Exploring the Case for Makerspaces in K12 Environments
Introduction
In recent years there has been a focused, organized movement towards educational “tinkering”. The question of its value to academia has been placed under a microscope due to its unconventional methods. However, this idea is not a new one. Nearly a century ago, apprenticeship was a standard way to learn and further important skills. The benefit was not only in vocation but eliciting innovation in industry and professional practice. Today, students should be able to take advantage of the same creative process especially in K12 settings.
This movement today has been labeled as the Maker movement. What is it? According to Chu, Angello, Saenz, & Quek, (2017) making “refers to the use of a set of technologies…for prototyping and creation of technology-based artifacts” (p.2). Further stated, making goes beyond technology to include “open source hardware and software, fashion apparel, home decorating, or nearly any other aspect of physical life” (p. 2). However, the preferred definition comes from Peterson & Scharber (2018)that describe making as defined as exactly what it allows: the making of things ( p. 44). The maker movement is housed in “communities of practice”, also referred to as makerspaces. Makers have a core set of values that involve a “commitment to sharing and collaborating with other makers with different interests and skills; a focus on creating, not consuming existing products” (Gilbert, 2017, p. 81). Makerspaces enable participants to follow their interest to create and work on projects while sharing knowledge and resources among the group (Gilbert, 2017, p. 81).
The Case for K12 Makerspaces
“K–12 schooling in the United States looks very similar to how it did decades ago, with age-based grade levels, textbooks, subject-matter classes, A–F grading system, classrooms with a teacher and approximately 30 students, and so on” (Peterson & Scharber, 2018, p. 43).
Likewise, K12 students in makerspace settings can learn from one another, designing and building a variety of objects, discovering solutions by using a plethora of resources and materials. Makerspaces can be informal settings where science, technology, art, engineering and mathematics merge for idea formations, technical skill development and even novel fabrication (Vongkulluksn, Matewos, Sinatra, & Marsh, 2018). Collaborative learning spaces foster vertical learning by helping groups solve problems through the performance of authentic tasks, (unlike typical kinesthetic activities). “For instance, a child observing others performing exactly the same science experiment as himself with exactly the same industrially-manufactured instruments may not learn as much as a child observing others making their own instrument and then performing the science experiment” (Chu et al., 2017, p. 16).
Making also prepares students for the interdisciplinary, technological 21st century that is breaking down traditional methods of teaching and learning (Gilbert, 2017, p. 80). K12 students flourish in educational atmospheres that are less complex and rigid. Traditional classrooms are subject to institutional requirements, governmental factors and socioeconomical influences (Chu et al., 2017, p. 18). A young learners maker experience can avert this type of experience, having them focus on the formality of invention instead of being subject to academic bureaucracies.
Additionally, makerspaces change the ways teachers use technology and the way schools incorporate it in their facility. Peterson & Scharber (2018) criticize the “pedagogical stuckness” of K12 environments in relation to technology integration and making. “Despite the passing decades and continued technological advancements, the evolution of pedagogical practices (and spaces/environments) that best complement technology-infused teaching and learning within K–12 education has yet to attain its lauded potential” (Peterson & Scharber, 2018, p. 43).
Makerspaces provide students with opportunities to go between and integrate digital and nondigital materials and activities. Although many have used maker activities for STEM learning, the design-based approach of said activities create more meaning learning experiences that traditional instruction (Vongkulluksn et al., 2018, p. 3).
Instructional designers must answer the call to include maker activities in K12 learning experiences. Ideally, if ID professionals employed makerspaces, then improvements in learning retention and skill application would follow. Instructors would see students more engaged, motivated and excited to learn new information and technology (Gilbert, 2017, p. 82) as they become enthralled in the activity. As professional instructional and technology integrationists, the opportunity for K12 makerspaces is to transform lessons through “a variety of constructs, for instance flow, immersion, presence, absorption, enjoyment, engagement, and…fun” (Chu et al., 2017, p. 5).
The Case for Instructional Design Makerspace Interventions
“Makerspace learning is messy but engaging. It is learner centered, inquiry based, interdisciplinary and technology enhanced for both students and instructors. It is implicitly creative, imaginative and process driven, allowing for differentiated problem solving that leads to more questions and deeper learning” (Lock, da Rosa dos Santos, Hollohan, & Becker, 2018, p. 14).
