Over the past decade, the maker movement and in its slipstream maker education have attained worldwide popularity among educators, politicians, and the media. Makers’ enthusiasm for creative design and construction, using old and new tools has proven contagious, and is worth exploration and critical reflection by the community of engineering and technology education (ETE). This chapter describes what has been said about “making” by philosophers and educators; what maker education is, and what is new and not so new about it; why it has gained momentum; what the evidence is about its effectiveness and its possible weaknesses; and how mainstream technology education may benefit from maker education. This chapter concludes with ideas for a research agenda.
LINK
Effective teaching for democracy requires an understanding of the teaching methods and educational characteristics that are effective in interventions. In order to address this requirement, we conducted a systematic literature review. We used an extensive search syntax and snowballing method that allowed us to find n = 2093 unique publications. After a screening process, we have included 54 interventions in 51 different quantitative effect studies written between 2010 and 2020. We categorized these interventions into five types of teaching methods: instruction, small-group work, assignments, projects, and democratic decision-making. We analyzed what the educational characteristics (i.e., subject matter, classroom interaction, classroom management) of these interventions were and for which democratic competences (i.e., knowledge, attitude, skill, behavior) they were effective. Our results show that teaching methods have differential effects on democratic competences. We also discuss the robustness of these results. Our study shows that there is still much to be gained in terms of research designs, the conceptualization of democratic competences, and the description of teaching methods.
MULTIFILE
The HAS professorship Future Food Systems is performing applied research with students and external partners to transform our food system towards a more sustainable state. In this research it is not only a question of what is needed to achieve this, but also how and with whom. The governance of our food system needs rethinking to get the transformative momentum going in a democratic and constructive manner. Building on the professorship’s research agenda and involvement in the transdisciplinary NWA research project, the postdoc will explore collective ownership and inclusive participation as two key governance concepts for food system transformation. This will be done in a participatory manner, by learning from and with innovative bottom-up initiatives and practitioners from the field. By doing so, the postdoc will gain valuable practical insights that can aid to new approaches and (policy) interventions which foster a sustainable and just food system in the Netherlands and beyond. A strong connection between research and education is created via the active research involvement of students from different study programs, supervised by the postdoc (Dr. B. van Helvoirt). The acquired knowledge is embedded in education by the postdoc by incorporating it into HAS study program curricula and courses. In addition, it will contribute to the further professional development of qualitative research skills among HAS students and staff. Through scientific, policy and popular publications, participation in (inter)national conferences and meetings with experts and practitioners, the exposure and network of the postdoc and HAS in the field of food systems and governance will be expanded. This will allow for the setting up of a continuous research effort on this topic within the professorship via follow-up research with knowledge institutes, civic society groups and partners from the professional field.
The question we have chosen – and been invited – to answer is “What is Europe: Past, Present, and Future.” This sits within the resilient societies theme of the NWA call. The reason for our choice of the ‘resilience’ theme is based on the many disciplines working on the project, which stretch beyond the historic (living history theme) into the societal.It has a deeper conceptual basis, however. It springs from an assumption that a shared sense of belonging and inclusion is one foundation for and aspect of resilience – just as a rope braided together from many strands is stronger than one where the strands are fraying apart. Positive and inclusive expressions of belonging and affiliation are present in education, sports, and music – highly visible sites of representation that have profound reach and impact in society. Racialisation, othering, and selective or stereotypical representations, however, work against resilience. They are circulated widely and generate exclusion and hurt. In these linked work packages, then, we take up the question’s invitation to expand and disrupt, what the NWA’s call itself defines as a normative prior understanding of Europe. In the words of the question, this definition emphasizes Europe’s nature as white, Christian-secular, bounded by the geographic limits of Western Europe, shaped by Greco-Roman heritage and tradition, democratic, and home of the enlightenment. Our consortium seeks to analyze this representation, research and present more expansive and accurate ones in consultative reflective and co-creative processes. Through the process, the new knowledge, and our highly participatory research and dissemination models we will change societal understandings of the bounds of Dutch, and European identities. This will forge a greater sense of belonging across all of the communities, including academia, involved in our project.This project is vital for building resilience through tackling sources of fragmentation and alienation in past and present. It is much needed as we look forward to an increasingly diverse and mixed demographic future.
