Innoent Education, Reykjavík, Iceland
Innoent Education, Reykjavík, Iceland
Embedded Files
The makerspace INNOENT Education in Iceland
Svanborg R Jónsdóttir, University of Iceland School of Education
INNOENT in Iceland is an independent school offering courses for teachers and for children. The school encourages young people to express their creativity in action and enterprise.
INNOENT in Iceland provides a comprehensive curriculum for innovation and entrepreneurship education. The inventor and entrepreneur is the focus of the curriculum and methodological structure of INNOENT Education.
INNOENT Education is based on the theoretical premise that all education must be based in self-initiated action. The inventors look for needs that are situated outside their comfort zone, with the aim of making that unfamiliar situation more suitable and familiar. In constructing solutions and products, inventors thus become the masters of the situation, leading the mentor into the uncharted territory of the inventor’s creative powers. (Jónsdóttir & Gunnarsdóttir, 2017)
In the summer of 2017, Svanborg R Jónsdóttir associate professor at the University of Iceland visited the INNOENT courses held for children after the primary schools had finished for the summer in order to gather data for the MakEY project.
Figure 1. Building materials and playground accessible outside.
The courses were held in an old but well-kept former school building in one of the neighbouring towns of Reykjavík, our capital city. The courses took place on the ground floor in a large, bright classroom with two spacious corridors and an outside area with materials for building and area for playing.
Creative episodes were documented where learners were deeply engaged in their creations and worked independently or in pairs. The social and physical surroundings were conducive to the children’s work, mentors guided and supported and were available when asked. Various materials and tools were available and the children could choose what to work on, which materials to use and which tools to use.
The children had ample agency to do what they wanted but sometimes some of them seemed uninterested, but usually not for long. They could also decide where to work (within the makerspace), who to work with and when and if to seek assistance. They could also take a break if they wanted and play a game of cards, read a book or rest in the cosy corner.
The courses offered for the children were organised around different themes for a week at a time. The themes were: Ingenuity and inventions, Innovation, Entrepreneurs in action and Science week.
Although the researcher's visits were conducted when there were different themes going on in the courses, there was no clear difference to be seen in what the children were working on or what seemed to be offered on the days the researcher visited the school.
Figure 2. Accessible machines and tools.
Figure 2. Accessible machines and tools.
Tools and simple machines were located so that they were accessible to the children. They got in touch with technology in the form of getting to know the inside and components of discarded electronics they tore apart (figure 3) and used parts to create new items, either technological or as artistic expressions.
They also used different tools like screwdrivers, hot glue guns and insulation cutters. Thus technology can be seen in their creative processes as tools, as raw materials and a tactile experience.
Figure 3. Exploring technology.
The mentors showed interest in the children’s projects and assisted when asked. They seldom talked to the group as a whole or initiated specific tasks and usually engaged with each child individually or with pairs working together.
The mentors often bent over to be on the same level as the learners, sat down on the floor with them (figure 4) and talked to them as if they were colleagues or collaborators.
Figure 4. Mentor collaborates with children on the floor.
The children had generous freedom and agency as they could decide what to work on and which materials and tools to use and the teachers were supporting rather than controlling.
Thus, the weak framing and classification (Bernstein, 2000) of emancipatory pedagogy as defined in Jónsdóttir and Gunnarsdóttir 2017, characterised the mode and approach in the courses, where the learners could choose what to work with, which materials to use, the pace, location, social interaction and the development of their ideas.
References
References
B Bernstein (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity (2. ed.). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, INC.
S R Jónsdóttir and R Gunnarsdóttir (2017) The road to independence: emancipatory pedagogy. Rotterdam: Sense.
Page updated
Report abuse