View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Becoming Materially Aware with Mushrooms: A Sociomaterial Analysis of Biomaking

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Becoming Materially Aware with Mushrooms: A Sociomaterial Analysis of Biomaking
Language: English
Authors: Päivikki Liukkonen (ORCID 0000-0001-9050-5659), Henriikka Vartiainen, Sirpa Kokko
Source: International Journal of Art & Design Education. 2025 44(3):545-560.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Secondary Education
Descriptors: Creative Activities, Integrated Activities, Art Education, Secondary Schools, Workshops, Biological Sciences, Foreign Countries, Secondary School Students
Geographic Terms: Finland
DOI: 10.1111/jade.12550
ISSN: 1476-8062
1476-8070
Abstract: Biomaking and other bio-oriented creative approaches are beginning to gain traction in education. Operating at the intersections of arts and sciences, they represent a field of integrative practices that involve creative making with the biological. In educational contexts, however, bio-oriented creative practices have been studied primarily from hylomorphic perspectives that do not account for the roles of different non-human organisms or other materials that participate in the processes. Drawing on theories of sociomateriality and material agency, and utilising multispecies microethnography, the paper attends to the specificities of making, makers, materials and artefacts in biomaking. It explores a case of a Finnish upper secondary school workshop implemented as part of the school's art curriculum within a larger educational development initiative. In the workshop, makers engaged with webcap mushrooms to extract, use and experiment with their pigments. The analysis builds on constructed operational sequences of the workshop activities, and a scrutiny of their interconnections, stages and participants. The paper shows how making, emergent artefacts and interplays of makers' intentions and materialities can instate moments of relationality and learning, and thus build makers' material awareness of the more-than-human organisms around them. The study proposes making with the biological as an attunement to our enmeshment with the environment.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1481475
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGxqr6wgQbwZiMpNLa20M7wAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDJ3d33QtTFdKkrlylQIBEICBm6Ppqbmq5m77guyyABrkDBJXCsx6MewQxhL29Wk3gY3H7gqUTHR3FTxU49YrQwTs0r04W7hqMPXfuvFh0z6YX8I5hBZPxCPoM8Pm--oncQE9X2ZeyPpPoNjMdWLH7AoP-mn79UXNaSCR5-FjLMXfEZH4L6Kj2xcQbTyozsjU3y-hjUr0jIE1Jb3IWgbRWfX19QhiNBxcpagaY8rY
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0187503044;q0t01aug.25;2025Aug26.04:59;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0187503044-1">Becoming Materially Aware with Mushrooms: A Sociomaterial Analysis of Biomaking </title> <p>Biomaking and other bio‐oriented creative approaches are beginning to gain traction in education. Operating at the intersections of arts and sciences, they represent a field of integrative practices that involve creative making with the biological. In educational contexts, however, bio‐oriented creative practices have been studied primarily from hylomorphic perspectives that do not account for the roles of different non‐human organisms or other materials that participate in the processes. Drawing on theories of sociomateriality and material agency, and utilising multispecies microethnography, the paper attends to the specificities of making, makers, materials and artefacts in biomaking. It explores a case of a Finnish upper secondary school workshop implemented as part of the school's art curriculum within a larger educational development initiative. In the workshop, makers engaged with webcap mushrooms to extract, use and experiment with their pigments. The analysis builds on constructed operational sequences of the workshop activities, and a scrutiny of their interconnections, stages and participants. The paper shows how making, emergent artefacts and interplays of makers' intentions and materialities can instate moments of relationality and learning, and thus build makers' material awareness of the more‐than‐human organisms around them. The study proposes making with the biological as an attunement to our enmeshment with the environment.</p> <p>Keywords: biomaking; fungal pigments; material agency; material awareness; sociomateriality</p> <hd id="AN0187503044-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Bio‐oriented design, craft and art practices framed as, biodesign, biomaking or bioart‐making, are beginning to gain traction in educational settings (Ljokkoi & Slotte Dufva [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref1">24</reflink>]; Grushkin [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref2">12</reflink>]; Chappell <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref3">4</reflink>]; Correa & Holbert [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref4">5</reflink>]; Liukkonen <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref5">23</reflink>]). They form a group of distinct but overlapping approaches to creative hands‐on making that typically entail learners working dialogically with biotic entities. Moreover, these approaches are often initiated to discuss the issues brought about by the Anthropocene as well as the advances of biosciences (Ljokkoi & Slotte Dufva [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref6">24</reflink>]; Antonelli [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref7">1</reflink>]; Grushkin [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref8">12</reflink>]; Correa & Holbert [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref9">5</reflink>]; Liukkonen <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref10">23</reflink>]). Deservingly, some aspects of the above‐mentioned bio‐oriented approaches have been scrutinised within the context of education (e.g. Chappell <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref11">4</reflink>]; Correa & Holbert [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref12">5</reflink>]; Liukkonen <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref13">23</reflink>]). Although there are exceptions (e.g. Illeris & Riis [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref14">16</reflink>]; Haukeland & Fredriksen [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref15">13</reflink>]), many studies still seem to adhere to the hylomorphic interpretation (Rousell & Fell [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref16">36</reflink>]), which, according to Ingold ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref17">18</reflink>], 20), is at play 'Whenever we read that in the making of artefacts, practitioners impose forms internal to the mind upon a material world "out there"'.</p> <p>We propose that the above‐mentioned bio‐oriented design, craft and art practices in education challenge the taken‐for‐granted notions of making, maker and artefact in many ways. We therefore advocate for examining them using theories of sociomateriality (Orlikowski & Scott [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref18">32</reflink>]; Fenwick <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref19">10</reflink>]) that account for the agency of material (Ingold [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref20">18</reflink>]; Malafouris [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref21">26</reflink>]; Illeris & Riis [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref22">16</reflink>]). Given this, our paper aims to analyse making, makers, materials and artefacts in biomaking. We present and examine a case of semester‐long workshop implemented in a Finnish upper secondary school in 2020 as a part of the school's art education curriculum. In the workshop, a teacher and eight students (hereafter referred to as <emph>teacher‐maker</emph> and <emph>learner‐makers</emph>) engaged with blood‐red (<emph>Cortinarius sanguineus</emph>) and red‐gilled (<emph>Cortinarius semisanguineus</emph>) webcap mushrooms (hereafter referred to collectively as <emph>webcaps</emph>). With the help of the teacher‐maker, the student‐makers learnt how to release pigments from locally foraged webcap fruiting bodies and to prepare webcap‐pigmented inks, watercolours and printing emulsions. The group then experimented with their self‐made media by printing and painting to create artefacts to be showcased in a mushroom‐themed school art exhibition.</p> <p>The following research questions are our starting point: <emph>How do the trajectories of making unfold in the context of a biomaking workshop? How are makers, materials, artefacts and relations thereof configured in the context of a biomaking workshop?</emph> Through our multispecies microethnographic scrutiny (Kirksey & Helmreich [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref23">20</reflink>]; Pacini‐Ketchabaw <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref24">33</reflink>]; Hecht <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref25">14</reflink>]), we then analyse and describe how trajectories of biomaking activities, emerging artefacts and interplays of maker intentions and materialities instate moments of relationality and learning that contribute to the learner‐makers' awareness of the more‐than‐human organisms around them. We conclude our paper by situating it within the existing body of research on material agency and suggesting how the emerging awareness brought about by biomaking might translate into an expanding awareness of the biosphere and the organisms with which we co‐make.</p> <hd id="AN0187503044-3">Learning through bio‐oriented creative practices</hd> <p>The Anthropocene and recent global crises, such as climate change and pandemics, all characterised by the profound interdependence between human activities and natural systems, have generated interest in finding solutions from various interdisciplinary practices. Subsequently, this interest has contributed to the recognition of the educational value of bio‐oriented design, craft and art practices, such as distinct yet overlapping fields of biodesign, biomaking and bioart‐making. Put simply, they are all about making creatively with the biological and have an inherent tendency to operate where the elements of creative making and the biological converge. Moreover, they all often aim at operating in ways that emphasise dialogical processes between the human and the more‐than‐human over finished works, while attending to broader questions of biosphere coexistence and ethics (Correa & Holbert [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref26">5</reflink>]). However, while bioart‐making emphasises artistic processes, biomaking and biodesign often take a more designerly and pragmatic approach.</p> <p>In previous research, the possibilities of creative bio‐oriented practices have been framed from several viewpoints. Liukkonen <emph>et al</emph>. ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref27">23</reflink>]) emphasise bioart‐making's potential in enabling learners to draw eclectically from different domains in their making and learning. Similarly, Ljokkoi & Slotte Dufva ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref28">24</reflink>]) foreground bioart's capacities of paralleling scientific and artistic practices as a way of opening up a more integrated view to the complexities of the current era. In addition, Chappell <emph>et al</emph>. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref29">4</reflink>]) argue for a widened understanding of biodesign practices that encompasses for example ancestral making with biology as way to engage public and support local communities. Correa & Holbert ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref30">5</reflink>]), on the other hand, utilise post‐humanist methodologies of material‐led research and a practitioner‐researcher perspective, discussing biomaking as a site for 'material and intellectual inquiry' [<reflink idref="bib207" id="ref31">207</reflink>] that allows attending to matter, material agency and histories.</p> <p>As outlined above, while the framings and implications of the different bio‐oriented creative practices differ in their application, they share a strong learning through making ethos. While resources are drawn across disciplinary and often institutional boundaries, the actual learning processes take place through hands‐on processes of experimentation and making. Consequently, the approaches entail involvement of a myriad of different material forces, both human and more‐than‐human. We see that the potential of different forces to shape, re‐direct and have an impact is particularly evident in practices that revolve around making with the biological. To attend to the agential roles and entanglements of human and non‐human materialities, we turn next to sociomaterial understandings of making in learning.</p> <hd id="AN0187503044-4">Viewing learning by making through sociomateriality</hd> <p>Within the scope of educational inquiry on making, the decentring of the maker and the recognition of the role of non‐human entities takes usually place through sociomaterial and relational approaches (Fenwick <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref32">10</reflink>]; Rousell and Fell [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref33">36</reflink>]; Mehto <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref34">29</reflink>]; Sheridan <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref35">40</reflink>]; Barritt <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref36">3</reflink>]; Jeldes <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref37">19</reflink>]; Mäkelä & Aktaş [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref38">31</reflink>]). This means that the processes of making are understood as material entanglements of becoming that encompass interplay of makers, materials, environments and tools in which both human and non‐human collaborate (Fenwick <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref39">10</reflink>]; Lenz‐Taguchi [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref40">22</reflink>]; Rousell and Fell [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref41">36</reflink>]). While sociocultural theories have acknowledged the role of tools, materials and artefacts in mediation, the sociomaterial view goes further by decentring the primacy of the learner subject altogether. The focus is then placed on the intra‐action of the agents participating in the learning event (Barad [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref42">2</reflink>]; Lenz‐Taguchi [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref43">22</reflink>]; Hickey‐Moody [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref44">15</reflink>]). Agency itself is seen through the capacity to act toward 'a future possible ordering of things or events' (Rosiek [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref45">35</reflink>], 560), not suggestive of extending consciousness to non‐human agents. What this shift from an anthropocentric view aims at, is an analytic scrutiny of material engagements as dialogical and dynamic relations between different contributing factors and the ways in which they might influence making and makers, and thus learning (Hickey‐Moody [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref46">15</reflink>]; Mehto <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref47">29</reflink>]; Mehto & Kangas [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref48">28</reflink>]; Mäkelä & Aktaş [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref49">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>The agency of the matter creative makers work, has been addressed and theorised quite extensively in the context of craft practices, where the often tacitly appearing impact of the material has long been acknowledged (Ingold [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref50">18</reflink>]; Malafouris [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref51">26</reflink>]). The consequential maker‐material intra‐action (Barad [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref52">2</reflink>]) has been referred to for example as dance (Malafouris [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref53">26</reflink>]), dialogue (Ingold [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref54">18</reflink>]) or communication (Haukeland & Fredriksen [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref55">13</reflink>]). More often than not, the perspective has been that of a skilled and experienced maker who is already proficient in the specific practice. However, the implications of material agency and co‐creation with the more‐than‐human have started to garner growing attention within the scholarship of learning through making and crafting.