1

WE ARE ALL MAKERS: A CASE STUDY OF ONE SUBURBAN DISTRICT’S

IMPLEMENTATION OF MAKERSPACES

A thesis presented

by

Cathy E. Collins

to

The School of Education

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education

Dr. Chris Unger

Advisor

College of Professional Studies Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts

December 2017

2

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine administrator, library media and IT specialist,

classroom teacher and student perceptions of the impact of makerspaces, as well as to identify

what stakeholders could be doing to better support student learning and engagement in

makerspaces. The Diffusion of Innovation Theoretical Framework guided the design and

analysis of this study. Further, a literature review of the implementation of makerspace learning

environments into content and pedagogy informed this study. The overarching research question

for this study asked how stakeholders perceive the implementation of a district-wide makerspace

implementation initiative, and its impact on 4C’s skills acquisition, deeper learning and student

engagement. As such, the study sought to answer the following questions: 1) How has the district

organized its structures, practices and use of resources to support purposeful implementation of

makerspaces with the specific intent of fostering students deeper learning and 4C’s skills

development?; 2) What do stakeholders perceive as the outcomes and impact of the

makerspaces?; 3) What do stakeholders perceive as the challenges of the makerspaces?; 4) What

could stakeholders be doing to better support student learning in makerspaces? An instrumental

case study approach was used to explore and describe the perceptions of administrators, students

and teachers using rich- description of their experiences. It is evident that the purposeful

integration of makerspaces led to student acquisition of 4C’s skills and deeper learning at the

study site. In addition, the study revealed structures and supports necessary to facilitate

makerspace programs to foster deeper learning including administrative support, availability of

challenging projects and resources, stakeholder engagement, professional learning and time. The

findings of this study, along with the identification and analysis of related themes, have the

3

potential to inform similar districts as they embark on the implementation of makerspace

programs to foster 4C’s skills development and deeper learning competencies.

Keywords: library makerspaces, 4C’s skills development, innovative learning

environments, makerspace integration, innovation

4

Acknowledgements

I extend my deepest gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Chris Unger. His enthusiasm for

innovative, out of the box thinking in the field of education inspired and challenged me as I

progressed through doctoral work at Northeastern. I have benefitted from his encouragement and

guidance through the dissertation process and have appreciated his belief in me as a scholar-

practitioner and change agent. I would also like to thank Dr. Kelly Conn for her feedback and

time she provided me as my second reader.

In addition, I would like to acknowledge my wonderful family, including my mother,

Ellen Collins, my sister, Wendy Hoogsteden, and brother in law, Michael Hoogsteden. My ever-

patient fiancé, John Zola, is especially to be recognized for his endurance of many evenings of

frozen food and takeout dinners on behalf of my doctoral work. His strong support of my

doctoral journey empowered me to embrace the learning opportunity fully and to stay the course

from start to finish.

I also want to recognize the amazing support of my district level administrators, from

whom I continue to learn each day. I am grateful to them for reminding me that servant

leadership is the most powerful form of leadership on Earth, as when it comes from the heart and

is pure in intention it leads to great outcomes for our students and larger school communities.

Special thanks to Laurie Fong, now retired principal of Montgomery High School in Santa Rosa,

California, for recognizing the leader behind the librarian glasses and persuading me to pursue

studies in educational leadership. Special thanks, too, to now retired Superintendent of Sharon

Public Schools, Timothy Farmer, for likewise supporting my efforts and never doubting that I

would complete this journey. Additionally, the camaraderie of my teacher and specialist friends

at the high school and across the district has been monumentally important to me as a source of

5

support. Furthermore, it goes without saying that none of this work would have meant anything

were it not for my drive to make a real difference for students. Special thanks to the students I’ve

worked with, past and present, to whom I owe the largest source of my inspiration.

I am the daughter of two teachers, and the granddaughter of a German immigrant who

arrived in Lawrence, Massachusetts in the mid 1920s as a machinist with the dream of becoming

a teacher. I am humbled to have been afforded the luxury to follow my grandfather Max

Steinbach’s dream as a specialist educator and know that he is with me in spirit as I reach this

next step in my career.

To my beloved, belated father, Gerald Martin Collins, poet, artist, philosopher and

educator, I owe the biggest debt for teaching me how to see the hidden beauty beneath the

surface of all things and for igniting that joyful spark of curiosity that drives me to continue

learning, seeking and questioning each day.

