Abstract: Maker education is a new instantiation of the decades-old project of project-based, constructionist, inquiry-driven learning. However, unlike other past implementations, it offers many unique characteristics, makes possible novel educational outcomes, and challenges policy makers and teachers with new infrastructural needs. In this response, using examples from school and district-wide implementation, we address three categories of questions raised in the commentaries around maker education: the uniqueness of makerspaces and the artifacts produced within them (and how they differ from projects and artifacts produced in other educational environments), teacher professional development for this novel type of school environment, and new approaches to assessment. Our conclusions point to recommendations that could be useful for policy makers, teachers and educators working on the implementation of maker programs.

Open peer commentary on the article “Studying Conceptual Change in Classrooms: Using Association Rule Mining to Detect Changes in Students’ Explanations of the Effects of Urban Planning and Social Policy” by Arthur Hjorth & Uri Wilensky. Abstract: Hjorth and Wilensky’s target article describes two important tools for helping students debug their conceptual misconceptions: the NetLogo model, and results from Association Rule Mining. In this commentary, I focus on these tools’ contributions to the debugging process, and the way they allow students to improve their conceptual knowledge.

Context: The construction of a product is fundamental. However, students’ having produced something is not enough to ensure that they have constructed knowledge. Problem: The objective of this article is to understand how maker education can contribute to the process of students’ knowledge construction. Method: Initially we discuss aspects related to the theory of constructionism, subsequently, using Piaget’s notions of conceptualization, we discuss how knowledge can be constructed in a makerspace, then turn to a case study that illustrates our theoretical commentary, and end with conclusions about our main research question: “Where is the knowledge construction in making?” Results: We show that in makerspaces students can develop sophisticated artifacts by using digital technologies, and that besides the product, this process allows for the representation of the actions with these machines, expressed as concepts and strategies used. Implications: The action representation constitutes the “window into the mind” of the learner, allowing one to understand and identify the knowledge used and, with that, help the learner reach a new stage in knowledge construction. However, in order to know whether the student has constructed knowledge, the teacher can use different strategies, such as Piaget’s clinical method, analysis of results gathered throughout product testing, and use of simulation software related to concepts involved in the maker activity. Constructivist content: The discussion in this article is based on Papert’s constructionist ideas. However, we use Piaget’s distinction between success and understanding to discuss how knowledge can be constructed by students in makerspaces. Key words: Makerspaces, fabrication technologies, constructionism, knowledge evaluation.