</p> <p>Mäkelä & Aktaş ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref56">31</reflink>]) have inspected walking as a pedagogical approach encountering and interacting with nature‐based materials. They conclude that instead of following a linear plan, the entangled processes between environments, learners and materials appear as growth. However, Mehto & Kangas ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref57">28</reflink>]) have identified materials' agential and often unpredictable role especially within open‐ended making tasks and the way in which this intrinsically tethers the making‐learning instances to wider issues of society, ecology and ethics. Furthermore, Jeldes <emph>et al</emph>. ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref58">19</reflink>]) utilise the concepts of relational agency and intra‐action to explore the ways in which digital fabrication technologies and art‐making can contribute to convivial collaboration and sense‐making.</p> <p>Several scholars have also explored the concept of material agency within art education research. For example, in their revised article, Rousell & Fell ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref59">36</reflink>]) call for a new materialist and post‐humanist view of collaboration in tertiary level visual arts education that acknowledges the participation of materials as well as the spaces of art‐making. In addition, Illeris and Riis ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref60">16</reflink>]), drawing on Morton's theories (e.g. Morton [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref61">30</reflink>]) explore aesthetic learning processes in craft making and suggest moving from an anthropocentric to a more eco‐centric approach that accepts the role of materials, such as wood, in making and learning processes. They describe how this understanding enables viewing crafting as a dialogical process of '...collaborative endeavour of attention‐awareness‐attunement‐inter/intra‐action and finally, separation' (Illeris & Riis [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref62">16</reflink>], 40).</p> <p>Attending to sociomaterial relationality and material agency in creative making requires mapping the dynamic entanglements of making processes. This challenges many established binaries, such as those of subject–object, nature–culture, matter‐meaning and body‐mind (Fenwick <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref63">10</reflink>]). Furthermore, this approach frames making and learning as emergent phenomena that take place through complex networks of both human and non‐human actants (ibid.). These principles also guide how complex assemblages are approached in sociomaterially oriented research. Building on this, we next outline the research design, and the methodologies employed in our study.</p> <hd id="AN0187503044-5">Research setting and procedures</hd> <p>Following sociomaterial orientations (Fenwick [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref64">10</reflink>]), our study aims at scrutinising biomaking in a real‐world setting as it unfolds <emph>in situ</emph>. Therefore, it employs a case study approach (Simons [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref65">41</reflink>]). Moreover, it draws on multispecies microethnography (Kirksey & Helmreich [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref66">20</reflink>]; Pacini‐Ketchabaw <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref67">33</reflink>]; Hecht <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref68">14</reflink>]). However, as a way to acknowledge the tension between established humanist research methods and sociomaterial thinking (Pacini‐Ketchabaw <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref69">33</reflink>]; Hecht <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref70">14</reflink>]; Ruck & Mannion [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref71">37</reflink>]), neither the data nor the analysis rely solely on textual representations. Instead, we seek to attend to the events through various forms of documentation, such as video and photography. Throughout the data generation and analysis, particular attention has been paid to the relationality within the making instances as well as the non‐human agencies of the assemblages studied.</p> <hd id="AN0187503044-6">Biomaking workshop and data generation</hd> <p>The biomaking workshop took place in a Finnish upper secondary school in autumn 2020. It was a part of a larger initiative involving more than 40 students and four in‐service art teachers with varying approaches to fungi‐themed bio‐oriented creative practices and featured collaboration with several domain experts from the fields of natural sciences and arts. In addition, the initiative occurred within the scope of a broader development project aimed at in‐service teachers, with the goal of fostering interdisciplinary learning with bioeconomy‐linked themes. In this way, the study also followed a line of design‐based research endeavours to develop pedagogy and learning models adhering to the 21st century skills frameworks (e.g. Vartiainen <emph>et al</emph>. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref72">44</reflink>]). The initiative was integrated into the school's art education curriculum, and featured four workshops, each of which concentrated on its respective theme. One of these workshops, focusing on fungal pigments, hereafter referred as the biomaking workshop, is the focus of our research.</p> <p>After initial shared activities with all four workshops, each convened separately on a weekly basis for 90‐minute in‐person sessions. At the end of the project, the workshops set up a joint exhibition on the school premises to showcase the artefacts produced during the processes. Throughout, the first author of this paper was involved in the project, providing pedagogical support, reflecting on the progression with the in‐service teachers and observing the workshop sessions on a regular basis. However, the themes and working methods of each workshop were ideated and implemented solely by the teachers themselves.</p> <p>The conclusive theme of the biomaking workshop was the utilisation of mushroom pigments in creative making practices. This involved releasing pigments from naturally growing webcaps. These pigments were utilised to craft webcap‐pigmented ink, watercolour and printing emulsion. In addition, the learner‐makers experimented with the self‐made media and materials to create artefacts that were displayed in a mushroom‐themed exhibition in the school gallery. The activities followed a loose structure and progressed from observing and sketching mushrooms, through the different stages of pigment extraction and use, to stencil making, painting and screen printing and other printing experiments. The processes drew on both creative and scientific resources and involved a series of collaborative hands‐on making practices and problem‐solving instances. However, each participating learner‐maker worked on their own respective creations.