Leveraging Maker Culture in CALL

calico journal (online) issn 2056–9017

Editorial

Make It So: Leveraging Maker Culture in CALL

Sébastien Dubreil1 and Gillian Lord2

Introduction: What is the Maker Movement?

In The Maker movement manifesto (2014), Mark Hatch, the CEO of TechShop—a household name in the Maker movement since its launch in 2006—describes Makers’ activities and approaches as being organized around nine key notions: make, share, give, learn, tool up (i.e., secure access to necessary tools), play, participate, support, and change. Three years later, in The Maker revolution (2017), Hatch further argues that being a part of the Maker movement was to become an agent of social change and participate in creating the future. To be clear, Hatch, did not create the Maker movement, or TechShop for that matter, but he saw its potential in many domains, including education, as an opportunity to return constructivist learning environments (Piaget, 2013) to the forefront, and to emphasize problem-based learning (Schmidt, 1993) within communities of learners. Martinez and Stager (2013) identify Seymour Papert as “the father of the maker movement” (p. 17), itself anchored in Deweyan constructivism, “which frames learning as the product of play, experimentation, and authentic inquiry” (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014, p. 497). More specifically then, the Maker movement in education would be best understood through the lens of constructionism (Papert & Harel, 1991), in which learning occurs at the crossroads of problem solving and digital and physical fabrication. Papert and Harel (1991) explain that constructionism “shares constructivism’s connotation of learning as ‘building knowledge structures’ irrespective of the circumstances of the learning, but adds the idea that this happens especially felicitously in a context where the learner is consciously engaged in

Affiliations

1Carnegie Mellon University, USA. email: [email protected]

2University of Florida, USA. email: [email protected] calico journal vol 38.1 2021 i–xii https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.42531 © 2021, equinox publishing ii Make It So: Leveraging Maker Culture in CALL constructing a public entity, whether it’s a sand castle on the beach or a theory of the universe” (p. 1). In other words, constructionism “places embodied, production-based experiences at the core of how people learn” (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014, p. 497). Thus, in Maker-infused learning, students engage in a constructionist mix of play, experimentation, and authentic inquiry, in order to learn “by constructing knowledge through the act of making something shareable” (Martinez & Stager, 2013, p. 21). Although the reach of the Maker movement in education has been primarily felt in STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) fields (see, e.g., Creadon, Baer, & O’Malley, 2013), we echo Alley’s (2018) belief that the potential is real in the area of second language and culture (LC2) education, and especially within Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) approaches. Indeed, there is renewed enthusiasm around the idea that new multimedia technologies can and will truly transform the educational landscape (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014). As Groff (2013) pointed out, “we are reaching a period where it is just as easy for young people to produce … multimodal, multimedia content as to consume it. In other words, youth do not just consume visual communication but produce—or ‘write’—with it too” (p. 23). Despite the educational world being somewhat reluctant to embrace these multimedia technologies, one of their greatest affordances is the possibility to turn students into authors and creators. As Smith-Shank (1995) pointed out more than two decades ago, the traditional teaching dynamic “assumes that there is a correct body of knowledge for a teacher to communicate to students. In order to move away from the dominant hierarchical model, it is necessary to develop an entirely different framework.” Such a framework could foster an ecology of learning that extends beyond the walls of the classroom (Salen, Torres, Wolozin, Rufo-Tepper, & Shapiro, 2011) and, in fact, design learning environments in which students are no longer the receivers of information but the authors of understanding (Smith-Shank, 1995). The objective of this special issue is precisely to highlight contributions that examine the potential of engaging students in Making as a learning process, and to explore the transformative potential of these learning experiences (e.g., Creadon et al., 2013; Culyba, 2018). This approach is somewhat distinctive in that it necessarily leverages interdisciplinary studies with a strong multilingual and multicultural slant, thus expanding the boundaries of CALL. As a discipline, CALL is uniquely situated to engage with new forms of media and technology, and to explore how they disrupt the social fabric and afford new modes of presenting information and creating knowledge. Furthermore, CALL practitioners are well positioned to leverage new technologies, in order to foster intercultural understanding and assess learning when the educational experience is connected with, and potentially shaping, the proverbial “real Sébastien Dubreil and Gillian Lord iii world.” Through making online digital and/or physical objects, students are afforded the opportunity to engage with the symbolic dimension of language (Kramsch, 2020) and pragmatics (i.e., word choices and their consequenti- ality—see Taguchi, 2019), and to experience the richness and challenges of intercultural dialogue. Indeed, language is not simply a means of expression or communication, but rather a practice that constructs—and is constructed by—the ways language learners understand themselves, their social surround- ings, their histories, and their opportunities for the future. In fact, one of the main tenets of using a Maker culture in education is that learning is enhanced when students make objects that matter, in particular objects that are relevant to them (Alley, 2018; Halverson & Sheridan, 2014).