Instructional designers should consider integrating makerspace activities since they often include key ID principles such as scaffolding and collaborative learning (Chu et al., 2017; Gilbert, 2017; Lock, da Rosa dos Santos, Hollohan, & Becker, 2018). Also, makerspaces are typically constructivist environments that are great for interest-driven and design-based work (Lock et al., 2018; Ramey & Stevens, 2018; Vongkulluksn et al., 2018). Reiser & Dempsey (2018)state the best scaffolding experiences are created from learner’s and their respective goals (p.63). Makerspaces are a great way for instructional designers to help educators to employ “variety of supports, helps, information resources, and advisement” through multiple learning activities ranging in degrees of complexity (Reiser & Dempsey, 2018, p. 63). Teachers can accomplish this through hard, soft and blended scaffolding techniques which promotes temporary provision until student can work more independently. Confirming this idea, is an article by Lock et al. (2018), where researchers provide insight into makerspace advantages. Highlighted cases include an instance where an experiment with digital technologies allowed for students to fail or succeed with the goal of knowledge construction and nurture creativity (Lock et al., 2018, p. 13). Teachers transform into fluid facilitators who end up learning and taking unanticipated risks in order to enrich the experience for the students (Lock et al., 2018, p. 12). Furthermore, when teachers step back, students step up to assist one another. Also, they are able to make educated inferences from the work of cohorts.
Makerspaces encourage small group interactivity, collaborative learning, where students can deepen their understanding through shared knowledge among peers (Lock et. al., 2018, p.12). Collaborative learning principles were predicated on the work of Britton (1990) who theorized that a community of learners is the foundation of students learning (Reiser & Dempsey, 2018, p. 270). Additionally, Britton suggested that student’s naturally form a culture and process of learning when placed in groups (Reiser & Dempsey, 2018, p. 270). Since the idea of making involves shared information and vertical learning, it is only natural for collaboration to occur during the design, prototyping, revision and production process (Gilbert, 2017, p. 81).
The opportunity for individuality is rooted in design and creativity. Making confirms the four practices of production of “interest-driven arts learning: technical (coding, debugging, repurposing), critical (observing and deconstructing media, evaluating and reflecting, referencing, reworking and remixing), creative (making artistic choices, connecting multimodal sign systems), and ethical (crediting ownership, providing inside information, respectful collaboration and sharing) (Reiser & Dempsey, 2018, p. 178). When students are able to decide their own pathway of knowledge discovery, they are able to extract meaningful information and are more likely to be inquisitive. Ramey & Stevens (2018) surmise that makerspaces framing is on choice and interest driven experiences; unlike traditional K12 environments where predetermined pathways are set by teachers (Ramey & Stevens, 2018, p. 2). To illustrate this concept, Ramey & Stevens (2018) evaluate a young student’s maker experience connection to their interests, socialization and learning goals (p. 2). The student’s maker experience generated an interest in learning and improved their overall outlook (motivation and engagement), problem solving ability, and produced learning that was more aligned with “emerging interests, identities, and aspirations” (Ramey & Stevens, 2018, p. 11).
Likewise, Marsh et al., (2019) believes that maker activities are appropriate means for interest driven (individual) and collaborative learning experiences. Marsh et al., (2019) assert that makerspace learning is successful due to its basis on “play” as well as the chance for children to construct unique experiences from relational knowledge (p.222). Since students in makerspaces are involved in digital and nondigital spheres, they can effortlessly merge resources and meanings from individual and group tasks. Marsh et al., (2019) cites theory from Wood (2013) to affirm how “play involves cognitive processes linked to creativity, such as problem-solving, metacognition and creative practice” (p. 223). Therefore, makerspaces provide a setting for the development of individual learning, that is empowering young learners to elect at the very least how they make (Marsh et al., 2019, p. 222). Maker activities assign ownership to learners who (in both a separate and joint manner), follow a selected interest based on the abundance of options available during project phases.
ID professionals can implement maker activities predicated on “choice; opportunities for learning by observing and pitching in; and opportunities for the development, sharing, and recognition of students’ relative expertise” (Ramey & Stevens, 2018, p. 12). However, it would be nearly impossible without incorporating effective design-based learning (DBL) concepts, instructional plans and learning tasks. The very project nature of making embodies the definition of DBL. According to Smith (2018) design-based learning is a constructivist, problem solving approach which uses kinesthetic activities to generate educational significance (p.2). In the DBL process “the learner builds his or her own knowledge…and benefits from sharing that learning with others” (Smith, 2018, p. 2). Instructional designers can employ a DBL approach to motivate learners to be active participants, find solutions to issues, enable interest driven links to knowledge, and gain understanding of interdisciplinary perspectives (Smith, 2018, p. 2). Instructional strategies that permit student’s to layout and perform tasks autonomously may increase their rationalization skills and advance knowledge transference. Furthermore, design-based instruction campaigns students in designing artifacts that solve real world problems (Vongkulluksn et al., 2018, p. 2). The six stages of DBL design process consists of: “(1) learning about the design context, identifying needs, and defining the problem; (2) collecting information and gaining knowledge needed for design; (3) brainstorming and creating multiple alternative solutions; (4) choosing the optimal solution based on needs and contextual limitations; (5) constructing the prototype of design ideas; and (6) sharing prototypes with others (including intended users) for evaluation and modifying the design based on feedback” (Vongkulluksn et al., 2018, p. 2).
