Article 1

Dousay, T.A. (2017). Defining and differentiating the makerspace. Educational

Technology, 57(2), 69-74.

Summary
Dousay (2017) highlighted how the theories of constructivist, constructionist,
collaborative learning and problem-based learning intersect in makerspaces.
Through self-paced learning and interaction with one another and experts in
informal learning structures in order to complete hands-on tasks, learners are
offered constructivist and constructionist learning environments. Opportunities for
collaborative and (or) problem-based learning arise through the nature of working
with others. Focusing on embracing the “do it yourself” (DIY) approach, the
differences between the definitions of labs, shops and makerspaces (which are
also referred to as tinkering space or hackerspace) are outlined. Using the
Makerspace Framework, the impact of the space structure, staffing and tool
availability in addition to the sustainability of these facilities on learning should be
considered. This approach hopes to encourage stakeholders to transform from
cautious risk-takers to ones who are willing to take risks and have an
unconventional mindset.

Research Methods / Approaches

In the design of a makerspace, the Makerspace Framework diagram was
proposed to illustrate various considerations for profiling characteristics. While
the characteristics of one makerspace may differ from another upon close
observation, using the framework could help stakeholders evaluate needs and
capacities before making informed decisions pertaining to matters such as
expenditure, facilities and staffing. To demonstrate the implementation of the
framework, images of the WyoMakers makerspace at the University of Wyoming
were included in the article. The author also demonstrated how learning theories
and pedagogies are applied through formal and informal learning in a
makerspace.

Critical Analysis
In this article, Dousay (2017) attempted to connect learning theories with
activities in makerspaces. Even though I appreciated the detailed explanation on
pedagogical implications and the example of Wyomakers, I would have been
more convinced about the research findings if the author provided more
information about the research. Instead of sharing only the findings of the study,
the author could have provided more information on the research methodology,
data collection, data analysis and research limitations.
Article 2

Hughes, J. & Morrison, L. (2014). At the intersection of critical digital literacies, YAL and
literature circles. ALAN Review, 42(1), 35-43.

Summary
Hughes & Morrison (2014) investigated the effects of opportunities for
engagement with social justice issues on a wider scale through the creation and
sharing of digital material for a larger group of audience on adolescent students’
learning. Emphasizing critical digital literacies (CDL), various young adult
literature, literature circles and digital media are used to encourage students to
act as agents of change in their local and global communities.

Research Methods / Approaches

Data was gathered from a three-year qualitative case study involving students
from five Grades 6-8 classes and their teachers in an elementary school which is
located in a relatively wealthy area near Toronto, Ontario. Before the students
create digital materials, they engaged in reading young adult literature (YAL)
related to the topics of concern and exchanged their thoughts during in-person
meetings and through Ning, the classroom social networking site. Ning allows
students to connect beyond the classroom and use the multimodality of the social
networking site to post texts, verbal messages as well as multimedia content.
Detailed field notes from classroom observations, interviews and digital materials
that students produced were coded and analyzed for emerging themes.

Critical Analysis
Hughes & Morrison (2014) shared how Ning could be used as an extension of
learning beyond the classroom, and I appreciated how Ning is similar to other
social networking sites such as Facebook, but is a safer platform for students to
collaborate and exchange thoughts. It was also interesting that the findings from
the study sound very promising. However, I would feel that the findings would
have been further strengthened if the authors addressed the research limitations
- specifically, I wondered if the findings would have been different if the study
was conducted on a different student demographic. For the students in this
study, perhaps digital devices were already accessible to them prior to the study,
and therefore, they are already digital literate to begin with, and are comfortable
and confident producing digital materials for a wider audience.