Article Preview
TopIntroduction
Maker Education has been widely discussed in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education (Chou, 2018; Godhe, Lilja, & Selwyn, 2019; Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Martin, 2015). Regarding definition, Martin (2015) define Maker Education as,
“activities focused on designing, building, modifying, and/or repurposing material objects, for playful or useful ends, oriented toward making a ‘‘product’’ of some sort that can be used, interacted with, or demonstrated.” (p.31)
Although the definition did not classify Maker Education as exclusively part of STEM Education, it is primarily neglected in social sciences education due to several reasons. Thus, Maker Education is overlooked in social sciences, and the students will not benefit from it.
This article will elaborate on three distinctive but inseparable challenges of Maker Education Education in social sciences that the present paper argues most challenging. First, most social sciences do not create tangible products that enhance students’ competencies in the professional field. Second, making tangible products in social sciences is a challenge because most teachers or lecturers consider making competency unnecessary in the professional field. Lastly, in social sciences, the term “technology,” which is highly associated with Maker Education, is likely in consonance with the term “user,” not “maker.”
Although it is not common in social science, Maker Education can be employed. Specifically, the Maker Education Education approach can be applied in a psychological education system. Hence, the present study will elaborate on the challenges of Maker Education in psychological courses. Lastly, this paper will show an implementation of Maker Education in an undergraduate Psychology Department and products that the students made.