Key Components of Maker Culture

Halverson and Sheridan (2014) identify three main components of the Maker movement: Making as a set of activities, Makerspaces as communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991), and Makers as identities. In this section, we explore each of these components with an eye to their relevance to the CALL world. Making can indeed be designed as a constellation of activities that may have different learning goals. What is crucial, however, is indeed the Making aspect. Sheridan and co-workers (2014) argue that “learning is in and for the making,” as it is “deeply embedded in the experience of making—in tinkering, in figuring things out, in playing with materials and tools” (p. 528). Emerging from the DIY movement (see Alley, 2018), Maker approaches to learning are deeply marked by evidence of active learning. González-González and Aller Arias (2018) note that in a Makerspace, observable behaviors include: engagement (active participation, observation, reflection), intentionality (idea, goal, plan), innovation (new tinkering strategies, creation, use of materials), and solidarity (sharing, supporting, collaboration with other learners). In this sense, the Maker movement is aligned with principles of design thinking (Dorst, 2011), in that it emphasizes complex problem solving and developing a toolbox to solve the problem as presented. But to arrive at Making proper, designers must first learn what and whom they are designing for. This human-centered approach to design (IDEO, 2015; Kelley & Kelley, 2013) is a fundamentally reflective practice with a deep social engagement and reliance on empathy. In this sense, learners first have to discover/explore what the problem is and what makes it difficult to solve. They then have to contextualize the problem to find meaning in it, leading to potentially reframing it through analysis, so that they can find value in the solution they design. In order to make better artifacts, designers have to put people first and understand why they are making these objects, or the stories (and potentially whose stories) iv Make It So: Leveraging Maker Culture in CALL they are telling. Using a Maker approach to education thus deepens learners’ experiences, since production-based work is more authentic and learning outcomes focused on representation are more robust when the audience is an embedded component of the design process (Halverson, 2012). These guide- lines share more than a passing resemblance to second language and culture (LC2) best practices as well, in their emphasis on problem solving and contex- tualization as central to student success. Indeed, if the goal of LC2 education is to develop “anticipatory dispositions that enable complex, nuanced, recip- ient-aware, nimble and improvisational communicative capacities” (Thorne, 2011, p. 302), LC2 students will develop, through Making, an understanding of generic conventions, culturally situated narrative structure, the meaning behind words, and digital literacies. By raising students’ critical awareness, we can foster the development of individuals who are truly international in their outlook, display a sense of empathy toward other cultures, and can truly operate in a translingual and transcultural world. Making can happen in a variety of locations. Harnessing the Maker approach in education is tantamount to committing to fundamentally reshape the way educators envision the classroom. As Halverson and Sheridan (2014) emphasize, learning is “not interchangeable with schooling. Learning through Making reaches across the divide between formal and informal learning, push- ing us to think more expansively about where and how learning happens” (p. 498). The idea here is to identify the drivers of informal learning in a Maker- space eco-system and then adapt them and leverage them within more formal educational contexts. Consequently, turning one’s classroom into a Makerspace necessitates bridging the gap between formal and informal learning, and giving space to students to inhabit a variety of identities. It means that the classroom is designed for learning instead of schooling. “Bringing the Maker movement into the education conversation has the potential to transform how we understand ‘what counts’ as learning, as a learner, and as a learning environment” (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014, p. 503). Again, the connection with current approaches to LC2 teaching and learning are clear, particularly with respect to recent emphasis on experiential learning and out-of-classroom experiences as essential enhancements to classroom learning. The true potential of the Maker approach in education is the multiplicity of identities and roles that students can perform in the learning environment, leading to the possibility of redefining the relationship between the self and the act of learning. Indeed, Making affords students opportunities for investment (Norton Peirce, 1995) in the learning process and in themselves, leading to a repositioning of their own identity. In so doing, it opens the door to two desirable points of departure: (1) bringing students as legitimate participants and actors in to the educational enterprise, with their own identities and past Sébastien Dubreil and Gillian Lord v trajectories, and (2) legitimizing new forms of learning about self and others. This echoes Blikstein’s (2013) idea that Makerspaces (e.g., FabLabs) become opportunities for learners’ empowerment and raise learners’ consciousness of the possible (Freire, 1974) in the sphere of education by connecting the educational experience to meaningful problems, especially at the community level. In the area of CALL, we believe, with Halverson and Sheridan (2014) that “the great promise of the Maker movement […] is to democratize access to the discourses of power that accompany becoming a producer of artifacts, especially when those artifacts use twenty-first-century technologies” (p. 500). In Maker culture, students are often led to reflect, through the process of building their project, on who they are. Within the context of their projects, they can also occupy roles as varied as those of researcher, writer, composer, asset developer, videographer, sound engineer, editor, producer, etc., giving them a chance to work collaboratively and contribute to the group in multiple ways, and work on both their strengths and their weaknesses. Alley (2018) found that the success of his Maker approach in the English as a second language classroom was predicated on the fact that “students brought their previous experiences in second language use, and these experiences were immediately and personally put to use in a second language use context.” Using this type of approach, students then have to face the challenge of their own limitations, which can exist on a variety of levels: lack of content knowledge or lack of mastery of generic constraints, a need for technological training, fear of engaging with informants for their projects. But students’ investment in the act of Making leads them to conduct the necessary research (and in the process learn to evaluate the knowledge they acquire), learn new tools and skills, and overcome their apprehension of social interactions. Certainly, in the second language Makerspace, students learn to help each other, collaborate, problem solve, give each other rapid feedback, and correct errors, which leads to better learning and increased confidence in the use of the target language (Alley, 2018). Learners in such constructivist learning environments have the potential—and are given the opportunity—to display more agency (Donato, 2000). Going a step further, Agency by Design claimed that “the most salient benefits of Maker-centered learning … have to do with developing a sense of self and a sense of community that empower [learners] to engage with and shape the designed dimension of their worlds” (Clapp, Ross, Ryan, & Tishman, 2016, p. 7). In sum, through a Maker approach to LC2 education, students are given the opportunity to engage in self-directed learning, to benefit from and give collaborative support, and to cultivate membership in one or more communities, potentially gaining an enhanced sense of self. With this background in mind, the six contributions to this special issue showcase different approaches to designing Maker activities, to constructing vi Make It So: Leveraging Maker Culture in CALL the learning space/environment, and to exploring the identities the learners develop through these projects. Crucially, as we will see throughout this volume, creating a Makerspace for LC2 learning does not necessarily require expensive machinery and high-tech expertise. What is required is the ability to rethink and recreate learning environments that redesign the learning process through a more equitable approach, where everyone teaches and everyone learns.