6

Table of Contents

Chapter I: Introduction ............................................................................................................ 10

The Topic ..................................................................................................................... 10

Makerspaces Defined....................................................................................................... 11

Study Site ..................................................................................................................... 12

Statement of Significance ............................................................................................ 13

Intended Audiences ............................................................................................ 15

Positionality Statement ............................................................................................ 17

Research Questions and Purpose of the Study .............................................................. 20

Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................ 21

Limitations .................................................................................................................. 25

Chapter II: Literature Review ................................................................................................... 28

Makerspaces Defined .................................................................................................. 30

Learning Within Makerspaces......................................................................................... 37

The Maker Movement and Its Impact .......................................................................... 47

District Implementation of Makerspaces ..................................................................... 57

School Libraries and Makerspaces .............................................................................. 62

Existing Studies on Diffusion of Innovation (DoI) and Makerspace Integration ......... 71

Summary ....................................................................................................................... 73

Chapter III: Methodology ....................................................................................................... 75

Research Paradigms and Study Propositions ............................................................... 76

Research Tradition .................................................................................................... 77

Study Site and Participants .......................................................................................... 80

7

Recruitment and Access ............................................................................................... 82

Data Collection ........................................................................................................... 83

Data Storage ................................................................................................................. 85

Data Analysis ............................................................................................................... 86

Trustworthiness .......................................................................................................... 86

Protection of Human Subjects .................................................................................... 87

Chapter IV: Research Findings .............................................................................................. 89

Summary of Study Site, Participants, Focus Groups and Data Collected ..................... 89

Research Question One: How has the district organized its structures, practices, and use of resources to support purposeful implementation of makerspaces with the specific intent of fostering students’ deeper learning and 4C’s skills development? .... 92

Research Question Two: What do stakeholders perceive as the outcomes and impact of the makerspaces? .................................................................................................... 95

Research Question Three: What do stakeholders perceive as the challenges of the makerspaces? .............................................................................................................. 103

Research Question Four: What could stakeholders be doing to better support student learning in makerspaces? ............................................................................................. 104

Summary of Findings .................................................................................... 107

Chapter V: Discussion of the Findings ................................................................................ 109

Revisiting the Problem of Practice .............................................................................. 109

Review of Methodology ............................................................................................. 110

Discussion of Major Findings ..................................................................................... 112

Discussion of Findings in relationship to the Theoretical Framework ....................... 122

Discussion of Findings in Relation to the Literature Review ....................................... 129

Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 135

Significance of the Study ........................................................................................... 136

Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 137

8

Validity of the Study ................................................................................................... 139

Limitations of the Study .............................................................................................. 140

Future Research Considerations .................................................................................... 143

Personal Comments .................................................................................................... 149

References ............................................................................................................................... 153

Appendix A ..…………........................................................................................................... 168

Appendix B ……………………………………………………………………..................... 171

Appendix C ……...………………………………………………………………………….. 174

9

List of Tables

Table 1: Planned Stakeholder Individuals and Groups that Participated in the Study ............. 80

Table 2: Themes for Support of A Successful Makerspace Implementation ......................... 92

Table 3: Themes for Outcomes and Impact of the Makerspaces .......................................... 95

Table 4: Themes for Challenges in the Implementation of Makerspaces ................................ 101

Table 5: Themes for Recommendations to Better Support Student Learning in Makerspaces …………………………………………………………………........ 104

Table 6: Study Findings ………………………………………………………………........ 112

10

Chapter I: Introduction The Topic Warren Berger’s book, “A More Beautiful Question” focuses on the importance of

inquiry in sparking new ideas. One of his important “beautiful questions” asks, “What might the

potential for humans be if we really encouraged a spirit of questioning in children, instead of

closing it down?” How do we foster curiosity, critical thinking and problem solving skills in

students that spark, rather than dull, creativity and imagination? How do we teach them to think

deeply and ask the right questions? What, exactly, are the right questions we should be asking

ourselves as educators and educational leaders who are interested in creating and successfully

implementing ideal learning environments?

Constructivist learning environments have been explored as an ideal means to assist

students in achieving greater success with inquiry-based learning across subject areas.

Unfortunately, these are not yet the norm in the majority of our nation’s schools. In a “drill and

kill” environment, in which content knowledge is emphasized, and in which teachers are

encouraged to “teach to the test,” constructivist approaches are often underemphasized and

teacher leadership and training in innovative methods are often limited. This has profound

implications for our nation’s children. Until we change our learning environments to better fit the

learning needs of our students, we will continue to rob students of the opportunity to succeed in

school and in life by leaving their full potential to learn untapped.

