Takeaways from Readings #4 and #5

For me, the readings that stood out most to me were the one's that included the philosophical and psychological history behind digital fabrication in education. I found that there were a lot of connections between the readings, what we are learning in class, and what I am learning in my out of major classes that are about technology and psychology of adolescents.
What I found most interesting about the reading, 20 Things to do With A Computer, was that it was written in 1971. It was written by the proverbial father of making, Seymour Papert. As I learned in the reading, An Insanely Brief and Incomplete History of Making, he studied with the psychologist Jean Piaget who studied cognitive development. With the background of learning about how people think and learn, Papert went on to MIT where he experimented more with how people learn with computers. With Piaget's ideas and working at MIT, he confirmed John Dewey's theories about how people learn best by doing. What made his work so interesting was how early on he was able to prove his theories about education and learning, but also making a case for children using computers.
Throughout the reading, 20 Things to do With A Computer, he described projects he has done with students at MIT, how he accomplished them with computers, and what students go out of using the computers. He finishes the reading by making a brief case for why all children should be experimenting with computers, and how people should by advocating for them in education. In my class, Technology and School Change, we discuss exactly what he was advocating for, technological advances and how it can bring about school change. I find that the evidence of advocating for equity of technology in 1971 proves the need for technological exploration in school.
Since Papert also worked with Piaget, there were clear connections to my class, Developmental Psychology of Adolescents. In the beginning of the semester, I studied the ways that adolescents develop from children to emerging adults. While studying Jean Piaget, we learned about his theories in cognitive development, which defined how adolescents obtained knowledge and the stages of how people think. These ideals can easily be applied to education because teachers can create curriculums that speak to the cognitive developmental level of their students so that they learn in the best way. As this relates to digital fabrication advocation in education, Papert made cases of how experimenting with computers can be beneficial.
In the readings, An Insanely Brief and Incomplete History of Making and Digital Fabrication and Making in Education, both touch on how many philosophers and psychologists inspired the ideas in digital fabrication in education. Learning by tinkering with computers is exactly what is done in the maker spaces. Specifically, Digital Fabrication and Making in Education details the importance of these spaces and how it has become so popular in education. Simply, since students learn better by working first had with materials and experimenting with them, these spaces make it the perfect opportunity to learn more as opposed to direct instruction. Working with newer technologies makes education programs more competitive because of the way that our culture is turning as well. In a larger sense, what is going on in the world currently dictates what should be learned in the classroom, which makes learning by doing and getting real-life experience with technology makes sense.
From these readings, I have concluded that maker spaces are essential to education, not just because of the kinds of technologies it bring, but because of the practice's they bring. For example, most of these spaces are communal and open to all. The nature of the space is collaborative, which brings more opportunity for creation and original ideas. Maker spaces also enforce the idea of playing with materials. As repeated in Judy Burton's Artistic Development Class, the importance of play gives people the opportunity to experiment with different processes that they can then add to their repertoire of knowledge for future creations. This idea of playing with traditional artistic mediums can be applied to playing with new media. (Which is also represented in the nature of our final project, mixing ideas from traditional and new media in art.)
In terms of classroom application, these readings give me ideas of how technology should be played with. Students should be allowed ample time to experiment with technology to see what it does. I find that in any situation, people always need more time with a material. While it is good to explore, I do believe that some technologies require guided exploration. This would be most useful when using a program that has specific functions, lengthly processes, and safety concerns. In this case, students should be guided by discussion questions/open-ended questions that help them think and see the medium in a different way than when they started.
In conclusion, maker spaces offer profound opportunities to experiment with technology in accordance to cognitive development strategies. These results could only bring support to schools in terms of academics and preparing their students for the real world.