Learning dimensions of makerspaces: Difference between revisions
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{stub}} | {{stub}} | ||
== Purpose and challenges of makerspaces == | == Purpose and challenges of makerspaces == | ||
Allow participants to (co) practise digital design and fabrication in some kind of "open spirit". | |||
There are several types of Makerspaces: | |||
=== Fablab === | |||
The fab Chart (http://fab.cba.mit.edu/about/charter/), in particular its first item: | The fab Chart (http://fab.cba.mit.edu/about/charter/), in particular its first item: | ||
| Line 8: | Line 14: | ||
"The foundation of FabLabs resides in the belief that the most sustainable way to bring the most significant results of the digital revolution to developing communities is to enable them to participate in creating their own technological tools for finding solutions to problems (Mikhak et al., 2002)", cited by Milara et al. (2017) <ref name="milara2017"/> | "The foundation of FabLabs resides in the belief that the most sustainable way to bring the most significant results of the digital revolution to developing communities is to enable them to participate in creating their own technological tools for finding solutions to problems (Mikhak et al., 2002)", cited by Milara et al. (2017) <ref name="milara2017"/> | ||
=== Living Lab === | |||
“User-centred, open innovation ecosystems based on systematic user co-creation approach, integrating research and innovation processes in real life communities and settings. They operate as intermediaries among citizens, research organisations, companied, cities and regions for joint value co-creation, rapid prototyping or validation to scale up innovation and businesses. LLs have common elements but multiple different implementations." (European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL), cited by <ref>Santonen, T. (2018) Comparing Living Lab(s) and its’ competing terms popularity. In Iain Bitran, Steffen Conn, K.R.E. Huizingh, Olga Kokshagina, Marko Torkkeli, Marcus Tynnhammar (Eds.) The Proceedings of ISPIM Innovation Conference, Innovation, the Name of the Game, 17.-20.6.2018. Stockholm.</ref> | |||
=== Makerspace === | |||
Place for digital design and fabrication that usually has a less defined mission than fablabs. Can also include much less technical equipment. | |||
Revision as of 17:11, 20 April 2021
Purpose and challenges of makerspaces
Allow participants to (co) practise digital design and fabrication in some kind of "open spirit".
There are several types of Makerspaces:
Fablab
The fab Chart (http://fab.cba.mit.edu/about/charter/), in particular its first item:
- What is a fab lab?
- Fab labs are a global network of local labs, enabling invention by providing access to tools for digital fabrication
"The foundation of FabLabs resides in the belief that the most sustainable way to bring the most significant results of the digital revolution to developing communities is to enable them to participate in creating their own technological tools for finding solutions to problems (Mikhak et al., 2002)", cited by Milara et al. (2017) [1]
Living Lab
“User-centred, open innovation ecosystems based on systematic user co-creation approach, integrating research and innovation processes in real life communities and settings. They operate as intermediaries among citizens, research organisations, companied, cities and regions for joint value co-creation, rapid prototyping or validation to scale up innovation and businesses. LLs have common elements but multiple different implementations." (European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL), cited by [2]
Makerspace
Place for digital design and fabrication that usually has a less defined mission than fablabs. Can also include much less technical equipment.
Compliance with charters
- Accessibility: Open to the public, reasonable fees, location
- Hardware equipment: Working tools (which ones ?)
- Software
- Tutoring structure
- Knowledge sharing
Global challenges
“The existing work also points towards the fact that only few students have knowledge of digital fabrication (Hjorth et al., 2015). Students lack the knowledge of design processes and most of them do not act on their creative ideas (Hjorth et al., 2015). In fact, very few students act towards and realize an idea for a product or an invention that they had thought of. Such observations point towards a complexity of related opportunities and issues for creating in FabLabs. Moreover, the utilization of FabLabs in facilitating formal education is a recent trend; therefore, so we require new frameworks and methodologies in order to maximize the acquisition of new skills in FabLab environments. Among the different types of learning methodologies, training in FabLab applies to project-based learning and provides work-like experiences (Slåttsveen, 2016; Bekker et al., 2015).” [1]
Technical dimensions
Use the tools and machines
- 3D printer
- Laser cutter
- Embroidery machine
- CNC
- Cutter
- ....
2D engraving and cutting design
- Vector graphics
3D additive design
Embroidery design
Electronics
- Assemble components
- Soldiering
Programming
- Programming electronic boards
- Compuational design
Soft Skills
- Collaborative problem solving
- Follow-on Innovation
- Knowledge sharing
- Knowledge appropriation
- General prototyping
- Social enterpreneurship
Indirect effects
- Aid development of businesses
- Motivation to learn STEM
- Improvement of performance in other areas
Experience and knowledge. This dimension refers to the set of abilities or skills to perform tasks referred to in certain technical domains. 2. Confidence. This dimension has a relation with self-esteem. It indicates the assurance of the person while starting an activity on their own. 3. Motivation. This dimension refers to having a reason or being eager to perform a particular activity. 4. Fun. This dimension refers to the hedonic benefits experienced while performing a particular activity (Hassenzahl, 2003).
Bibliography
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Milara, I. S., Georgiev, G. V., Riekki, J., Ylioja, J., & Pyykkönen, M. (2017). Human and Technological Dimensions of Making in FabLab. Design Journal, 20(sup1), S1080–S1092. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1353052
- ↑ Santonen, T. (2018) Comparing Living Lab(s) and its’ competing terms popularity. In Iain Bitran, Steffen Conn, K.R.E. Huizingh, Olga Kokshagina, Marko Torkkeli, Marcus Tynnhammar (Eds.) The Proceedings of ISPIM Innovation Conference, Innovation, the Name of the Game, 17.-20.6.2018. Stockholm.