ASU Electronic Theses and Dissertations
This collection includes most of the ASU Theses and Dissertations from 2011 to present. ASU Theses and Dissertations are available in downloadable PDF format; however, a small percentage of items are under embargo. Information about the dissertations/theses includes degree information, committee members, an abstract, supporting data or media.
In addition to the electronic theses found in the ASU Digital Repository, ASU Theses and Dissertations can be found in the ASU Library Catalog.
Dissertations and Theses granted by Arizona State University are archived and made available through a joint effort of the ASU Graduate College and the ASU Libraries. For more information or questions about this collection contact or visit the Digital Repository ETD Library Guide or contact the ASU Graduate College at gradformat@asu.edu.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2
Filtering by
- All Subjects: pedagogy
- All Subjects: Sustainability
Description
The 21st century will be the site of numerous changes in education systems in response to a rapidly evolving technological environment where existing skill sets and career structures may cease to exist or, at the very least, change dramatically. Likewise, the nature of work will also change to become more automated and more technologically intensive across all sectors, from food service to scientific research. Simply having technical expertise or the ability to process and retain facts will in no way guarantee success in higher education or a satisfying career. Instead, the future will value those educated in a way that encourages collaboration with technology, critical thinking, creativity, clear communication skills, and strong lifelong learning strategies. These changes pose a challenge for higher education’s promise of employability and success post-graduation. Addressing how to prepare students for a technologically uncertain future is challenging. One possible model for education to prepare students for the future of work can be found within the Maker Movement. However, it is not fully understood what parts of this movement are most meaningful to implement in education more broadly, and higher education in particular. Through the qualitative analysis of nearly 160 interviews of adult makers, young makers and young makers’ parents, this dissertation unpacks how makers are learning, what they are learning, and how these qualities are applicable to education goals and the future of work in the 21st century. This research demonstrates that makers are learning valuable skills to prepare them for the future of work in the 21st century. Makers are learning communication skills, technical skills in fabrication and design, and developing lifelong learning strategies that will help prepare them for life in an increasingly technologically integrated future. This work discusses what aspects of the Maker Movement are most important for integration into higher education.
ContributorsWigner, Aubrey (Author) / Lande, Micah (Thesis advisor) / Allenby, Braden (Committee member) / Bennett, Ira (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017
Description
Participatory approaches to policy-making and research are thought to “open up” technical decision-making to broader considerations, empower diverse public audiences, and inform policies that address pluralistic public goods. Many studies of participatory efforts focus on specific features or outcomes of those efforts, such as the format of a participatory event or the opinions of participants. While valuable, such research has not resolved conceptual problems and critiques of participatory efforts regarding, for example, their reinforcement of expert perspectives or their inability to impact policy- and decision-making. I studied two participatory efforts using survey data collected from participants, interviews with policy makers and experts associated with each project, and an analysis of project notes, meeting minutes, and my own personal reflections about each project. Both projects were based one type of participatory effort called Participatory Technology Assessment (pTA). I examined how project goals, materials, and the values, past experiences, and judgments of practitioners influenced decisions that shaped two participatory efforts to better understand how practitioners approached the challenges associated with participatory efforts.
I found four major themes that influenced decisions about these projects: Promoting learning; building capacity to host pTA events; fostering good deliberation; and policy relevance. Project organizers engaged in iterative discussions to negotiate how learning goals related to dominant ideas from policy and expert communities and frequently reflected on the impact of participatory efforts on participants and on broader socio-political systems. Practitioners chose to emphasize criteria for deliberation that were flexible and encompassing. They relied heavily on internal discussions about materials and format, and on feedback collected from participants, policy makers, and other stakeholders, to shape both projects, though some decisions resulted in unexpected and undesirable outcomes for participant discussions and policy relevance. Past experience played a heavy role in many decisions about participatory format and concerns about deliberative or participatory theory were only nominally present. My emphasis on understanding the practice of participatory efforts offers a way to reframe research on participatory efforts away from studying ‘moments’ of participation to studying the larger role participatory efforts play in socio-political systems.
I found four major themes that influenced decisions about these projects: Promoting learning; building capacity to host pTA events; fostering good deliberation; and policy relevance. Project organizers engaged in iterative discussions to negotiate how learning goals related to dominant ideas from policy and expert communities and frequently reflected on the impact of participatory efforts on participants and on broader socio-political systems. Practitioners chose to emphasize criteria for deliberation that were flexible and encompassing. They relied heavily on internal discussions about materials and format, and on feedback collected from participants, policy makers, and other stakeholders, to shape both projects, though some decisions resulted in unexpected and undesirable outcomes for participant discussions and policy relevance. Past experience played a heavy role in many decisions about participatory format and concerns about deliberative or participatory theory were only nominally present. My emphasis on understanding the practice of participatory efforts offers a way to reframe research on participatory efforts away from studying ‘moments’ of participation to studying the larger role participatory efforts play in socio-political systems.
ContributorsWeller, Nicholas, Ph.D (Author) / Childers, Daniel L. (Thesis advisor) / Bennett, Ira (Committee member) / Coseo, Paul (Committee member) / Klinsky, Sonja (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019