For students to reach deeper levels of learning, they need to feel safe to take risks and

problem solve, and to express themselves creatively. Education research shows classrooms, at

the micro level, rarely promote creative thinking and learning. Creative students are often

perceived by teachers as distractions. Creative experiences are likewise viewed as too time

11

consuming, and creative outcomes as less important than more targeted performance objectives

(Aljughaiman & Mower-Reynolds, 2005; Beghetto, 2010; Schacter, Yeow Meng, & Zifkin,

2006).

One answer to the need for more creative, supportive learning environments is the maker

movement and “makerspaces.” Makerspaces are informal sites for creative, cross-disciplinary

exploration and “tinkering.”

As schools work to align their curricula with the Next Generation Science Standards’

focus on design, technology and engineering (NRC, 2012) along with the multidisciplinary

STEM and STEAM movements, makerspaces continue to attract increasing attention.

Makerspaces Defined

Makerspaces are sites of experimentation and innovation where learners construct

artifacts that provide evidence for learning content, process, and identity. Through making,

learners build relationships with knowledge, communities, and themselves. Making is an

activity that encourages students to use their minds in a more holistic way: to create, use, and

share (Canino-Fluit, 2014). When makerspaces are incorporated into libraries, classrooms and

other educational settings, students are offered new opportunities to collaborate, learn through

play, problem solve, build, investigate, and produce (Britton, 2012). No two makerspaces are the

same. Some emphasize technology from 3D printers and imaging computers; others emphasize

robotics and electronics. Others emphasize the arts, and may feature materials ranging from vinyl

and laser cutters to poster makers and music recording equipment. In spite of the wide range of

differences in terms of physical space, scheduling and materials, common ground exists in that

each makerspace allows for free play and exploration, with an emphasis on process as well as

product.

12

It follows that programs that are rich in content that crosses discipline areas and

emphasizes hands-on learning will provide meaning to students beyond the meeting of testing

and other college prep requirements and engage their full beings. Makerspaces may provide an

ideal path toward development of higher order thinking skills and creativity, as they help

students identify their passions.

Student engagement and achievement increase when teachers challenge students with real

world problem solving (AIR, 2014; Guha, Caspary, Stites, Padilla, Arshan, Park, Tse, Astudillo,

Black, & Adelman, 2014). Through such project-based challenges, research suggests that

students are more likely to collaborate, communicate effectively, use evidence-based judgment,

persevere in problem solving, and exhibit strong organizational and self-management strategies

(AIR, 2014; Guha et al., 2014). The ability to transfer knowledge and skills through technology

rich environments such as makerspaces results in deeper learning (Huberman, Bitter, Anthony, &

O’Day, 2014; Fullan & Langworthy, 2014; National Research Council, 2012).

However, since the makerspace movement is still relatively new, a lack of strong

empirical evidence exists as to how to best meet the full potential of makerspaces as a means to

accelerate inquiry-based learning, creativity and student engagement.

Study Site

The site proposed for this study provided an opportunity to examine one suburban school

district’s implementation of makerspaces aimed at achieving deeper learning competencies

including the 4C’s of communication, creativity, collaboration and critical thinking (American

Institutes for Research, 2014). The district began implementation of library and lab based

makerspaces in each building in Fall of 2015. Makerspace implementation has expanded each

year through increased programming efforts, materials additions and new curriculum

13

connections through collaborative teaching. The district’s Digital Literacy Team, headed by an

Assistant Superintendent of Information Services and Administration, has worked to support the

integration of makerspaces through a shared vision of the potential for makerspaces to achieve

21st century skill acquisition, deeper learning and student engagement.

When the district chose to merge its library and technology departments in 2014,

makerspaces seemed a natural step toward collaborative, hands on, project based learning that

would fulfill the mission of the new “Digital Literacy Team.” As part of regular meeting times

scheduled by the district’s DLT Director, the team decided on the following overall DLT

mission: “to advance knowledge, ignite global thinking, and inspire resilient, flexible, and

creative learners to succeed in a changing world.” Furthermore, the DLT decided that “to achieve

our mission we will teach, model and coach community members to use technology, text and

digital resources that promote our goals.”

The makerspaces served as an important first project established by the Assistant

Superintendent of Information and Administration with the intention of moving the libraries

forward into 21st century learning environments in which library media and IT specialists

regularly collaborate to help students develop deeper learning competencies. The DLT meets on

a regular basis to share about development of the makerspaces, makerspace projects and

activities at each building as well as budget needs for makerspace resources. The hope is to

continue to expand the resources and makerspace programming provided in all buildings as well

as to further integrate makerspace learning across curriculum areas.