</p> <p>Our dataset was generated through participant observation (Emerson [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref73">9</reflink>]) and semi‐structured interviews conducted at the end of the workshop with learner‐makers Lara and Vera and a teacher‐maker Sara (pseudonyms are used). It consists of a primary data of transcribed field notes from the observed workshop (2966 words), photos documenting the project activities as well as final artefacts (90 pcs.) and the interview transcriptions (11,945 words). In addition, video footage of the workshop (16 minutes and 56 seconds) and its transcriptions were used as supporting data. Thus, different modes contributed to the analysis through data triangulation (Shenton [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref74">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>The study followed the guidelines of the National Board on Research Integrity (Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref75">11</reflink>]), Finnish Data Protection Act (Data Protection Act [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref76">8</reflink>]) and the EU General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref77">34</reflink>]). Therefore, written research agreements were acquired from the relevant municipal school authorities. Also, each research participants and their legal guardians were given a written privacy notice about their rights, the purposes of data processing and the objectives of the study, after which their signed consents were acquired.</p> <hd id="AN0187503044-7">Analysis methods</hd> <p>Methodologically, we relied on both relational charting of the making processes taking place within the workshop and qualitative content analysis of the data. To capture the specific roles of makers, materials and artefacts, we first mapped the different making activities that emerged within the workshop, and then traced possible interconnections of these. This first round of analysis utilised ATLAS.ti software and visualisation techniques. In the second round of analysis, each activity was subjected to a further scrutiny to construct its operational sequences (Schlanger [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref78">38</reflink>]; Coupaye [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref79">6</reflink>]; Lemonnier [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref80">21</reflink>]; Van Oyen [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref81">43</reflink>]). This involved defining distinct phases of each activity, as well as identifying the participating materials, makers, social as well as cultural factors, and their role within each phase. Finally, to draw conclusions on the constructed detailed operational sequences, the identified actors and their roles were yet further analysed inductively to find overarching themes to understand them specifically in the context of biomaking. However, despite being described here in stages, the analysis process was highly iterative. Furthermore, we acknowledge that the analysis itself is a sociomaterial entanglement. Therefore, following the ideas of MacLure ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref82">25</reflink>], 181), we see our mapping and coding procedures as 'an open ended and ongoing practice of <emph>making</emph> sense'. This means that our analysis is far from exhaustive, and what we analyse here, are in fact instances that surface through this entanglement of researchers, participants, devices and methods of research. In this way, our analysis is as relational as the material negotiations we have been able to identify.</p> <hd id="AN0187503044-8">Findings</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187503044-9">Trajectories of making in the biomaking workshop</hd> <p>Our iterative analysis enabled us to identify and map the activities taking place within the biomaking workshop (Figure 1). Although recognised as distinct activities, in practice they merged into one another, with one activity leading to another through emerging artefacts, ideas or insights. Albeit leaving ample room for contingencies, the overall trajectory followed a pre‐set plan of producing webcap‐pigmented media and experimental pieces to be displayed at the final project exhibition. Nevertheless, facing the emergent quality seemed to come forth as a meaningful feature of the activities, as illustrated in the following excerpt from the teacher‐maker Sara:</p> <p>[...] and if you think of the process in a way, since it started from drawing and in a way progressed to painting, printing and others, so for many, the different techniques merged into each other. And in a way, that was something I aimed at. And then it started to flow serendipitously.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/Q0T/01aug25/jade12550-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jade12550-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 A Map of the Biomaking Workshop Activities and Their Interconnections. © Päivikki Liukkonen." /> </p> <p></p> <p>However, based on the constructed operational sequences of each activity, we discovered that the trajectories entailed profound sociocultural elements of making, while simultaneously providing ample room for the participating materialities to exert their impact as well. This was evident, for instance, in the spontaneously generated activity of 'Direct printing with webcaps'. As an example, we present below images (see Figure 2) and a vignette constructed around the operational sequence of the activity:</p> <p>When the teacher‐maker Sara brings the freshly picked webcaps into the classroom, the group discovers that the reddish pigments from the fruiting bodies have leaked out and fixed on to the surface of the paper bag in which they were carried. This discovery, together with the learner‐maker Vera's insights emerging from fungi print examples seen in a fungi pigment instruction book, leads to a spontaneous collective decision to experiment with the technique. The group places some fruiting bodies and especially caps on a porous aquarelle paper with the intention of making the reddish pigment to ooze out and fix on a specific surface. They also place a heavy ceramic tile on the top of the fruiting bodies and leave it there for a few days to ensure that prints are formed and that the pigments adhere to the surface. Once the tile is removed, the resulting prints are released. On the surface of the papers, reddish‐brown and grey imprints of the webcaps have formed. However, in some places, the fruiting bodies have rotted and parts of them have smeared onto the paper. It appears that the moistest fungi have produced the strongest pigments. In addition, accompanying organisms, such as moulds have entered the process and started to grow under the tile. The flattened and partly rotten fruiting bodies are then discarded and composted. The prints are hung on the wall to test and observe their lightfastness.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/Q0T/01aug25/jade12550-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jade12550-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Printing with Webcaps © Päivikki Liukkonen." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The example activity illustrates the makers' emergent attempt to harness the webcaps' inherent pigments by, if not controlling them, at least directing them to ooze out and attach to a specific place. The naturally occurring process was reinforced and assisted by the choice of paper, the addition of the heavy tile, and the time allowed for the fruiting bodies and the paper to be in direct contact with each other. What's more, the weight of the tile transformed the three‐dimensional fruiting bodies into two‐dimensional stamps that produced two‐dimensional imprints. However, when the results were revealed, they were somewhat unexpected: the prints were not completely two‐dimensional, as some parts of the fungi had begun to rot and had stuck to the paper, along with accidental mould growth. The accompanying organisms entangled with the life of the webcaps had entered the process covertly and were therefore not under the control of the makers. The participating webcaps simultaneously acted as the motif and the material of the prints. While the makers were able to control the composition of the webcaps and the quality of the paper, the rest of the printing process relied upon the specificities of the fruiting bodies and the contingencies of the printing environment. Particularly as an early experiment, it was nearly impossible for the learner‐makers to predict how the mushrooms would fold or flatten under the tile and which parts would release the most pigment. Thus, the final pieces produced in the activity were the result of established practices of fungal pigment use and printing techniques, as well as the actual materialities of the webcap fruiting bodies and their affordances. They grew out of the learner‐makers' insights and established nature printing traditions presented in a fungi pigment instruction book. They also became the material for subsequent activities, such as lightfastness testing and the showcasing of the final pieces in the exhibition.</p> <p>Similar arrangements were also evident in other identified activities. The structures, properties, affordances or accompanying features of the webcaps were in constant negotiation with the makers and their intentions. Yet, these intentions appeared to take new directions especially when the webcaps behaved in an unanticipated or uncontrollable manner. This shows that while established modes of creative making gave some structure to the workshop activities, they were constantly challenged by the webcaps' actual materialities, which were not necessarily definite and controllable. Thus, the making activities appeared to move along a spectrum between attempting to control and succumbing to the webcap materialities. However, as the following excerpts show, the sense of control did not appear to hinder the activities but rather to be an inherent part of them:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Author 1 Well, how did you feel about having only these two colours available?</item> <p></p> <item> Vera (learner‐maker) It didn't bother me. [...] It was fun. Because it enabled you to paint certain types of paintings. Like you didn't have to worry about...oh, well it was nice to paint with two colours only. Then, I tried mixing those two colours together and got this nice, orangy brownish colour. So, it was interesting.</item> <p></p> <item> Sara (teacher‐maker) Well, in a way, I was treading on a thin ice as well, even though I have plant dyed yarns before. Because there was this process, like I have done this same with synthetic dyes, but in this you cannot really anticipate the intensity of the colour. So that came up of course, but I was maybe a bit prepared that it is always a surprise what it looks like. But maybe it was even a bit surprising how much pigment was released from the mushrooms. [...] of course, the lightfastness of the dyes remains to be seen [...]</item> </ulist> <p>Although the constraints of the webcap materialities were addressed, the activities unfolded as exploratory and highly material inquiries into the relationality between the makers and the webcaps. There was a constant, though often non‐verbal, negotiation about whether the making activity in question required compelling the webcaps to follow the makers' will or yielding to the webcaps' inherent features.</p> <hd id="AN0187503044-12">Makers, materials and artefacts in the biomaking workshop</hd> <p>If the webcaps challenged the intentions of the makers and (re)directed the trajectories of making, how might their roles be configured? Both the learner‐makers and the teacher‐maker came across as active agents of sociomaterially oriented inquiry. The teacher‐maker Sara orchestrated the workshop, but as the previous excerpt showed, rather than being controlled by strict plans, she steered the process in a very exploratory way. She had a strong base of maker knowledge which she used to scaffold the learner‐makers' processes, but at the same time she was open to emergent directions. She actively participated in the material negotiations, for example by pointing out uncertainties in the activities, although she seemed to lean toward controllability to ensure that the planned outcomes of the project were achieved:</p> <p>Sara (teacher‐maker): [...] but like with my own experience, in a way I was enough within my own area of competence, so that it enabled me to steer and face these situations in a relaxed manner. There was no panic that" this is going to be a failure" [...].</p> <p>However, the learner‐makers themselves rarely seemed to explicitly acknowledge the material negotiations. Instead, they appeared to focus on the material flow of the making process as such, yet noting, when the materialities of the webcaps somehow disrupted the expected circumstances, for example in terms of smells, textures, feels or potential harmfulness. This was apparent, for example, when dissecting mushroom caps from the stems and drying the parts for further processing (see Figure 3). Despite wearing plastic gloves to protect themselves from the mushroom toxins, the learner‐makers still felt uncomfortable working with the mushrooms. They also commented on several occasions about the repulsiveness of the drying mushroom smells.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/Q0T/01aug25/jade12550-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jade12550-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Dissecting the caps from stems and drying the webacps. © Päivikki Liukkonen." /> </p> <p></p> <p>That said, amidst the array of materials used in the workshop, the webcaps played a pivotal role. Contributing simultaneously to the qualities of the materials, the trajectories of making and consequently the emerging artefacts, the webcaps materially permeated all the activities of the workshop. Accordingly, the features of the initial local living webcap organisms appeared to almost like traverse through all the identified and entangled making trajectories within the workshop. What's more, they were still identifiable, but necessarily immediately recognisable in the final artefacts of the workshop, coming across, for example, through the limited colour palette and the motifs of the final pieces. It seems, then, that despite of the makers' inquiries and the directions the activities took through the material negotiations, something of the original non‐human organism participating the biomaking traversed through the process (Figure 4).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/Q0T/01aug25/jade12550-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jade12550-fig-0004.jpg" title="4 Experimenting with the Limited Colour Palette of the Webcap Inks and Watercolours. © Päivikki Liukkonen Reproduced with the Permission of the Participants." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The artefacts of the biomaking workshop encompassed not only the final pieces showcased in the final exhibition, but also the material, and therefore materially negotiated outcomes, of each activity within the workshop. These artefacts carried within them the negotiations between the intended creative practices and the actual materialities of the webcaps and other materials. Moreover, in many places, artefacts from one activity, such as the webcap‐pigmented printing emulsion, were used as materials in a subsequent activity, such as screen printing (Figure 5). By being utilised as media and materials in new making processes, these artefacts allowed the makers to negotiate their own and the materials' participative agency across the different trajectories of making. This also allowed the makers to acknowledge the artefactual nature and the consequent malleability of many materials and media, thereby expanding their maker knowledge.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/Q0T/01aug25/jade12550-fig-0005.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jade12550-fig-0005.jpg" title="5 Printing Emulsion (Artefact) and the Same Emulsion Used as Material in Screen Printing. © Päivikki Liukkonen Reproduced with the permission of the participants." