A common struggle in all of these Critical Learning Tasks was avoiding being too long, or providing too much information while also going into adequate depth on the topic. I have probably done so again with this e-portfolio. This has been and will likely continue to be a common theme throughout the MET program for me and something I am working on.

Critical Learning Task #1 – Critical Investigation Inquiry and Design Thinking in the Maker Environment— Interactive Presentation

---

Critical Learning Task #2 – Makerspaces and Inclusivity

Reflection:

It was disappointing, though not completely surprizing to learn that making and makerspaces are, or had become, exclusionary whether consciously, or unconsciously. Perhaps if I had more experience with them before starting this course, I would have expected Kye (2020) and Melo’s (2020) findings, as the conditions that limit the accessibility and inclusivity of makerspaces are not unique but rather reflect systemic conditions in society.

Based on this assignment and Critical Learning Task # 5 I was somewhat surprized to see as many female staff members at MakerLabs during our visit as there were, and to learn from them that nearly 50% of the staff was female, a positive step it would seem, though during the tour ratio of female to male makers using the space while we were there was much lower.

Thee 3-2-1 critique structure of the assignment was something new to me and was a struggle to keep to the guidelines of a three-sentence summary per article, two questions, and a single bridging sentence, really requiring one to choose their words carefully so that elaboration wasn’t needed for understanding.

3 – 2 -1 Critique

Plotagon Video

---

Critical Learning Task #3 – Multiliteracies, Multimodalities, and Differentiation an Annotated Bibliography

Reference:

Hughes, J. & Morrison, L. (2014). At the intersection of critical digital literacies, YAL and literature circles. ALAN Review, 42(1), 35-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.21061/alan.v42i1.a.4

---

Critical Learning Task #5 – Race, Gender, Identity, and Intersectionality in the Maker Environment an Interactive Presentation

Reflection:

This is the assignment I struggled with the most.

As someone from the privileged and empowered dominant culture it was uncomfortable to be discussing cultures that were disempowered by the same conditions that empowered me. I have certainly had experiences where I was made to feel unwelcome or disempowered, but they have mostly occurred while travelling or in situations where I was transitory. To discuss the circumstances where people are disempowered and discriminated against in their own country and communities was a challenge as I could not relate from personal experience. I was concerned that I would come across as condescending, or that I did not go deeply enough into the issues, didn’t place enough emphasis on certain concepts and in doing so would offend, especially those within the disempowered communities.

As I mentioned in my course reflection earlier, implementing the EDIDA frameworks is going to be uncomfortable for this very reason. To successfully implement the EDIDA frameworks, we as teachers are going to have to become used to being uncomfortable and reach out to the traditionally disadvantaged and discriminated communities for their input and support. We have started down this road with the implementation of the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission but need to now extend it to other communities as well.

Intersectionality was a new concept for me, at least as a term, and an important concept to understand and apply when working with our students (Crenshaw, 2018). The importance of empowering our students and making them feel welcome and valued can not be overstated!

From a technical standpoint I applied feedback from earlier assignments and endeavoured to include more interactivity and multi-modality into my presentation. It is something I will continue to work on.

Race, Gender, Identity by Mike Forsyth

Reference:

Crenshaw, K. (2018, June 22). What is intersectionality? [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/ViDtnfQ9FHc

---

Critical Learning Task #6 – AI/VR/AR in Inclusive Makerspace Environments a Movie Trailer

Reflection:

Before this course, I hadn’t used artificial intelligence (AI) much or thought of it as a tool for making. Through this assignment and the session that Reid Patterson (2023) conducted with us I came to understand the need for designing accurate and specific prompts to achieve the desired image or code, which is often a very iterative process exemplifying the maker mindset of test, refine and test again (Druga & Hammond, 2023). This process could be a good way of modelling the failure positive mindset of making for students as they will likely not achieve their desired outcome on the first try and will hopefully get closer and closer with each iteration or have to examine why it is not.

I agree with Druga & Hammond (2023) that Generative AI can be considered a skilled partner in the design and making phase as someone, or thing, that has the coding knowledge or the artistic skill to achieve something that I wouldn’t be able to on my own (Patterson, 2023). It could also be a relatively easy and low-cost way of introducing a virtual makerspace into a school as there is no need for special equipment or spaces beyond what is already available in the school.

The possibilities of AR, VR and MR for making and education for that matter are incredible. The ability for tele/virtual presence of experts in different parts of the city, country and even the world provides a much more interactive experience for students in ways that simply aren’t possible via a Teams or Zoom video call and opens the room to so many new opportunities including introducing experts/mentors from other cultures as recommended by Kye (2020) in CLT #1 (Han et al., 2020; Radu et al., 2021; Villanueva et al., 2021).

VR also has the advantage of training and orientation for tools and spaces that can shorten the learning curve and reduce the uncertainty/apprehension/fear that may be acting as a barrier to users feeling welcome and comfortable in makerspaces.

The interactivity of AR & MR is a great way to provide accessibility and inclusion for students who wouldn’t otherwise be able to participate in a science lab or dissection, may need the ability to manipulate things in 3D to understand them or virtual fieldtrips not possible in the real-world (Marr, 2021; McQueen, 2023). These technologies offer the ability for experiences that otherwise wouldn’t be possible!

The use of VR as a language acquisition aid holds great promise and is seemingly far more engaging that traditional language classes. What I saw of another student using a language program on the Oculus was very encouraging and I will be looking to see if I can make room in my school’s tech or library budget to see if we can get one for that reason allow, let alone for other purposes in the school.

AR VR AI Trailer by Mike Forsyth

References: