This week’s readings explored critical making, DIY content and just how critical some spaces are. In the article titled, “A More Lovingly Made World”, Wark makes a distinction between critical making through media production and a pre-assembled maker-culture that has individuals putting together the stuff that has already been made (Wark, 297). Wark states that “maker culture seems mostly about basic concepts, in electronics, for example, or knitting patterns,” and that it is “not about actual labour processes” — which I think defeats the purpose of what critical production is supposed to do for students. In class this semester, we have been talking about inquiry-based media production as a tool for students to become problem solvers and be engaged in their own learning. I think if we pre-assemble projects and outcomes for students and then ask students to assemble these pre-constructed projects, we’re defeating the purpose of IBL and allowing students to feel empowered by their learning.
This leads me to Pinto’s, “Putting the Critical Back into Maker Spaces” and the thought that, “if you’re just solving problems from a teacher with ready-made solutions, you’re doing it wrong” (p. 38).” I think if we as teachers are to implement IBL in the classroom, we need to do it all the way and commit — allowing students to explore problems that are important to them.