Statement of Significance

Despite deep pedagogical roots, and despite the enthusiasm of many for expanded access

to tinkering opportunities, educators and educational leaders have been challenged to articulate

14

the learning that is possible or that has been realized through tinkering or “making”

opportunities. This may be due in part to narrow definitions of learning that have historically

characterized schooling and that have emphasized content knowledge. This overemphasis on

content over process has become more pronounced during the past two decades of

accountability-based school improvement efforts (Martinez & Stager, 2013).

Fortunately, the recent emphasis of the Framework for K-12 Science Education (National

Research Council [NRC], 2011) on the practices of science and engineering as a path toward the

development of conceptual understanding and skills provides a new opportunity to recognize

how creative, open-ended learning activities can create deep insights, identification, and

understanding for the learner.

Educators and educational leaders must learn how to prepare students with the wide

range of skills necessary for success in a global economy. The development of these skills

requires a shift in pedagogical strategies (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014; Groff, 2013; Jacobs,

2010; National Research Council, 2012). According to research, one of the most critical factors

in fostering deeper learning is challenging students with rich and complex tasks (Fullan and

Langworthy, 2014; NRC, 2012). These rich tasks allow students to examine real-world problems

across disciplines, increasing their ability to transfer knowledge and skills (Fullan and

Langworthy, 2014; Huberman et al., 2014; NRC, 2012).

Dewey called for education to be grounded in real experience. He wrote, "If you have

doubts about how learning happens, engage in sustained inquiry: study, ponder, consider

alternative possibilities and arrive at your belief grounded in evidence." (Dewey, 1938). Inquiry

is a key part of constructivist learning.

15

Tinkering and making reflect a history of pedagogical theory and design abundant in

practical, physical, and learner-driven inquiries advanced by educators from before the time of

Dewey (1938) to Papert (1980) up to the present day. In the context of tinkering settings,

novices, journeymen, and experts work side by side, assist one another, and continually shift

roles depending on the task, goals, or tools at hand, throughout processes of investigation and

invention. These interactions support learning, student engagement and identity development in

ways aligned with theories of learning and pedagogy in the work of Vygotsky (1978), Friere

(1970), and Lave and Wenger (1991).

Albert Einstein once said, “Play is the highest form of research.” This quote highlights

the philosophy behind makerspaces, as it is a place for students to not just play, but play

constructively in an environment that encourages curiosity, exploration, risk taking and creative

freedom.

Through examination of the challenges and opportunities in implementation of

makerspaces in a small, suburban school district, it is my hope that other educational leaders will

better understand how to initiate and support the development of makerspaces in their own

educational settings. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine administrator, library media

and IT specialists, classroom teacher and student perceptions of the impact of makerspaces, as

well as to identify what stakeholders could be doing to better support student learning and

student engagement in makerspaces.

Intended Audiences

Many school districts have jumped on the makerspace bandwagon. Across the country,

K12 makerspaces now occupy corners of classrooms, sections of libraries as well as filling their

own dedicated, high-tech laboratories. Yet, the potential of makerspaces to transform student

16

learning has yet to be fully explored and realized. It is necessary to understand the essential

strategies needed to support all stakeholders. In examining this study, teachers and educational

leaders will gain insight through multiple perspectives that will potentially assist them in

implementing their own purposefully designed makerspaces.

Through a qualitative, case study approach, this study captured and explored

administrator, library media specialist, student and teacher perspectives on strategies and

supports necessary for successful makerspace implementation, as well as the potential for

makerspaces to lead to a deeper level of student engagement and student learning. The study has

the potential to provide educators and educational leaders with valuable insights that districts can

use as a guide as they plan their own makerspaces.

Beyond the K-12 environment, the study will also serve health and wellness

organizations and all professions interested in promoting student well being. Students who are

allowed the opportunity for self expression, creativity and pursuit of individual interests may

well tend to be healthier and happier both as young adults and throughout their lives.

Research into the impact of effective makerspaces also has implications beyond our

national boundaries into the global sphere. Students who are inspired and encouraged to problem

solve and embrace innovative learning activities through makerspaces are also more apt to tackle

global issues with a higher level of confidence, competence and determination. Out of the box

thinking is naturally encouraged through effective makerspace learning activities. This study

delved into the conditions that lead to a higher level of creativity, innovation and problem

solving.

