READING REFLECTIONS |
Week 11 - Reading Reflections
Ratto, M. (2011). Critical making: Conceptual and material studies in technology and social life. The Information Society, 27(4), 252-260. Ratto’s article on critically making is one reflective of our class. The term critical making is used to describe “a desire to theoretically and pragmatically connect two modes of engagement with the world that are often held separate—critical thinking, typically understood as conceptually and linguistically based, and physical “making,” goal-based material work” (253). In our past lectures, this is a concept that has been explored on numerous occasions and one that I believe to be a core theme of the course. “Critical making emphasizes the shared acts of making rather than the evocative object.” (253). In having a shared construction of meaning, students are able to move away from ‘displaying’ their knowledge alone and move into a territory where they are able to “achieve value though the act of shared construction, joint conversation, and reflection” (253). One of the statements from the article that stuck with me was how “although constructivism as pedagogy has a long tradition within the social and humanities education, constructionism has been less applied outside of the fields of math, engineering, and the sciences” ( 255). I think in traditional classrooms, reading is viewed as decoding written symbols and translating these symbols into sounds. The traditional teacher places importance on the mechanics of text deciphering, starting with recognizing isolated letters and then identifying the sound those letters make. In creating these static moments of learning, removed from daily practice, the teacher is limiting the learning and confining it. A way in which the teacher can include more constructionism in the classroom, especially through the medium of language arts is by allowing students to create their own stories or their own plays (Reader’s theater), have a pen pal, have journal entries for reflection on field trips, or even has a class newsletter. In presenting greater opportunities for learning and constructionism in language arts, students will be able to apply it in other subjects as well, as language arts is often cross-curricular. Wark, M. (2013). A more lovingly made world. Cultural Studies Review, 19(1), 296-304. This reflection like piece by Wark begins with introducing a sentence that connects to last week’s articles. He states, “One of the good things about this version of maker culture is that it puts traditionally male and female kinds of amateur hobby stuff side by side. My son can try knitting; my daughter can play with Lego robots” (296-297). We learned last week how females are often neglected and dismissed in the field of technology – but in these ‘makerspace’ girls are welcomed to explore new means of technology and also bend it normal conventions. This is the future. I think that in offering general maker space cultures, boys and girls are exposed to the same experiences that remove stigma. “The Brooklyn maker culture really wants to get its hands dirty making things rather than just playing with things already made. But it doesn’t scale. It makes a fetish of the artisanal quality of the labour as another way of avoiding the question of labour…What if we made ‘making’—the process of labour on a resistant world—the central category of a certain kind of materialism? This would no longer be a contemplative materialism” 298). This was one the key points of this article that made me think of how labour is seen as a secondary product. In shifting the meaning of making to a more central category of materialism, there is a greater focus on constructive labour, and in the realm of education, it is seen as a shift away from bourgeois academia. As well, the article states how “a contemporary of André Breton, Aratov's relation to the Marxist tradition could not be more different. Rather than extract from the everyday a marvellous poetics, Arvatov was more interested in how the things of the everyday are produced” (299). This reminds me once again of the role of makerspaces in presenting a collaborative studio space for creative endeavors, where the informal combination of business and labour form to create an argument for learning through hands-on exploration. In a world where many of us are laden with many manufactured items and substances; we are moving farther and farther away from the processes that create them. This interest of Arvatov, in how things of the everyday are produced, is one that can begin to be explored by learners through hands-on interaction, coupled with the tools and raw materials that support invention – ultimately, providing the ultimate workshop and the perfect educational space for students. Pinto., L. (2016). Putting the Critical Back into Maker Spaces. Pinto’s story on returning the ‘critical component’ back to Maker Spaces is one that discusses how the “maker movement shared the subversive ethos of DIY. For example, its “hacktivism” component arose from concern about labour exploitation and digital monopolies “(36). In connection with the previous article, Pinto states how “rather than a stance against consumerism, making has emerged with a new purpose articulated by the Maker Education Initiative: “a strategy to engage youth in science, technology, engineering, math, arts, and learning as a whole” (36). I think this is an important feature, in making student gain different purpose and find more meaningful connections to their work. They are working with their materials on a new dimension, and this leads to more than a consumer stance. The article mentions how sites like Hackforge, Hacklab, and Repair Café are hosts of the making movement and “embodies the ethics of a sharing economy where people with repair skills are valued. [In addition,] various events outside of the makerspace also provide recognition for these skills, to showcase the fruits of makers’ labours” (36). As mentioned in Wark’s article, these events, like Maker Faire, introduce young children to this form of learning environment and acts as a starting point in their own maker movement experience. A central statement of this article reveals that “the critical makerspace must engage the learner as a whole person who fully participates, not a passive receiver of official knowledge held by the “teacher” …Learning in this way becomes far more than a mere how-to demonstration … Within maker communities, learning must involve a meaningful dialogue and “figuring out,” to arrive at unique and creative solutions to problems identified by individual members of the maker community (38). To me, this statement is powerful as it captures the essence of makerspaces and the articles for this week. A maker movement is building, and finding ways to integrate learning seamlessly into it is a beneficial factor to increase the productivity and level of education.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |