Brandon Welch, Librarian, Graduate Student

Maker Spaces in K-12 Education

Introduction:

Maker Spaces for K-12 students are not entirely new. From woodshop to theatre tech to automotive shop to sewing lessons, Maker Spaces have long been a part of the K-12 curriculum over many years. Ask yourself, what makes the Maker Space unique to today’s youth and the emerging technologies that are shaping their careers? Highlighted within this case study are examples of the issues that are emerging from Maker Spaces that impact the learning experience. Some possible solutions will also be presented in this case study as well as some first-hand experience concerning Maker Spaces within libraries, which are used predominantly by K-12 students. In most K-12 schools, the Maker Space is controlled by the Librarian or housed within some part of the library.

It is often noted that Maker Spaces provide a space for students to access technologies where they would not have otherwise been available to access. (Mcalvage, 2018) This chapter will also touch on the notion of access, engineering, educational learning experiences, and practices. This chapter will also look at the SAMR model and the TPACK model to accurately identify teaching methods and improving the use of technologies within the Maker Spaces. (Feder, 2009)

Overview of the Case:

Many barriers exist within the Marker Spaces, and more often than not, they exist outside the Maker Space. Along with the powerful equipment that can be seen inside the maker spaces. There exist many hurdles one has to overcome to achieve a cohesive and functional Maker Space. For starters, let us identify the areas inside a maker space and what those entail. Each maker space can be broken down into several categories.

• Workspace – the environment that is being used. I sit open format, ergonomically, safe, and clean?
• Computers – The software and hardware needed to develop and support the maker space activities
• Tools – What tools will be needed to stock the lab properly? Will there be a budget for expendables, such as soldering?
• Textiles – Will there be sewing machines or other tools to cut vinyl or leather?
• 3D Printing – 3D Printing can be costly in the beginning as well as purchasing filament for large projects and schools with low budgets.
• Other – Laser Cutting, Woodworking, Metalworking. These are not common in some maker spaces.

When deciding your workspace, you have to think about several points of issue. The location of the room is important so that It can be monitored by staff when tools are being used. It may be possible to have children and their parents sign waivers, but it is also important to keep the tools at a safe distance. You also need to make sure the location of the Maker Space has proper ventilation for when high powered machines are cutting them chemical-rich compounds. There will also be a lot of debris from laser cutters, so it would be important to keep the room as hygienic as possible. The workspace should also have room to teach your students proper safety when handling equipment as well as displaying all Design Documents and Training Manuals associated with each piece of equipment. Students should go over how to use each piece of equipment before use as well as delivering CBT/WBT training when applicable

Another important factor when deciding how to develop a Maker Space is calculating your Return on Investment when purchasing expendable equipment and other costly electronic items. On average, 3D printers can cost around $400-$2,500 to purchase and $50 for upkeep (expendable equipment such as replacement parts and filament). (Space, 2014) The cost of equipment can become overwhelming, especially if you are reducing the effect of your equipment becoming obsolete. Many changes happen in the industry that can make your equipment obsolete in the workforce. Preparing for possible new trends in the workforce is crucial for a healthy Maker Space. (Sanders 2012) With that in mind, it is also important that the Maker Space teacher is continuously adding to their professional developments concerning new trends in Maker Spaces.

How should you measure your Return on Investment when developing your Maker Space? Here are a few factors that need to be taken into consideration.

• What are the goals of your institution?
• Can you measure the impact of learning on your students?
• How often are the tools being used in the Maker Space?
• Does the benefits of the Maker Space drip into other areas outside the Maker Space? (i.e. increased test scores).
• Can the equipment supplement other classroom objectives?

It is important to follow the goals of your institution when implementing a proposal to create or add to a Maker Space. Questions to ask yourself could include: Is the technology that I need use for the students that use the space? Can I distribute the budget evenly so that it hits all points of student’s technology needs? Will some technologies not be as much used as others? Can some items be donated? These are all questions you should consider when calculating your Return on Investment.

There are several other factors to include in your ROI calculations such as the following:

• Expendable equipment – Filament (3D Printing material), take-home projects, paint, textiles, office supplies, batteries, woodworking supplies, and metalworking supplies.
• Development of events for your Maker Space – Will you include outside partnerships or organizations to supplement areas that you have less experience in?
• Sustainability – Are the expendable costs sustainable for future purchases that are added to your budget?
• Impact of transfer of learning – Often some students are exceptionally bright and have a general idea on how to use the equipment. Are they able to assist in training their classmates?
• Look to add emerging technologies into your purchases as those are needed to keep students engaged. For instance, Virtual Reality technologies are still being developed and will have a major impact on society in the future. (Hines)

Maker Spaces are not just shiny new expensive toys that hold no tangible educational value to students. They teach kids about engineering, coding, and crafting. All of these enhance student learning through a number of ways. Maker spaces can support inquiry-based learning, personalized learning, game-based learning, and flipped classroom learning and scaffolding methodology. (Takeuchi 2014)

Inquiry-based learning in Maker Spaces can allow students to expand upon areas that they would not have known about. For instance, if a student wanted to know more about 3D modeling and engineering, they can do this with the equipment they have in the Maker Space. (Feder, 2009) Supporting students in an effort to keep them interested in STEAM programming is paramount to the success of their matriculation. Personalized learning can take the form of individualized instructional lessons through expanded learning and one-on-one lessons. Students can take on free online resources to expand their learning through library digital resources or resources provided by the institution. Game-based learning can take the form of competitions through crafts with the 3D printer. They can be graded as designs based or artistic based. Flipped classrooms, could be managed in a way that allows for individual goals to flourish in maker space environments. If students want to know more about a particular subject, then they can access pre-made online learning google classrooms that have them go through a learning experience. These can be done individually or in groups and require little input from the teacher. (Finkel, 2012)

Lastly, it is also important for the Maker Space teacher to allow themselves time for personal development. It is very easy to fall out of the loop when it comes to emerging technologies and new solutions that can be implemented to mitigate problems that arise in Maker Spaces. Questions a Maker Space teacher should ask themselves:

• Are my professional development goals up to date?
• Am I maintaining my institutional goals?
• Are my students engaged and challenged through the course of their semester?
• Am I subscribed to Maker Space educational resources such as, periodicals, magazines, news websites, and business announcements?