17

Positionality Statement

As described by Machi and McEvoy (2012), it is natural that researchers have personal

interests and biases about the topics they select for study. My interest in makerspaces stems from

my lifelong fascination with the creative process as well as from my experiences as a child,

student, educator, artist and aspiring leader. I have championed the importance of arts integration

and reflective, inquiry-based, project based learning for many years. Given these factors, I

recognized that I must stay consciously aware of these biases, and control for them in research

(Machi & McEvoy, 2012). As a library media specialist and member of the District Literacy

Team, as well as PD Chair and co-leader of MassCUE’s Makerspace SIG (Special Interest

Group), I did my utmost to engage in continuous self-reflection so as not to allow my bias to

taint my research findings.

Professional background. Due to my strong belief in the value of school library

programs and services, I took care not to unintentionally exaggerate positive findings of library

makerspace activity. According to Machi and McEvoy, these “preconceptions, personal

attachments, and points of view present both strengths and weaknesses for the research effort”

(2012, p. 18). I prevented my personal attachment toward advocacy for strong school library

services from biasing my research by being aware of this potential bias, being open to all

learning outcomes and stakeholder perceptions, and doing my best to objectively describe and

document the library makerspace activities within my district.

Another potential bias is my personal belief in the value of independent learning

opportunities that fall outside structured K-12 curriculum areas. An artist at heart, I

acknowledged and documented the challenges of library makerspace activities as thoroughly as I

18

documented the benefits, rather than rushing forward to promote my own leanings toward

unstructured learning over structured learning.

Though I have always been a student who did well in school, and a successful

professional reporter, educator and library media specialist, I was prone in my earlier years to

spontaneously quitting jobs to pursue artistic interests including art, photography, creative

writing and dancing. I have always had a strong internal creative drive with a need to feed my

imagination and spirit through the Arts.

As I conducted my makerspace study, I stayed alert to individual student learning

differences as well as adult learner differences amongst the staff with the awareness that they

may vary widely from my own.

Gender, socio-economic status. As a female, I am acutely aware of the gender gap and

a still all too prevalent lack of strong support and encouragement of female students in STEAM

areas. Opportunities such as girls coding clubs and informal tinkering zones such as library

maker spaces are especially suited to provide girls with early exposure to STEAM subjects.

Though girls might hesitate to enroll in upper level science and math classes, early

exposure to maker spaces might provide a doorway for exploration and a new found belief in

themselves as scientific problem solvers. Since I hope this is true but do not yet know this is true,

I took care not to jump to conclusions as I conducted my research.

During my research, I also proceeded with caution in recognizing my own sense of

frustration at the hurdles involved in being a female aspiring to roles and responsibilities more

traditionally assigned to males, and carefully conducted my interviews by equally valuing the

opinions of all participants, both male and female members of student and staff populations. It

was important for me to document both masculine and feminine ways of knowing through

19

makerspace activity, assigning equal importance through equal documentation of both hard and

soft skills development through makerspace learning.

In my eagerness to promote the value of library maker spaces, I was sure to include equal

numbers of male and female participants with varied levels of success and experience with

maker space activities in order to provide a balanced range of views.

Even though there were many challenges to completing this research while being an

educator, specifically a library media specialist, the opportunity outweighed the challenges.

Library makerspaces are a new concept for our district and are part of a wide range of projects

that have transpired over the last couple years as part of the reorganization of library and

technology departments into a “Digital Literacy Team.”

As with any change process, there have been bumps and bruises along the way, along

with initial resistance. The library makerspaces are one of the positive results I see as an example

and outcome of coordinated efforts between Library and Tech Services Departments. While I am

hopeful that the implementation of makerspaces has had a strong, positive influence on student

learning and student engagement, I recognize the need to understand not only the opportunities

but also the challenges voiced by administrators, library media specialists, other teachers and

students.

Summary. This research was reflective of my professional experiences, identity,

interests and passions, as well as observations. My literature review and theoretical framework

grounded the study and guided the methodology to prevent biases. By acknowledging and

planning for the complex role of the participant observer, I hoped to gain valuable insight into

the development, implementation and roll out of makerspaces, as well as the influence of library

makerspaces and makerspace activities on student engagement and the learning process. I

20

recognized that I must own my biases and control for them (Machi and McEvoy, 2012). I also

recognized that like myself, the participants in the study were entering with a wide range of

differing backgrounds and experiences related to makerspaces and other innovations.

Research Questions and Purpose of the Study

The outcomes of planning and implementing makerspaces in schools should ensure the

acquisition of deeper learning and skills development in the 4C’s of creativity, collaboration,

communication and critical thinking (OECD, 2015). As districts across the U.S. and abroad

continue to implement makerspaces, understanding the structures and supports administrators,

teachers, and students perceive as effective has the potential to ensure broader implementation

success.