Contributions to the Special Issue

With this issue we do not pretend to cover the entirety of the wide possibilities available for learning language through Making. Rather, it is our hope that the six contributions provide a broad overview of what is feasible, from leveraging technologies that already have a footprint in the L2 classroom (e.g., podcasts, fanfiction) into that space, to harnessing more recent emerging technologies (e.g., 3D printing, virtual reality) for the purpose of L2 education. With the stated objective to improve students’ presentational communicative skills, Allen and Gamalinda turn to podcasting. Previous research on the use of podcasts in L2 education (e.g., Ducate & Lomicka, 2009; Lord, 2008; Rosell-Aguilar, 2013) focused primarily on podcasts as a source of authentic language and culture that could be used to improve students’ pronunciation, vocabulary, and attitude toward the language they studied. By embracing a pedagogy of Making and anchoring their intervention in the multiliteracies framework (New London Group, 1996; Paesani, Allen, & Dupuy, 2015), focusing on meaning design and digital literacy, Allen and Gamalinda are able to bolster students’ understanding of the thematic, generic, linguistic, and techni- cal components of podcasting. In other words, their students gained a better appreciation and understanding of the ways in which the medium, form, and content (i.e., language and culture) interact to create a better story. Building on an already robust body of research on fanfiction, Cornillie, Buendgens-Kosten, Sauro, and Van der Veken examine storytelling practices in the digital wilds (see, e.g., Sauro & Zourou, 2019). In particular, they harnessed the playful yet engaged nature of writing practices that occur in online informal learning spaces in a more institutionalized educational context within the European Union FanTALES project (www.fantales.eu). Establish- ing a parallel between Maker culture communities and fanfiction writing as a constructionist endeavor (Papert & Harel, 1991), Cornillie and colleagues specifically investigated the intersection of Maker culture and digital storytelling by asking their students to create interactive fiction stories (Montfort, 2011) based on the popular game series Assassin’s Creed. Their analysis reports on the affordances, benefits, and challenges of the task for students multiliteracies, Sébastien Dubreil and Gillian Lord vii language learning, motivation, autonomy, and transversal competences. Their results suggest that students’ interest and enjoyment (see Martin, 2014, for a discussion of interest-driven learning) drove them to overcome the complexity of the task and develop their skills in language and storytelling. In their piece, Kannan, Brenneis, and Nader-Esfahani explore the use of digital exhibitions as a way for students of French and Spanish to engage with language, literature, and culture. Using the Maker-Centered Learning (MCL) approach (Clapp et al., 2016) as an organizing framework for their pedagogy, the authors designed learning experiences in which their students created artifacts that other students could use: learning objects (a collective virtual exhibit using Omeka) in the case of the French students, and public-facing resources for the campus museum and library in the case of their Spanish students. Kannan and co-workers focused on five markers of the MCL framework that gracefully align with language and culture learning: looking closely, exploring, complexity, finding, and opportunity. By doing so, they brought the MCL framework to the study of text to enhance learners’ autonomy and commitment to close reading and critical thinking. Their results also suggest that students improved their language skills in the areas of reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Castrillo and Sedano take the notion of public engagement to a different, high-stakes level. Within the context of their work with the Erasmus+ project MOONLITE (https://moonliteproject.eu), they use the principles of design thinking (Dorst, 2011) to create cross-institutional scenarios and new educational pathways for migrants and refugees in the form of two Spanish language massive open online courses (LMOOCs). Because complex problems are better solved by collective and collaborative solutions