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187503044-16">Discussion</hd> <p>Based on our findings, biomaking in the workshop comprised an entangled set of activities, where the making trajectories emerged through the interplay between maker intentions and the actual materialities of the webcaps. Instances of maker‐material friction signified points of negotiation, where learner‐makers actively interrogated on a spectrum ranging from attempts to control the material to allowing the material to take the lead. While similar negotiations occur in other making processes—particularly in artistic ones where many materials appear to have a life of their own—here, the trajectories did not unfold toward gaining control but instead functioned as starting points toward accepted uncertainty. The construction of operational sequences indicated that material negotiations redirected activities or prompted new ones. Most importantly, they indicated moments of relationality and learning, that is <emph>becoming materially aware</emph>, through which learner‐makers gained knowledge and understanding of the materials they were working without the need to fully control them. Consequently, becoming materially aware was not an outcome of the activities, but rather describes the exploration of the relationalities between the makers and the materials.</p> <p>Through this exploration and its inherent material negotiations, learner‐makers were allowed and challenged to build and expand their repositories of material and making‐based knowledge. This knowledge is not necessarily a verbalisable or explicit, but rather an embodied dynamic that attunes the makers to the world in which they live. It embraces the surrounding materials' affordances, constraints, possibilities and potential agencies, while building an awareness of the malleability of one's own relations to them. This aligns with the understandings that design, craft and art practices as such are processes of active knowledge building and sharing (e.g. Cunliffe [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref83">7</reflink>]; Szpakowski [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref84">42</reflink>]; Marinkovic [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref85">27</reflink>]). In the context of biomaking, we see that this awareness can translate into an expanded awareness of the biosphere and the organisms with which we cohabit it (Figure 6).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/Q0T/01aug25/jade12550-fig-0006.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jade12550-fig-0006.jpg" title="6 From material negotiation to a growing material and making‐based knowledge. ©Päivikki Liukkonen." /> </p> <p></p> <p>While the webcaps played an integral role in the workshop, their mycelia growing underground in the local forests were hardly affected by the utilisation of their fruiting bodies in the pigment making. Most likely they continued to thrive. However, via the making trajectories of the workshop, the webcaps entered the sociomaterial realities of the learner‐makers through relational encounters that carried on beyond the cutting, drying, grinding, boiling and dissolving. The mushrooms oozed along the trajectories, transforming and mixing with other materialities. They contributed to the emergence of new artefacts: pigment solutions, inks, watercolours and printing emulsions and through them, to yet new artefacts of prints, paintings and so on. Ingold ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref86">17</reflink>]) has pointed out, how objects often hide the actual materials they are made of as if the materials ceased to exist the moment that they are compiled into a thing. In the biomaking workshop artefacts, however, the presence and contribution of the webcaps remained evident throughout. The presence of the fungi continued to act on the learners, inviting them to experiment or feeding into subsequent sociomaterial encounters. Therefore, in line with Pacini‐Ketchabaw <emph>et al</emph>. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref87">33</reflink>]), the learner‐makers were not the only ones leading the material dance and the teacher‐maker was not the only one cultivating a sense of wonder.</p> <p>Nevertheless, we recognise that the workshop could have been developed even further in terms of the learner‐makers' understanding of the multispecies co‐creation and material agency. As noted above, although the trajectories' unpredictability was acknowledged to some extent, the contribution of the webcaps was not necessarily entirely explicit to the learner‐makers. Furthermore, the practical constraints of the workshop did not allow them to experience or follow, for example, the growth of the webcaps. We believe that incorporating even more systematic reflections on the relational dynamics between materials and makers, as well as building the curricula around a more holistic understanding of the more‐than‐human organisms involved, could further enrich similar educational interventions.</p> <p>We argue that bio‐oriented creative practices could be fostered to frame making as interspecies and inter‐agential processes. Regardless of the modes of making, whether based on traditional methods or the latest advances in biotechnology, making in dialogue with the more‐than‐human challenges us to attune to the environment of which we are a part. This aligns with Correa and Holbert's ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref88">5</reflink>], 192) argument that 'making as a practice of learning to live in productive partnership with other material forces of the earth and a movement towards much‐needed reconciliation, reparation, and regeneration of the living world'. However, to allow relationalities of material awareness to emerge, making with the biological needs to be nurtured as open‐ended and emergent process. It needs to leave space for the materialities and media to unfold as co‐constitutors capable of redirecting and prompting learning in valuable ways. By attending to activities that are not fully dictated by a hylomorphic project of turning the material into a pre‐determined thing (Ingold [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref89">18</reflink>]), learner‐makers are exposed to practices that build their awareness of our inherent enmeshment with nature.</p> <hd id="AN0187503044-18">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The authors would like to thank all the research participants for their participation.</p> <ref id="AN0187503044-19"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref7" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Antonelli, P. (2022) Foreword, in D. Grushkin [Ed] Grow the future: visions of biodesign. New York : Biodesign Challenge, pp. 6 – 8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref42" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Barad, K. M. (2007) Meeting the universe halfway: quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham : Duke University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref36" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Barritt, L., Thompson, S. & Woodward, M. (2021) (Re)Considering pedagogy—entangled ontoolgy in a complex age: abstraction pedagogy and the critical pedagogical importance of art education for other discipline areas, International Journal of Art & Design Education, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 784 – 93.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref3" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Chappell, C. R., Perez, R. & Takara, C. O. (2023) Growing biodesign ecosystems: community exchange spaces advance biotechnology innovation, Research Directions: Biotechnology Design, Vol. 1, No. e13, pp. 1 – 8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref4" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Correa, I. & Holbert, N. (2023) Material‐led research: a posthumanist methodology for maker education practitioners, Digital Culture & education, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 191 – 213.