Moreover, gaining insights into administrator, library and IT specialist, teacher and

student perception about the potential for an innovative implementation (in this case,

makerspaces) to result in the acquisition of deeper learning and 4C’s skills, can lead to wider

attainment of intended vision, purpose and goals (Holcomb, 2009; Topper & Lancaster, 2013).

Thus, the overarching research question for this study asks how administrators, library and IT

specialists, classroom teachers, and students perceive the implementation of makerspaces, and its

influence on 4C’s skill acquisition, deeper learning and deeper levels of student engagement. As

such, the study sought to answer the following questions:

1. How has the district organized its structures, practices, and use of resources to

support purposeful implementation of makerspaces with the specific intent of

fostering students’ deeper learning and 4C’s skills development?

2. What do stakeholders perceive as the outcomes and impact of the makerspaces?

3. What do stakeholders perceive as the challenges of the makerspaces?

21

4. What could stakeholders be doing to better support student learning in makerspaces?

Theoretical Framework

Although schools and districts across the country are implementing makerspaces for

student learning, research organizations such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development (OECD, 2015) note the failure of districts to actually effect change through

innovative teaching and learning methods. Therefore, it behooves districts to develop an

implementation plan that defines the expected outcomes educational leaders hope to achieve

through their makerspaces (Topper & Lancaster, 2013).

Diffusion of Innovation. Rogers (2003) suggests that the Diffusion of Innovation (DoI)

framework offers a vehicle for practical solutions to organizations considering the

implementation of an innovation or solution in a “knowledge-utilization process” (p. 105). In

understanding the innovative solution of makerspaces for 4C’s acquisition, deeper learning and

deeper levels of student engagement, this study will explore administrator, library media/IT

specialist, classroom teacher and student perceptions about makerspace implementation.

Diffusion of Innovation explained. The DoI theoretical framework (Rogers, 2003) will

be used as one lens by which to interpret the findings of the study. Rogers (2003) states,

“Diffusion is a kind of social change… When new ideas are invented, diffused and adopted or

rejected, leading to certain consequences, social change occurs” (p. 6). Because DoI focuses on

the idea that diffusion occurs within complex social systems over time, Rogers’ (2003)

framework will provide insight into the structures, supports and perceptions of people involved

in the transition to and implementation of school makerspaces.

Importantly, according to Rogers (2003), “diffusion is the process in which an innovation

is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system” (p.

22

5). DoI addresses the circumstances under which an organization adopts and reinvents itself over

a period of time.

Frank, Zhao and Borman (2004) state, “Rogers’ process consists of an independent

individual’s knowledge or awareness of an innovation, formation of an attitude toward the

innovation, decision to adopt or reject the innovation, implementation of the decision, and

confirmation of the decision process” (p. 150). Frank et al. (2004) further describes:

The process is more one of diffusion of innovation within the organization, since each

actor has some autonomy to make his or her own decision partly in response to the ideas,

information and other social forces to which he or she is exposed. (p. 150)

Consequently, it becomes vital to understand the perceptions of organizational stakeholders in

the DoI process.

Rogers identifies four critical elements to the process, which includes the innovation

itself, communication channels, time and social systems (Rogers, 2003). This study will examine

these four components in the context of the district’s implementation of makerspaces, exploring

the structures and supports in place, along with the perception of stakeholders regarding those

supports and structures as they relate to makerspace influence on student engagement and deeper

learning.

Innovation. In this study, the innovation is the implementation of makerspaces across

the district for the purpose of deeper learning and 4C’s skill development. As Rogers (2003)

notes, “A technological innovation usually has at least some degree of benefit for its potential

adopters, but this advantage is not always clear cut to those intended adopters. They are seldom

certain that an innovation represents a superior alternative to the previous practice that it would

replace, at least when they initially learn about it” (p. 14).

23

Thus, a large focus of the research questions for this study center on the initial

perceptions of administrators, library media and IT specialists, classroom teachers, and students

relative to the impact and benefits of makerspaces on student engagement and deeper level

learning. Examining the perceptions of stakeholders will lead to increased understanding of the

degree of ownership or “buy in” of the innovation for the purpose of enhanced student

engagement and deeper learning.

Communication channels. In examining any given innovation, it is essential for

researchers to also investigate the methods by which the organization communicates the

innovation (Rogers, 2003). In considering communication channels, this study will investigate

the ways in which the district communicated with stakeholders to engage them. As Rogers

(2003) describes, there are four elements of the communication process:

1) An innovation

2) An individual or other unit of adoption that has knowledge of, or has experience with,

the innovation

3) Another individual or unit that does not yet have experience with the innovation and

4) A communication channel connecting the two units (p. 18).

