- Oct 2024
-
Local file Local file
-
No distinctions are made between types of in-structional content (information versus experiential, for example).
Unnecessary limiter on maker education
-
as either formal and one-to-many or informal and one-to-one
Limiting view for the benefits of makerspaces
-
The analysis presented in this ar-ticle offers some starting points for potentially fruitful dialogue.
This article contributes to the development of LIS literature by highlighting a blind-spot which exists in popular conversation around libraries. It also goes a step further and highlights how those blind-spots fall short of desired outcomes, and offers them as points of discussion to develop ideas around the best implementation of makerspaces into libraries, and ultimately still argues for their existence.
-
Copyright of Library Quarterly
Journal name
-
Rebekah Willett: assistant professor, School of Library and Information Studies, University ofWisconsin–Madison. Willett has conducted research on children’s media cultures, focusing onissues of gender, play, literacy, and learning. Her most recent research examines maker-focusedprogramming in the Madison Public Library system, with a specific focus on learning throughmaking. Her publications include work on playground games, amateur camcorder cultures, youngpeople’s online activities, and children’s story writing. Before moving to Madison, Willett was alecturer at the Institute of Education, University of London, and a researcher in the Centre for theStudy of Children, Youth and Media. E-mail: rwillett@wisc.edu
Dr. Rebekah Willett is a professor at the Information School of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She received a PhD in Education from the University of London, and she researches a variety of topics relevant to this article, including childhood studies, new literacies, and public library makerspaces (Willett, Rebekah, 2017).
-
As the makerspace movement in public librariesprogresses, these tensions and questions potentially offer space for dialogue about aims, pur-poses, and best practices in relation to making and makers.
The author concludes that while there are problems that arise from the contradictory and often under-baked reasonings that push for maker education, wrestling with these concerns directly can only lead to a more focused vision for how best to utilize makerspaces and maker education for specific learning goals.
-
. In thediscursive construction of creativity, the analysis reveals an emphasis on productive outcomesof creative efforts, positioning makers as designers, engineers, and the like, and raising ques-tions about other kinds of making that might be ignored in makerspaces. Finally, when dis-cussing learning, the analysis argues that polarized accounts present in the data set positionformal educational content, styles, and pedagogies in negative ways and oversimplify thedistinctions between formal and informal learning settings.
This analysis finds that often, discussions of makerspaces in educational and library settings are contradictory, disjointed, and lack evidence to support their claims.
-
Using discourse analysis, the article identifies “interpretative repertoires” (Gil-bert and Mulkay 1984) and linguistic resources that are employed by the authors of profes-sional journal articles and blogs and that characterize makerspaces in particular ways. In atheory of discourse, librarians who identify themselves within these discursive constructsbecome subjects of those discourses, thus reproducing particular ways of thinking aboutmakerspaces
While not a typical empirical research article, there is a methodology used for identifying relevant sources for its literature review and analyzing those sources.
-
this article reveals howcommon themes are being discursively constructed in relation to the future of public libraries,maker cultures, and informal learning. The analysis highlights tensions and questions thatemerge through the discursive construction of making, makers, and makerspaces in the field oflibrary and information studies. The article employs discourse analysis to examine professionallibrary journal articles and blog posts published from 2011–14 that focus on makerspaces inpublic libraries.
This section of the abstract highlights that the article is a literature review that will be looking at other published articles on Maker education
-
The analysis in this article reveals how key themes—the future of public libraries, DIY andmaker cultures, and informal learning—are being constructed in current discussions aboutmakerspaces in public libraries
This first line of the conclusion succinctly relays the purpose of this article - to collect, analyze, and discuss common themes and conclusions in conversations and research around Maker education in libraries.
Tags
- What type of article is this
- How does the article contribute to the LIS literature
- What is the aim and scope of the journal
- What is the author's conclusion
- Is the journal peer-reviewed
- What is the methodology
- What is the purpose of this article
- What are the author's credentials
- Summary answer
- What are the findings of the article
Annotators
-