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref79" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Coupaye, L. (2009) Ways of Enchanting: Chaînes Opératoires and Yam Cultivation in Nyamikum Village, Maprik, Papua New Guinea, Journal of material culture, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 433 – 58.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref83" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cunliffe, L. (2005) Forms of knowledge in art education and the corollary of authenticity in the teaching and assessment of such forms of knowledge, International Journal of Art & Design Education, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 199 – 208.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref76" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Data Protection Act 1050/2018 (2018) https://<ulink href="http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2018/en20181050.pdf">www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2018/en20181050.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref73" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Emerson, R. M. (2011) Writing ethnographic fieldnotes, Second edn. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fenwick, T. J., Edwards, R. & Sawchuk, P. H. (2011) Emerging approaches to educational research tracing the sociomaterial. Abingdon : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK (2023) The Finnish code of conduct for research integrity and procedures for handling alleged violations of research integrity in Finland: guideline of the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK 2023 https://tenk.fi/sites/default/files/2023-11/RI_Guidelines_2023.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grushkin, D. (2022) Editor's Letter, in D. Grushkin [Ed] Grow the Future: Visions of Biodesign. New York : Biodesign Challenge, pp. 10 – 3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haukeland, P. I. & Fredriksen, B. C. (2023) Crafting in a more‐than‐human world, in B. C. Fredriksen & P. I. Haukeland [Eds] Crafting relationships with nature through creative practices. Oslo : Scandinavian University Press, pp. 9 – 28.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hecht, M., Crowley, K. & Russell, J. L. (2020) Decentring humans in the learning sciences: The role of nonhuman nature and place in learning ecosystem, in CSCL Proceedings. Computer‐Supported Collaborative Learning Conference. CSCL.2020, pp. 501 – 4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hickey‐Moody, A. C. (2020) New materialism, ethnography, and socially engaged practice: space‐time folds and the agency of matter, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 26, No. 7, pp. 724 – 32.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Illeris, H. & Riis, K. (2023) Teaching, learning, tuning: Towards eco‐centric aesthetic learning processes in craft education, in B. C. Fredriksen & P. I. Haukeland [Eds] Crafting relationships with nature through creative practices. Oslo : Scandinavian University Press, pp. 30 – 46.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ingold, T. (2007) Materials against materiality, Archaeological Dialogues, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 1 – 16.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ingold, T. (2013) Making: anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. London : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jeldes, J. C., Cortés‐Morales, S., Rodo Lunissi, R. & Moreira‐Muñoz, A. (2022) Aconcagua fablab: learning to become with the world through design and digital fabrication technologies, International Journal of Art & Design Education, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 23 – 38.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirksey, S. E. & Helmreich, S. (2010) The emergence of multispecies ethnography, Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 545 – 76.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lemonnier, P. (2012) Mundane objects: materiality and non‐verbal communication. Walnut Creek : Left Coast Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lenz‐Taguchi, H. (2009) Going beyond the theory/practice divide in early childhood education: Introducing an intra‐active pedagogy. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liukkonen, P., Vartiainen, H., Pöllänen, S. & Kokko, S. (2023) Interacting with nature in and through boundary crossing learning: a case of bioart‐making, Journal of the Learning Sciences, Vol. 32, No. 4 – 5, pp. 534 – 72.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ljokkoi, K. & Slotte Dufva, T. (2020) How to educate kids and youngsters to value art and science as equals—pedagogy in practice, in E. Berger, K. Mäki‐Reinikka, K. O'Reilly & H. Sederholm [Eds] Art as we don't know it. Helsinki: A, pp. 194 – 207.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacLure, M. (2013) Classification or wonder? Coding as an analytical practice in qualitative research, in R. Coleman & J. Ringrose [Eds] Deleuze and research methodologies. Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press, pp. 164 – 83.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malafouris, L. (2013) How things shape the mind a theory of material engagement. Cambridge : MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marinkovic, B. (2021) Tacit knowledge in painting: from studio to classroom, International Journal of Art & Design Education, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 389 – 403.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mehto, V. & Kangas, K. (2022) Materiality in invention pedagogy, in T. Korhonen, K. Kangas & L. Salo [Eds] Invention pedagogy: The Finnish approach to maker education. New York : Routledge, pp. 70 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mehto, V., Riikonen, S., Kangas, K. & Seitamaa‐Hakkarainen, P. (2020) Sociomateriality of collaboration within a small team in secondary school maker‐centered learning project, International Journal of Child‐Computer Interaction, Vol. 26, p. 100209.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morton, T. (2013) Realist magic: Objects, ontology, causality. London : Open Humanities Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mäkelä, M. & Aktaş, B. M. (2023) Learning with the natural environment: how walking with nature can actively shape creativity and contribute to holistic learning, International Journal of Art & Design Education, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 139 – 54.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orlikowski, W. J. & Scott, S. V. (2008) Sociomateriality: challenging the separation of technology, work and organization, Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 433 – 74.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pacini‐Ketchabaw, V., Taylor, A. & Blaise, M. (2016) Decentring the human in multispecies ethnographies, in C. A. Taylor & C. Hughes [Eds] Posthuman research practices in education. Hampshire : Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 149 – 67.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Regulation (EU) (2016) Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj/eng</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosiek, J. L. (2018) Agential realism and educational ethnography, in D. Beach, C. Bagley & S. M. da Silva [Eds] The Wiley handbook of ethnography of education. Hoboken : Wiley & Sons, pp. 403 – 21.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rousell, D. & Fell, F. (2024) Becoming a work of art' revisited: collaboration, materiality and posthumanism in visual arts education, International Journal of Education Through Art, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 91 – 110.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ruck, A. & Mannion, G. (2020) Fieldnotes and situational analysis in environmental education research: experiments in new materialism, Environmental Education Research, Vol. 26, No. 9‐10, pp. 1373 – 90.