that take into account the voices of all major stakeholders, they formed a team comprising not only language educators, but also representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), refugee support groups (RSGs), and volunteers. More importantly, Castrillo and Sedano included migrants and refugees themselves in the course design process. Their objectives were to make the course relevant to ensure that refugees and migrants would complete it, and that the course would meet immediate needs and foster social integration. Their results suggest that collaboratively developed LMOOCs can be an effective means of provid- ing access to education for refugees and migrants, and help them to solve the problems of the language barriers while adapting to their host community. The final two contributions to this special issue focus on harnessing more recent multimedia technologies in a Maker approach, namely 3D printing and virtual reality (VR), for the purposes of language and culture learning. Enkin, Tytarenko, and Kirschling discuss the development of an immersive VR- infused Makerspace for experiential learning, focusing on an advanced-level viii Make It So: Leveraging Maker Culture in CALL

Russian course. Students in the course used head-mounted displays (HMDs) to explore artistic movements through the collections of authentic Russian museums (e.g., the Hermitage in Saint Petersburg) and discuss the results of their exploration with classmates. This discovery phase served as the basis for students to create their own work of art in one of the genres studied (e.g., abstract art), using a drawing app on iPads. Finally, students returned to the HMDs and used a sculpting app to create a 3D-printed work of art. Enkin, Tytarenko, and Kirschling note that learners took ownership of their learning and cultural understanding, as well as of their critical analysis skills. They were also motivated by the ability to create and engage with the materials in different ways. The authors concluded by stating that the learning opportunities afforded by these Maker-based technologies would be impossible to replicate in traditional classrooms. Finally, Caspar presents a journey through multicultural Pittsburgh by leveraging the affordances of the Askwith Kenner Global Languages & Cultures Room, a new teaching and research space that forms part of the department of modern languages at Carnegie Mellon University, which the author directs. The Global Languages & Cultures Room provides, among other things, the access to multiple HMDs and a dedicated immersive room with a projector array that displays panoramic images to those in the space without the need for a headset. The room is designed to facilitate experiential learning in a flex- ible teaching space that can be reconfigured in several ways. Caspar guides his students to discover the diversity of the city of Pittsburgh, where many seldom venture. Squarely anchored in Maker culture as a transdisciplinary technique for conducting humanistic inquiry, the pedagogy of the course also draws inspiration from the tenets of playful approaches to learning (e.g., Whitton, 2018). Drawing on their own identity, curiosity, and interest, students identified an interlocutor (e.g., an artist) or an entity (e.g., a bookstore) in the city that they thought exemplified or embodied multiculturalism. They were then tasked with producing a 360˚ video (viewable using an HMD) that told the story of their subject. Through this project, students had to engage not only with language and culture, but also with the art of storytelling, and the affordances and constraints of the medium in which they were telling the story. They also had to reckon with their positions as authors and creators of knowledge. In sum, this special issue endeavors to frame new educational opportunities for LC2 students using an array of the technologies available. The boundaries of L2 use have shifted, and it is incumbent upon LC2 educators to make a case for the relevance of emerging communicative contexts and the importance of fostering empathy and building sustainable relationships in multicultural, multilingual societies. What the six contributions assembled in this special issue have in common is that none succumbed to toolism (i.e., “I did it because Sébastien Dubreil and Gillian Lord ix