Thus, in order to adequately, thoroughly understand the perceptions of administrators, library

media and IT specialists, classroom teachers and students, this study will structure interview

questions to examine how district communication channels influence the perceptions of each

stakeholder group.

Time. This study also examined the dimension of time in the district implementation of

makerspaces, looking at the three elements of “(1) innovation decision-making, (2) individual

adoption, and (3) organizational adoption” (Rogers, 2003, p. 170).

24

Specifically, the interview questions asked how the stakeholders learned about the

makerspace idea, their initial reactions to district wide implementation based on their practices

and systems of supports, the methods used to encourage stakeholders to implement makerspaces

and makerspace activities, their personal decisions and beliefs relative to makerspace

implementation, the implementation itself and any further steps geared toward improvement in

terms of learning outcomes and levels of student engagement.

Social systems. This study also examined how the social system of the district reacted in

implementing district wide makerspaces and in meeting the previously mentioned objectives of

4C’s skills development and deeper learning. Rogers (2003) notes that few researchers have

examined the role of either communication channels or social systems on the diffusion of

innovation. In answering the research questions through the eyes of a representative sampling of

all stakeholder groups, this study addressed both the communication channels and the social

system.

Rogers (2003) states that it is difficult to “untangle the effects of a system’s structure on

diffusion, independent from the effects of the characteristics of the individuals that make up that

system” (p. 25). In order to address this issue, interviews were conducted with stakeholder

groups across the system. This created a means for the study to reveal the supports and

structures, as well as the influences of change agents and resistors on processes, decisions, and

their results to date in regards to makerspace implementation.

By examining these elements of the framework and the five stages in the diffusion of

innovation process, this researcher gained insights into the perceptions of the participants of the

district’s makerspace implementation and the potential influence of makerspaces on student

25

engagement and deeper learning. Hence, the DoI theoretical framework (Rogers, 2003) aligned

well with the research questions posed for this study.

Limitations. As with any framework, DoI has its limitations. Rogers (2003) describes

several of them, ranging from pro-innovation bias to individual-blame bias, recall problem and

equality. He offers practical solutions to remediate the potential shortcomings. These solutions

will be applied in the process of conducting this study.

Pro-innovation bias refers to the assumption that the social system of the organization

should adopt and easily, expediently, carry out the innovation. Tang and Ang (2002) point out

that the emphasis on DoI tends to be on the organization as a whole, rather than on the individual

members of the organization who are most impacted by a given innovation. To address this

limitation, the study included perceptions of the library media specialists who are implementing

makerspace programming in the district’s libraries, as well as the perceptions of students who

have been involved with makerspace learning activities.

In addition, Rogers (2003) suggests that conducting research during the innovation

process may help offset pro-innovation bias. Since the makerspaces in the district are still in the

process of being built, resourced and implemented fully, timing of the study is fortuitous. Other

strategies in offsetting pro-innovation bias include studying the successes and failures in

implementation of the innovation concurrently, acknowledging rejection of the innovation

including the extreme of discontinuation, re-invention, and considering the motivation for

innovation (Rogers, 2003; Tang & Ang, 2002).

Hermancioglu, Droge and Calantone (2009) further extend the idea of pro-innovation

bias, in stressing that the more difficult an innovation is for stakeholders to adopt, the less likely

that the objectives will be fully realized. The attitudes, experiences and perceptions of

26

stakeholders play a role, along with their beliefs in the innovation’s benefits over current

practices and processes (Rogers, 2003).

DoI can also result in individual-blame bias, where an individual member of the

organization is blamed for the failed innovation, rather than the organization as a whole (Rogers,

2003). Rogers (2003) offers several strategies for overcoming individual-blame bias, such as

including multiple members of the organization in research, keeping an open mind during

investigations, involving those for and against the innovation, and considering the social

networks and communication structures.

According to Rogers (2003), the researcher should broaden interview questions to

investigate not only the decisions of the individual, but also the decisions of the larger group of

stakeholders involved with a given innovation, and the decisions of organizational leaders

lending oversight from above. By investigating perceptions of multiple embedded units within

the organization as focus groups, this study worked to avoid individual-blame bias.

Further, Rogers (2003) notes that over time, individuals interviewed may not remember

the specific events associated with the adoption and implementation of an innovation. To address

this recall issue, a case study approach allows multiple members of the organization to retell the

event, while document review provides additional evidence of those events (Rogers, 2003).

Rogers (2003) also recommends that researchers use high-quality interview questions, survey

questions and trained interviewers to account for the recall problem. This research study

addressed both strategies relevant to the recall problem.