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schlanger, N. (1994) Mindful technology: Unleashing the chaîne opératoire for an archaeology of mind, in C. Renfrew & E. B. W. Zubrow [Eds] The ancient mind. Elements of cognitive archaeology. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, pp. 143 – 51.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shenton, A. K. (2004) Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects, Education for Information, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 63 – 75.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sheridan, M. P., Lemieux, A., Do Nascimento, A. & Arnseth, H. C. (2020) Intra‐active entanglements: What posthuman and new materialist frameworks can offer the learning sciences, British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 1277 – 91.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simons, H. (2009) Case study research in practice. Thousand Oaks : SAGE Publication.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Szpakowski, M. (2019) On art and knowledge, International Journal of Art & Design Education, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 7 – 17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Oyen, A. (2015) Historicising material agency: from relations to relational constellations, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 354 – 78.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vartiainen, H., Liljeström, A. & Enkenberg, J. (2012) Design‐oriented pedagogy for technology‐enhanced learning to cross over the borders between formal and informal environments, Journal of Universal Computer Science, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 2097 – 119.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Päivikki Liukkonen; Henriikka Vartiainen and Sirpa Kokko</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Päivikki Liukkonen is a doctoral researcher in craft science at the University of Eastern Finland, School of Applied Educational Science and Teacher Education. She holds master's degrees in craft science and English studies and translation. Currently, she is working on her PhD focusing on bio‐oriented design, craft and art practices in education. Her research interests include STEAM and other integrative interdisciplinary practices built around learning by making.</p> <p>Henriikka Vartiainen holds a PhD and title of Docent in Education. She works as a university lecturer and senior researcher at the University of Eastern Finland (UEF), School of Applied Educational Science and Teacher Education. Her research interests include participatory learning, co‐design and AI education.</p> <p>Sirpa Kokko is a Professor of Craft Science (incl. Arts, Crafts, Technology, Design) at the university of Eastern Finland, School of Applied Educational Science and Teacher Education, and a visiting professor at the University of Tartu, Estonia. She has extensive experience in craft research and teaching in Finland and other countries on many levels of education from primary to university level. Her research focuses on various aspects of crafts and STEAM: education, gender, societal aspects such as well‐being, culture and tradition. She has researched craft education from basic education to the university level and is developing craft and STEAM research and teacher education actively in national and international research collaboration and projects.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib207" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref86"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1481475
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Becoming Materially Aware with Mushrooms: A Sociomaterial Analysis of Biomaking
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Päivikki+Liukkonen%22">Päivikki Liukkonen</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9050-5659">0000-0001-9050-5659</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Henriikka+Vartiainen%22">Henriikka Vartiainen</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sirpa+Kokko%22">Sirpa Kokko</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22International+Journal+of+Art+%26+Design+Education%22"><i>International Journal of Art & Design Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 44(3):545-560.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creative+Activities%22">Creative Activities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Integrated+Activities%22">Integrated Activities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Art+Education%22">Art Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Secondary+Schools%22">Secondary Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Workshops%22">Workshops</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Biological+Sciences%22">Biological Sciences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Secondary+School+Students%22">Secondary School Students</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Finland%22">Finland</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/jade.12550
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1476-8062<br />1476-8070
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Biomaking and other bio-oriented creative approaches are beginning to gain traction in education. Operating at the intersections of arts and sciences, they represent a field of integrative practices that involve creative making with the biological. In educational contexts, however, bio-oriented creative practices have been studied primarily from hylomorphic perspectives that do not account for the roles of different non-human organisms or other materials that participate in the processes. Drawing on theories of sociomateriality and material agency, and utilising multispecies microethnography, the paper attends to the specificities of making, makers, materials and artefacts in biomaking. It explores a case of a Finnish upper secondary school workshop implemented as part of the school's art curriculum within a larger educational development initiative. In the workshop, makers engaged with webcap mushrooms to extract, use and experiment with their pigments. The analysis builds on constructed operational sequences of the workshop activities, and a scrutiny of their interconnections, stages and participants. The paper shows how making, emergent artefacts and interplays of makers' intentions and materialities can instate moments of relationality and learning, and thus build makers' material awareness of the more-than-human organisms around them. The study proposes making with the biological as an attunement to our enmeshment with the environment.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1481475
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1481475
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/jade.12550
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 545
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Creative Activities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Integrated Activities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Art Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Secondary Schools
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Workshops
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Biological Sciences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Secondary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Finland
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Becoming Materially Aware with Mushrooms: A Sociomaterial Analysis of Biomaking
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Päivikki Liukkonen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Henriikka Vartiainen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sirpa Kokko
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1476-8062
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1476-8070
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 44
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: International Journal of Art & Design Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1