Using the case study below to evaluate fundamental aspects of ID against makerspace settings, this article will closely examine the affordances offered to instructional design projects.
The Case in Question
Smith, S. (2018). Children’s Negotiations of Visualization Skills during a Design-Based Learning Experience Using Nondigital and Digital Techniques. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 12(2). Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=eric&AN=EJ1182525&site=eds-live&scope=site
“This case study seeks to understand how scaffolded uses of nondigital, and digital techniques influenced 20 children’s (aged 6-12) visualization processes during a free summer camp with design-based learning experiences” (Smith, 2018, p.3).
Research performed by Smith (2018) used makerspace activities to understand how young learner’s visualization skills were impacted. The researcher performed a convenience sample of twenty, third thru sixth grade students who were participants in a two weeklong summer camp (p. 3). Using in-service teachers, Smith (2018) employed design-based learning techniques based on the theoretical framework of Vossoughi, Hooper, and Escudé (2016). As indicated, Vossoughi’s et al, (2016) work examines the maker movement from a lenses of capitalism, diversity, STEM dominance, and “equity-oriented approach to integrating making with explicit attention to pedagogical practices, including the crucial role educators actively play in inquiry-based learning” (p.3). Smith (2018) notes the importance of this type of research as learners are from different backgrounds, making has been considered only a science/math/technology experience, making has been used as a prerequisite to career selection or a precursor to vocation learning, and educators have not fully utilized making activities due to their level of experience, or inability to loosen the reins of the classroom to allow for student centered learning or learner agency.
Smith (2018) defines visualization and design-based learning before introducing the study. Accordingly, Smith (2018) analyzes learners experiences using the visual thinking model, which includes “three types of interactive imagery: seeing; imagining, and drawing/creating.” (p. 2). Consequently, the making of artifacts centers on design-based learning activities and encourages learners to activate imagination during various stages of the process. Smith (2018) indicates that DBL settings inspire engagement, active learning, problem-solving, interdisciplinarity, collaboration and reflection opportunities. Also, negating traditional ideas of making as an exclusively technological experience, Smith’s (2018) incorporation of nondigital techniques seeks to encourage deeper learning outcomes.
This study was conducted in five-phases of scaffolded activities beginning with learners “seeing” by imaging then sketching a creature. Learners were encouraged by researchers to use previous knowledge to construct a 2D creature that could include any shape, form, or combination. The second phase asked students to creatively write a background for the creature, compiling information such as description, habits, and environment. Learners were not limited in the information shared about the creature but instead the idea was to get them to reason and relate to their drawing via story construction. The third phase of project was had learners negotiate between 2D drawing and transform into 3D hot glue tracing, clay sculptures and scanned images. The four phase had participants to observe differences between 2D and 3D models noting details like shape, lighting, angles, and scale. The final phase had learners transfer creature into digital model using 3D CAD software. During each phase of the activity, learners shared their experience at every point of the phase remarking on visible changes, as well as expectations before, during and after task execution.
Smith (2018) concluded that the combination of scaffolding and agency helped students combine digital and nondigital techniques to design, develop and express a deeper understanding of relational ideas. Participants reported advances in knowledge and was able to communicate “deeper understanding of 2-D and 3-D forms, art, design, engineering, applied mathematics, and applied science” (Smith, 2018, p.12).
Although, limited by a small participant pool, this study is repeatable and sheds light on maker experiences for K12 environments not limited by traditional school environments. Implications for teaching and learning included opportunities for educators to use hands-on DBL lessons, in order to guide learners in the development and construction of heightened vocabulary, visualization skills, and new technology integration.
The Case study and Instructional Design Principles
The described case study contained elements from the design implications of scaffolding, collaborative learning, interest-driven arts and DBL. Smith’s (2018) depiction of the facilitators was that of a guide during each phase of the making experience. There were strategic scaffolds in place, where students could feel supported yet develop their own understanding of how to complete a task. One example is the transition from phase two to three, where student’s learning goal was to understand the visual differences between 2D and 3D (Smith, 2018, p. 6). As learner’s observed and commented on the transformation of their artifact, facilitators seized the opportunity to explain a complex idea of 3D extrusion while introducing a digital product to further understanding of dimensions. Through questions facilitators invoked student’s imagination, reminded them of previous work, engaged them in discussions and confirmed student’s perceptions in all the phases of the making project (Smith, 2018, pp. 4–13). Additionally, facilitators encouraged the learners in order to “create and promote a safe space for students to feel comfortable to share ideas with each other” (Smith, 2018, p. 12).
