf. Access in: 3 abr. 2020.
MARTIN, Lee; DIXON, Colin. Making as a pathway to engineering and design. In:
PEPPLER, Kylie; HALVERSON, Erica R.; KAFAI, Yasmin B. (ed.). Makeology:
makerspaces as learning environments. New York: Routledge, v. 2, 2016, p. 183-195.
MARTINEZ, Sylvia L.; STAGER, Gary. Invent to learn: making, tinkering, and engineering
in the classroom. Santa Barbara: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press, 2013.
MONTESSORI, Maria. Spontaneous activity in education. New York: Schocken Books,
1965.
MOURA, Éliton Meireles de. Formação docente e educação maker: o desafio do
desenvolvimento das competências. Orientadora: Belmira Amélia de Barros Oliveira. 2019.
Tese (Doutorado em Educação) – Faculdade de Educação, Universidade de São Paulo, São
Paulo, 2019. Retrieved from: doi:10.11606/T.48.2020.tde-03032020-171456. Access in: 14
abr. 2020.
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL 2014. STEM Integration in K-12 Education: status,
prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press,
2014. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.17226/18612. Access in: 8 abr. 2020.
PACHECO, José A. Flexibilização das políticas curriculares. Actas do Seminário “O papel
dos diversos actores educativos na construção de uma escola democrática”. Guimarães:
Centro de Formação Francisco de Holanda, p. 71-78, 2000.
PACHECO, José A. Para a noção de transformação curricular. Cadernos de Pesquisa, v. 46
n. 159, p. 64-77, jan./mar. 2016. Retrieved from:
http://publicacoes.fcc.org.br/ojs/index.php/cp/issue/view/314. Access in: 9 abr. 2020.
PACHECO, José A.; PARASKEVA, João M. As tomadas de decisão na contextualização
curricular. Caderno Educação, Pelotas, n. 13, p. 7-18, ago./dez. 1999.
Paulo BLIKSTEIN, José Armando VALENTE, Éliton Meireles de MOURA
Maker Education: where is the curriculum?
542
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.23925/1809-3876.2020v18i2p523-544
PAPERT, Seymour. Constructionism: a new opportunity for elementary science education.
Proposta para a National Science Foundation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Media
Laboratory, Epistemology and Learning Group, Cambridge MA, 1986.
PAPERT, Seymour. Situating constructionism. In: HAREL, Idit; PAPERT, Seymour (ed.).
Constructionism. Norwood NJ: Ablex, 1991, p. 1-11. Retrieved from:
http://www.papert.org/articles/SituatingConstructionism.html. Access in: 5 abr. 2020.
PEPPLER, Kylie. ReMaking arts education through physical computing. In: PEPPLER,
Kylie; HALVERSON, Erica R.; KAFAI, Yasmin B. (ed.). Makeology: makerspaces as
learning environments. New York: Routledge, 2016. v. 2. p. 206-225.
RILEY, Erin. What do people learn from using digital fabrication tools? In: BLIKSTEIN,
Paulo; MARTINEZ Sylvia L.; PANG, Heather Allen (ed.). Meaningful making: projects and
inspirations for fablabs and makerspaces. Torrance CA: Constructing Modern Knowledge
Press, 2015, p. 8-13.
ROSE, Mike. The mind at work: valuing the intelligence of the American worker. New
York: Penguin, 2014.
SHERIDAN, Kimberly M.; HALVERSON, Erica. R.; LITTS, Breanne; BRAHMS, Lisa;
JACOBS-PRIEBE, Lynette; OWENS, Trevor. Learning in the making: a comparative case
study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, v. 84, n. 4, p. 505-531, 2014.
Retrieved from: doi:10.17763/haer.84.4.brr34733723j648u. Access in: 3 abr. 2020.
TRYGGVASON, Gretar; APELIAN, Diran. Re-engineering engineering education for the
challenges of the 21st century. JOM-Journal of the Minerals Metals and Materials
Society, v. 58, n. 10, p. 14-17, 2006. Retrieved from:
https://web.wpi.edu/Images/CMS/News/reengineering.pdf. Access in: 14 abr. 2020.
VALENTE, José Armando. A espiral da espiral de aprendizagem: o processo de
compreensão do papel das tecnologias de informação e comunicação na educação. 2005. Tese
(Livre-Docência) – Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Unicamp), Campinas, São Paulo,
Brazil. Retrieved from:
http://www.bibliotecadigital.unicamp.br/document/?code=000857072&opt=4. Access in: 9
abr. 2020.
VALENTE, José Armando; BLIKSTEIN, Paulo. The construction of knowledge in maker
education: a constructivist perspective. Constructivism Foundation, Brussels, Bélgica, v. 14,
n. 3, p. 252-262, 2019. Retrieved from: https://constructivist.info/14/3/252.valente.pdf.
Access in: 13 abr. 2020.
VUORIKARI, Riina; FERRARI, Anusca; PUNIE, Yves. Makerspaces for education and
training – exploring future implications for Europe. EUR 29819 EN, Publications Office of
the European Union, Luxembourg, 2019. Retrieved from: doi:10.2760/946996. Access in: 08
abr. 2020.
========
Revista e-Curriculum, São Paulo, v.18, n.2, p. 523-544 abr./jun. 2020
Programa de Pós-graduação Educação: Currículo – PUC/SP
http://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/curriculum
e-ISSN: 1809-3876
543
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.23925/1809-3876.2020v18i2p523-544
WEFFORT, Madalena Freire. Observação, registro, reflexão: instrumentos metodológicos I.
2. ed. São Paulo: Espaço Pedagógico, 1996. p. 14.
Received: 04/20/2020
Approved: 06/11/2020
Paulo BLIKSTEIN, José Armando VALENTE, Éliton Meireles de MOURA
Maker Education: where is the curriculum?
544