I can”), erroneously foregrounding the instructional technology rather than their own cultural and linguistic goals. Instead, these authors concentrated on designing new models for LC2 education focused on active learning, constructing new ways of knowing, and curating a community of learners that does not exist in isolation but rather engages with a larger human community. As LC2 educators, it is critical that we continue to lead the way and push the boundaries not only of innovative technology-enhanced learning, but also of ways to guide our students on the path to social action. In other words, it is time to heed the call to bridge language learning in the instructed setting with authentic language use in authentic discursive contexts (Thorne & Reinhardt, 2008), in order to transform our students into locuteurs/acteurs (speakers/social actors, e.g., Kern & Liddicoat, 2008), and link our pedagogy to critical societal issues of our times, such as diversity and inclusivity or climate change. Inscrib- ing LC2 in a Maker culture provides one avenue to envision our students not simply as learners of language forms and cultural facts, but rather as social agents mobilizing their knowledge and resources to interact with, and bring them to bear on, the sociocultural context within which they find themselves. It is our responsibility to equip them with the skills and attitudes necessary to be successful in this endeavor, so they can make a positive impact on the world around them. In closing, our hope with this special issue of CALICO is to provide models of best practices in LC2 learning within a Maker approach. The six contributions presented here have laid out theoretically grounded, pedagogically sound initiatives in that space, and all have provided evidence of learning through compelling student outcomes. What comes next, however, is up to the community of CALL practitioners and scholars, whom we urge to continue work- ing and creating Maker-based pedagogical experiences, and also to conduct more systematic empirical work to document the effectiveness and affordances of the Maker approach in LC2 education. We appeal to both researchers and teachers to seize the present moment, which, if nothing else, has taught us that desperately attempting to replicate antiquated pedagogical practices in an online or hybrid environment is neither desirable nor effective. Rather, drawing inspiration from the stimulating pedagogical endeavors assembled here, we need empirical, data-driven research, both qualitative and quantita- tive, that will help us to better understand how this novel approach benefits students, encourages them to continue their language study, and ultimately makes language study a more central part of (higher) education. Such research will not only help us expand our pedagogical capacities (e.g., more students, more projects), it will also diversify our pedagogical repertoires and transi- tion not so much to a “return to normal” as to a new normal. Our new normal must be a pedagogical environment which recognizes that teaching is most x Make It So: Leveraging Maker Culture in CALL effective when it is relevant, when it is connected to the world around us and real, complex problems, and when it takes into account all of our students’ voices in order to benefit all of our students—in sum, when education is not predicated on acquiring and compiling new information, but rather on creating new meanings.