Motivating learners to communicate challenges and accomplishments aids in developing a collaborative learning experience. During several phases of the making project, learners shared their observations with one another. At times, it was noted that students would solicit the assistance, advice and opinion of other students. Specifically, when student’s engaged in discussion, facilitators allowed for students to express themselves without instigation. Since some students exceled, while others struggle with the dimensional concepts presented, the advanced learners became an instructor of sorts. As Lock et al., (2014) notes the “collaborative nature of making challenges teachers to let go of control and look beyond themselves for expertise” (p. 14) even when the expert is the student. The collaborative environment of this project promotes a social dynamic that helps students evolve and enables them to “draw on their maker funds of knowledge …[which] can shape institutional pedagogical practices in ways that enable children to move seamlessly across digital and nondigital domains in their maker play” (Marsh et al., 2019, p. 222).
From the onset of this making project, learners were primed to follow their own interests. The first phase of the project, the creation of the artifact design, encouraged students to tap into the mental resources that they had. Student’s combined mathematic, art, and cognitive reasoning to construct unique and original creatures. Ramey & Stevens (2018) contended that in building interest pathways learner’s motivation is sustained through engagement; the desire to problem-solve is elevated and learning results from the connection of “interests, identities, and aspirations” (Ramey & Stevens, 2018, p. 12).
Makerspaces are the perfect setting for K12 DBL and instruction strategies. Making and DBL share a similar component in ill-structured problems. As in the making project presented by Smith (2018), the problem was not clearly defined, nor the context completely outlined for learners. Students were encouraged to identify and solve the problem, (creating an original being), “by mapping the problem onto prior knowledge, decomposing the problem into stages or component parts, and generating possible ways to solve each component part to reach the solution state” (Vongkulluksn et al., 2018, p. 2). The primary learning goal of phase one was in align with anticipated DBL outcomes that is to make something, figure out what worked, then fix problems, and revise (Lock et al., 2018, p. 11). Another principle of DBL that the Smith (2018) study integrated throughout phases was that failure is an option. Allowing students room to experiment increases the probability that things will not work at the first attempt. That “failure” or “success” is needed for students to grow, preserve and employ critical thinking to produce creative solutions (Lock et al., 2018, p. 11 & 12).
The Concluded Case
As educators and researchers, we must consciously challenge the narratives of the maker movement in order to harness the movement’s potential to reimagine learning and teaching, instead of its momentum serving to replicate and strengthen the power structures and inequities inherent within schooling (Peterson & Scharber, 2018, p. 44)
Instructional designers should focus our approach to makerspaces on scaffolding, collaboration, interest driven and DBL opportunities for K12 students. As instructional designers, we also must accept the challenge to involve non-traditional instructional methods in our standards of practice. This study proved that K12 students could handle a series of tasks, ranging in complexity without being overloaded. Adult makers have often enjoyed the privilege of inventing and working ideas to fruition. These opportunities have kept them moving forward in skill and industry. So regardless of the impression of makerspaces as a learning environment outside the schoolhouse, granting children the permission to engage in the design, path and revision of their learning experience will prepare them for future educational and vocational pursuits.
References
Chu, S. L., Angello, G., Saenz, M., & Quek, F. (2017). Fun in Making: Understanding the experience of fun and learning through curriculum-based Making in the elementary school classroom. Entertainment Computing, 18, 31–40. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2016.08.007
Gilbert, J. (2017). Educational Makerspaces: Disruptive, Educative or Neither? New Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work, 14(2), 80–98. Retrieved from http://techculturematters.com/2015/11/06/mass-making-in-china
Lock, J., da Rosa dos Santos, L., Hollohan, P., & Becker, S. (2018). It’s More Than Just Making: Insights into Facilitating Learning Through Making. Alberta Science Education Journal, 45(2), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/32937
Marsh, J., Wood, E., Chesworth, L., Nisha, B., Nutbrown, B., & Olney, B. (2019). Makerspaces in early childhood education: Principles of pedagogy and practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 26(3), 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2019.1655651
Peterson, L., & Scharber, C. (2018). Learning About Makerspaces: Professional Development with K-12 Inservice Educators. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 34(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2017.1387833
Ramey, K. E., & Stevens, R. (2018). Interest development and learning in choice-based, in-school, making activities: The case of a 3D printer. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 23(November 2018), 100262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2018.11.009
Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2018). Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (4th ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
Smith, S. (2018). Children’s negotiations of visualization skills during a design-based learning experience using nondigital and digital techniques. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1747
Vongkulluksn, V. W., Matewos, A. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Marsh, J. A. (2018). Motivational factors in makerspaces: a mixed methods study of elementary school students’ situational interest, self-efficacy, and achievement emotions. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0129-0