Digital Fabrication and ‘Making’ in Education: The Democratization of Invention
Abstract
A quote often attributed to Seymour Papert states that if a teacher from the 16th century would timetravel to the present, he or she would have no problem entering a school and teaching a class. Historical documents from that time show that he could not be more accurate. The Treviso Arithmetic, from 1478, teaches students how to do multiplication and division using ‘exactly’ the same paper-based algorithms we use today. Several descriptions of 16th century schools and their curricula look strikingly similar to today’s mathematics classes, such as a well-known school in Florence run by Master Francesco Ghaligai in 1519 which had a “...heavy emphasis on memorization and procedures” and a curriculum comprised of units on “multiplication, practice in the use of algorithms, division, fractions, and the rule of three” (Swetz & Smith, 1987).
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
DigiFab Kits extend the FabLab Classroom model by creating a more mobile makerspace with a special focus on a comprehensive spectrum of concepts related to 3D printing.
“DigiFab Kits extend the concept of the FabLab Classroom model (Blikstein, 2013) by creating a more mobile makerspace with a special focus on a more comprehensive spectrum of concepts related to fuse deposition modeling or what is commonly referred to as 3D printing.”
From DigiFab Kits: Mini Mobile Makerspace Design in the Arts Curriculum (2017) · cites this paper as Blikstein, 2013
Cites
Jung, C. G. (1956) · Collected Works, Volume 14 · doi:10.1515/9781400845927 · Cited by 885 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…& Satomi, 2011; Sylvan, 2005), design participatory simulations and games (Wilensky & Stroup, 1999), program videogames (Millner & Resnick, 2005; Kafai, 1995), design virtual robotic systems (Berland, 2008; Berland & Wilensky, 2006), create sophisticated 3D worlds and games through programming…”
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Iversen, O. S., Smith, R. C., & Dindler, C. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children · doi:10.1145/3078072.3079725 · Cited by 306 · see citing works
“[6] coins the rapidly extending reach of digital fabrication technologies as a “democratization of innovation” that emphasizes the possibilities for including children in the”
BackgroundTeaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools
Bekker, T., Bakker, S., Douma, I., van der Poel, J., & Scheltenaar, K. (2015) · International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2015.12.001 · Cited by 155 · see citing works
Chu, S. L., Quek, F., Bhangaonkar, S., Ging, A. B., & Sridharamurthy, K. (2015) · International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2015.08.002 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
Making sense of making: critical issues in the integration of maker education into schools
Godhe, A.-L., Lilja, P., & Selwyn, N. (2019) · Technology, Pedagogy and Education · doi:10.1080/1475939x.2019.1610040 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
An Assessment Instrument of Technological Literacies in Makerspaces and FabLabs
Blikstein, P., Kabayadondo, Z., Martin, A., & Fields, D. (2017) · Journal of Engineering Education · doi:10.1002/jee.20156 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
Self-citationAgency in the making: Analyzing students’ transformative agency in a school-based makerspace
Kajamaa, A., & Kumpulainen, K. (2019) · Mind, Culture, and Activity · doi:10.1080/10749039.2019.1647547 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Chu, S. L., Angello, G., Saenz, M., & Quek, F. (2017) · Entertainment Computing · doi:10.1016/j.entcom.2016.08.007 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Digital Design Literacy in K-9 Education: Experiences from Pioneer Teachers
Van Mechelen, M., Wagner, M.-L., Baykal, G. E., Charlotte Smith, R., & Iversen, O. S. (2021) · Interaction Design and Children · doi:10.1145/3459990.3460696 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Development of novel-engineering-based maker education instructional model
Kim, J.-Y., Seo, J. S., & Kim, K. (2022) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-021-10841-4 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
DigiFab Kits: Mini Mobile Makerspace Design in the Arts Curriculum
Knochel, A. D. (2017) · International Journal of Designs for Learning · doi:10.14434/ijdl.v8i1.22663 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Blikstein, P.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Blikstein, Paulo
- ORCID
- Blikstein, Paulo
- Venue
- FabLab
- Publisher
- transcript Verlag
- Published
- 2013-12-31
- Pages
- 203-222
- OpenAlex
- W2305310052
- Cited by
- 672
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 64 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 74 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 55 · 2020: 63 · 2019: 73 · 2018: 57 · 2017: 56 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 5
- FWCI
- 149.83
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- transcript Verlag eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Mathematics Education and Teaching Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Theoretical Computer Science › History and Theory of Mathematics
- Keywords
- digital fabrication, Seymour Papert, history of mathematics education, algorithmic procedures, memorization, mathematics curriculum
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