Solutions Implemented:

What solutions can be gained from what we know so far? Are there any educational resources available through outreach, partnerships, or donations? Can a solution be highlighted through an increase or decrease in budgets in other areas?

To begin with, the TPACK model and SAMR model focus predominately on the teacher. If you implement the SAMR model (Redefinition, Modification, Augmentation, Substitution) they can be interpreted the following ways: (Reiser, 2018)

• Redefinition – Can the equipment in your Maker Space be used or upgraded to create a new experience that has not been done before?
• Modification – Can your classroom design model change? Are there ways in which your lessons can be improved upon? Are there resources or partnerships that can help you modify your redesign?
• Augmentation – If your classroom has a small budget, consider reaching out to other Maker Spaces and see how they are using their funds.
• Substitution – Consider having your students work in groups through flipped classrooms or game-based learning. Technology allows for students to get creative. The decisions they make give your students a personal presence in the classroom as well as allowing them the freedom to be independent in their choices.

The TPACK model will help teachers develop their use of technology and how to teach by using it. By using this model of learning the teacher can successfully advance their own understanding of the technology used in their classroom. Teachers should focus on the following outlets: (Reiser 2018)

• Professional Development of emerging trends, new technologies, and technical training.
• Instructional teaching methods and pedagogical content knowledge
• Technological Content Knowledge through use of online resources available to you.

Moreover, in this section we can highlight some solutions to create a Maker Space into a learning powerhouse. As mentioned previously it is important for the student and the teacher to continue their professional development through expanded learning. Outside resources can be a solution when you are on a tight budget. If you are looking to find resources for your students, you need only look to your Public Library for more information. Most public libraries have access to up to date books on coding, 3d Printing, and maker spaces of their own. Create a partnership with them and with other companies in the area that are looking to expand their business reach. Consider what they can add to your Maker Space as well as how they benefit to yours. Many libraries have access to video tutorial websites such as Lynda.com which expands upon online learning capabilities. Students can learn about engineering, website development and coding. Moreover, look to volunteers as a means to facilitate higher learning when possible. Volunteers may allow for new ideas, and presentations that can show students what their work can achieve in the workplace.

Outcomes:

Some possible outcomes of implementing a successful Maker Space:

• Improved Cognitive Learning.
• Identifying Task Analysis to supplement other institutional goals.
• Successful pedagogical methods through identifying technological needs and accessing their value through ROI practices.
• Allows for new technologies to be adopted by students and teachers
• Following the SAMR model and TPACK model will allow for a successful implementation of technology into the classroom. (Reiser, 2018)

Implications:

Maker Spaces can be challenging to design and implement it into your K-12 environment. However, with a bit of hard work and perseverance, it is achievable. This case study has highlighted many steps to overcome several hurdles that you might come across. This case study identified several key points about the barriers that exist within maker spaces, how to combat those barriers, and instituting goals to improve your Maker Space. We identified several solutions through TPACK and SAMR models as well as highlighted the use of outside sources as a method to combat teacher and student technological barriers. This case study also identified ROI strategies to help mitigate the high cost of developing Maker Spaces in a school system with small budgets.

Maker Spaces provide students with impossible. Stephen Hawking’s says, “…We learned to talk, and we learned to listen. Speech has allowed the communication of ideas, enabling human beings to work together to build the impossible… With the technology at our disposal, the possibilities are unbounded. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.”

Mcalvage, Katherine, et al. Access and Accessibility in Online Learning: Issues in Higher Education and K-12 Contexts. From “OLC Outlook: An Environmental Scan of the Digital Learning Landscape”. Online Learning Consortium, 2018, Access and Accessibility in Online Learning: Issues in Higher Education and K-12 Contexts. From “OLC Outlook: An Environmental Scan of the Digital Learning Landscape”

Hines, S. S., & Crowe, K. M. (2017). The Future of Library Space. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Feder, M. A., Pearson, G., Katehi, L., & Committee on K-12 Engineering Education. (2009). Engineering in K-12 Education : Understanding the Status and Improving the Prospects. National Academies Press.

Sanders, S., ProQuest (Firm), & Witherspoon, L. (2012). Contemporary Uses of Technology in K-12 Physical Education : Policy, Practice, and Advocacy. Information Age Publishing.

National Press, A Framework for K-12 Science Education : Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. (2012). National Academies Press.

Feder, M. A., Pearson, G., Katehi, L., & Committee on K-12 Engineering Education. (2009). Engineering in K-12 Education : Understanding the Status and Improving the Prospects. National Academies Press.

Space, Maker. “High School Makerspace Tools & Materials.” Makered.org, 2014, makered.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Makerspace-High-School-Makerspace-Tools-And-Materials-April-2012.pdf.

Textbook References

Finkel, E. (2012). Flipping the script in K12. District Administration, 48(10), 28.

Ertmer, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes required by Jonassen’s vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers & Education, 64, 175-182)

Takeuchi, L., & Vaala, S. (2014). Level up learning: A national survey of teaching with digital games. The Joan Ganz Cooney Center. Retrieved from https://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/10/jgcc_leveluplearning_final.pdf

Reiser, Robert A., and John V. Dempsey. Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology. Pearson, 2018.

 

 

 

[Back to Home]