Through the previous section I linked craft to the development of knowledge necessary to explore and imagine digital mediums such as AM.
Specifically, it is through the feedback loop between making and knowing that an experiential learning is developed. Making in particular forms
important to experiential learning, as it encompasses both practical and reflexive action which is founded in the technical engagement of tools and a device’s material availabilities. The focus of this chapter is to elaborate on epistemological concerns regarding the nature of such an experience-based learning.
4.2.1 Constructionist views on learning
The concept of making, as it is brought up in contemporary subcultures such as the maker movement, springs out of a similar interest in practice-based engagement, which is vested in investigating emerging technological phenomena such as personal fabrication (Anderson, 2012; Gershenfeld, 2008). Arenas such as makerspaces and maker festivals take part in renewing this model of tinkering, hacking, self-repair and layperson design
involvement. These arenas are linked to models of learning which tie closely which experience and embodied practice, such as constructionist learning.
This form of learning differs from other instructionist pedagogies in that it moves from teacher-focused to experience-based learning. This amounts to an emphasis on the learner’s engagement and expression through different media. These individual engagements are seen as the primary actions for the transformation of new knowledge, and in extension also the basis for knowing (Ackermann, 2004).
Pioneered by Seymour Papert (1991), constructionism sees engagement with different materials and mediums as fundamental. Latching onto learning experiences which are shaped through intermediary processes, constructionism provides an alternative pedagogy for subjects such as math and engineering. Through intermediary, or transitional objects, such as mechanical gears and computers, Papert (1991) observed how young children were able to build personal mental models in areas such as maths and physics. Notable examples of transitional objects also include the development of Lego Mindstorms, which allowed children to toy with advanced levels of computer programming (Papert, 1980).
Although trivially summarised as a ‘learning-by-making’, constructionism is a concept of learning which has epistemological similarities with other theories of learning. Of note are concepts such as Piaget’s constructivism (Blikstein, 2013), in which Papert’s (1991) constructionism brought its initial interest. Central concepts of constructionism involve learning as indirect, as it is always interpreted in the light of previous experiences. It also holds that the transmission of knowledge is not simply delivered, but is the process of experience. Last, it holds that successful learning theories should not ignore resistance (E. Ackermann, 2001).
4.2.2 Social constructivist / socio-cultural view on learning While the constructionist emphasis on embodying experiences on theoretical concepts is relevant to my developing argument of making as knowing, its primary emphasis is related to the learning of maths, science and engineering subjects. The focus of this thesis however, is to develop a learning view which is not located within a single discipline or subject.
Rather, it is interested in how practices and experiences with tools materialise (see section 2.3.4) new perspectives that are oriented on the social constructions of a technology. As such, I attach to a view which is situated closer to a constructivist ontology, which is actively engaged with accommodating and assimilating new knowledge from experience (Ackermann, 2001).
Other related approaches to this concept of learning include John Dewey’s (1938) pragmatist and later social constructivist experiential learning theories, which are motivated by the ‘organic connection between education and personal experience’ (p. 25). In other words, Dewey’s (1938) pragmatist philosophy of learning links real world objects that are not bound by the organisation of subject-matter. This focus on multiple subject-matters forms the premise for learning strategies such as the experiential learning cycle introduced by David Kolb (1984) (see section 2.5).
The model introduced by Kolb (1984) remains a key reference for any debate on experience and its influence on learning. His model sees reflection and action as two poles in a systemic learning process, which also resembles discussions forwarded by Donald Schön (1983). Schön (1983), who focuses his attention on professional development, also takes up this very dialectic – between what is being done, and the reflective process that is carried through its actions. The concept of reflection-in-action, which is central to Schön (1983), occurs when the practitioner looks at past events to inform how to make decisions in the present. The core of Kolb’s (1984) framework, however, is the centrality of the lived experience. The cyclic schematic also emphasises this continuity, which is evidently more enclosed compared to Schön’s (1983) broader concept.
Kolb’s (1984) pedagogical model is organised around four distinct modes of experience: Concrete Experience, Reflective Observation, Abstract
Conceptualisation and Active Experimentation. Building on this model, I later set it into relation to my own designerly informed model of learning. I also introduce a critique of Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning, as it gives little instruction about what is being learned, which is a fundamental part of the critical approach I am setting up in this thesis.
4.2.3 Re-learning, design and AM
The purpose of introducing theories on experiential learning into my discussion of digital craft, is to connect a view on how learning is made on a subject, with that of knowing through acts of design. As I observed through my review of the Italian design radicals (see section 2.1.3), the project of re-learning and re-interpreting such as in the Global Tools workshop, was considered necessary by its participants to observe on the oblique links between use, technology and design. The interest that these workshops took in engaging with craft techniques and artefactual production was not oriented on debates of craft vs. industrial production. Rather, they were initiated from the perspective of re-schooling, specifically in relation to how learning was drawn from crafting experiences (Borgonuovo &
Francheschini, 2015).
It is through this process of re-learning-through-making that constructivism forms a useful part of my theoretical framework. Moreover, this process of re-learning through making is particularly relevant as a form of developing knowledge on emerging technologies, such as those of interest in this study.
Emerging technologies such as AM are in fact subject to a vast amount of speculation. However, this speculation is often built on biased assumptions of what the technological capacities are, as I review in my literature review of claims to AM technology.
The idea of introducing experiential learning to the topic of emerging technology and interpretation, is to facilitate an unpacking through design practice which is subjectively and critically approached. In other words, I see this embodied, critical practice as relevant to building visions, anticipations and interpretations of AM use. In the next section, I make links between learning, design and prototyping into a wider view on new product development.