References

Alley, W. (2018). Making English speakers: Makerspaces as constructivist language environments. MEXTESOL Journal, 42(4). http://mextesol.net/journal/index. php?page=journal&id_article=4451 Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and “making” in education: The democratization of invention. In J. Walter-Herrmann & C. Büching (Eds.),FabLab: Of machines, makers, and inventors. Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript. Clapp, E. P., Ross, J., Ryan, J. O., & Tishman, S. (2016). Maker-centered learning: Empow- ering young people to shape their worlds. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Creadon, P., Baer, N., & O’Malley, C. (2013). If you build it. United States: O’Malley Creadon Productions. Culyba, S. H. (2018). The transformational framework: A process tool for the development of transformational games. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University ETC Press Sig- nature. Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 27–50). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Dorst, K. (2011). The core of “design thinking” and its application. Design studies, 32(6), 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006 Ducate, L., & Lomicka, L. (2009). Podcasting: An effective tool for honing language students’ pronunciation? Language Learning & Technology, 13(3), 66–86. https://www. lltjournal.org/item/2678 Freire, P. (1974). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Seabury Press. González-González, C. S., & Aller Arias, L. G. (2018). Maker movement in education: Maker mindset and Makerspaces. Conference paper delivered at IV Jornadas de HCI, Popayam, Colombia. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323401154_Maker_ movement_in_education_maker_mindset_and_makerspaces Groff, J. S. (2013). Expanding our “frames” of mind for education and the arts. Harvard Educational Review, 83(1), 15–39. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.83.1.kk34802147665819 Halverson, E. R. (2012). Participatory media spaces: A design perspective on learning with media and technology in the 21st century. In C. Steinkuehler, K. Squire, & S. Barab (Eds.), Games learning & society: Learning and meaning in a digital age (pp. 244–270). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139031127.020 Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. M. (2014). The Maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495–504. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.34j1g68140382063 Hatch, M. (2014). The Maker movement manifesto. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Educa- tion. Hatch, M. (2017). The Maker revolution: Building a future on creativity and innovation in an exponential world. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. IDEO (2015). The little book of design research ethics. Palo Alto, CA: IDEO. Sébastien Dubreil and Gillian Lord xi

Kelley, D., & Kelley, T. (2013). Creative confidence: Unleashing the creative potential within us all. London, UK: William Collins. Kern, R., & Liddicoat, A. J. (2008). De l’apprenant au locuteur/acteur. In G. Zarate, D. Levy, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Précis de plurilinguisme et du pluriculturalisme (pp. 27–65). Paris: Éditions des archives contemporaines. Kramsch, C. (2020). Language as symbolic power. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108869386 Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cam- bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355 Lord, G. (2008). Podcasting communities and second language pronunciation. Foreign Language Annals, 41(2), 364–379. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2008.tb03297.x Martin, C. (2014). Voyage across a constellation of information: Information literacy in interest-driven learning communities. New York, NY: Peter Lang. https://doi. org/10.3726/978-1-4539-1117-4 Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. S. (2013). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom. Constructing Modern Knowledge Press. Montfort, N. (2011). Toward a theory of interactive fiction. In K. Jackson-Mead & J. R. Wheeler (Eds.), IF theory reader (pp. 25–28). Boston, MA: Transcript On Press. New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60–92. https://doi.org/10.17763/ haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u Norton Peirce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quar- terly, 29(1), 9–31. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587803 Paesani, K., Allen, H. W., & Dupuy, B. (2015). A multiliteracies framework for collegiate foreign language. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.), Constructionism. New York, NY: Ablex Publishing. Piaget, J. (2013). The mechanisms of perception. New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9780203715758 Rosell-Aguilar, F. (2013). Podcasting for language learning through iTunes U: The learner’s view. Language Learning & Technology, 17(3), 74–93. https://www.lltjournal.org/ item/2826 Salen, K., Torres, R., Wolozin, L., Rufo-Tepper, R., & Shapiro, A. (2011). Quest to learn: Developing the school for digital kids. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foun- dation Reports on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Sauro, S., & Zourou, K. (2019). What are the digital wilds? Language Learning & Technol- ogy, 23(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10125/44666 Schmidt, H. G. (1993). Foundations of problem-based learning: Some explanatory notes. Medical Education, 27(5), 422–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1993.tb00296.x Sheridan, K. M., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B. K., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T. (2014). Learning in the Making: A comparative case study of three Makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 505–531. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.brr34733723j648u Smith-Shank, D. L. (1995). Semiotic pedagogy and art education. Studies in Art Education, 36(4), 233–241. https://doi.org/10.2307/1320937 Taguchi, N. (Ed.) (2019). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics. New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351164085 Thorne, S. L. (2011). Community formation and the world as its own model.Modern Lan- guage Journal, 95(2), 304–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01185.x xii Make It So: Leveraging Maker Culture in CALL

Thorne, S., & Reinhardt, J. (2008). “Bridging activities,” new media literacies, and advanced foreign language proficiency. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 558–572. https://doi.org/10.1558/ cj.v25i3.558-572 Whitton, N. (2018). Playful learning: Tools, techniques, and tactics. Research in Learning Technology, 26, 2035–2047. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v26.2035