Finally, Rogers (2003) notes that DoI may also lead to issues of equality, creating

socioeconomic gaps between members of the social system. As this study occurred in a public

27

school system that offers all members access to makerspaces and makerspace resources through

its school libraries, this issue was less likely to present itself.

Constructivism. Constructivism as a theoretical framework is based on the idea that

learning is the result of knowledge construction. Knowledge is not received from outside, but

rather by reflecting on experiences and by fitting new information together. Constructivist

theorists believe that students learn best when they actively construct their own understanding. In

the constructivist theory, emphasis is placed on the learner rather than the teacher. It is the

learner who interacts with objects and events and thereby gains an understanding of the features

held by such objects or events. Constructivism emphasizes processes over products.

Constructivism and Constructionism evolved out of the research of Seymour Papert, who

was a student of the work of Jean Piaget. “Constructivism is a theory of learning based on

experience and observation. Through experience, and reflecting on these experiences, individuals

construct their knowledge and understanding of the world (Papert, 1980)."

According to constructionist models, students learn best by making tangible objects

through authentic, real life learning opportunities that allow for a guided, collaborative process

which incorporates peer feedback. Makerspaces are an example of the constructivist and/or

constructionist model of learning. The creation of objects which might range from videos

designed through the use of stop motion animation and green screen technology, to the

development of robots using elements of coding in programs such as Scratch, to a simple musical

instrument made from a jug and rubber bands: all of these may be viewed through the lens of

constructivist/constructionist learning.

28

Chapter II: Literature Review

Over the last decade, much time and energy has been devoted to the need for new federal

and state policies around 21st century learning and global skills competencies. The 4 C’s skills

including critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity are currently taking

center stage, though they are not new concepts for educators. Though these skills have always

been a focus in educational settings, innovative methods are gaining renewed attention as the

need for development of higher level thinking skills grows in our increasingly interconnected

world.

The number of students leaving our K-12 schools and districts with effective critical

thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity skills is uneven (NRC, 2012). To address

the need, many superintendents and district leaders around the country have begun district-wide

initiatives supporting the “Four Cs.” Some of the innovations being implemented include 1:1

initiatives, Blended Learning, Personalized Learning, and cross-disciplinary STEAM related

opportunities including makerspaces.

The extent to which innovations such as makerspaces influence student development of

4C’s, deeper learning is up for debate. “As with most things in education, getting from vision to

actualization is often a difficult and circuitous route” (Project Tomorrow, 2015, p. 1). Without an

understanding of the structures and supports that teachers, students and administrators perceive

as useful in supporting a transition toward innovations such as makerspaces, efforts may well fall

flat, failing to meet objectives such as student acquisition of higher order, 21st century skills.

Research on traditional versus alternative pedagogies demonstrates that alternative

methods encourage creative, higher level thinking and expression (Besancon & Lubart, 2008).

Thus, the makerspace setting as a non-traditional learning environment designed to foster

29

innovation (Haverson & Sheridan, 2014) provides fertile ground as a site of investigation into

“making” and its potential impact on student engagement and achievement.

Research in this area will be beneficial as schools and districts strive to implement

effective makerspace learning environments. As such, this literature review will inform decisions

in one district and potentially beyond it, through the examination of the perceptions of

administrators, library media and instructional technology specialists, teachers and students

working in a wide range of makerspace settings. First, makerspaces will be defined. Next, the

range of learning that takes place in makerspaces will be described along with the impact of

makerspaces. District implementation of makerspaces will be explored, along with district

utilization of school libraries in makerspace implementation. The review will evaluate the

structures and supports that serve as opportunities and barriers to makerspace implementation.

Finally, the review will conclude with an analysis of studies that include the Diffusion of

Innovation (DoI) framework in their examination of technology integration, according to the four

elements of innovation, communication channels, time, and social systems (Rogers, 2003).

Though makerspaces hold great promise, it is not enough to simply “build it and they will

come.” Like any educational innovation, those that have staying power tend to connect

integration and successful implementation with adequate structures and supports as well as an

understanding of the perceptions of stakeholders. Research is still limited on the influence of

makerspaces on student engagement and deeper learning, as well as on the structures and

supports that lead to successful implementation.

Research in this area will be beneficial as districts continue to adopt and implement

makerspaces. As such, this literature review has the potential to inform decisions about the

implementation of makerspace initiatives, through the examination of the perceptions of

30

administrators, library media and instructional specialists, classroom teachers and students. In

particular, this literature review holds significance for leaders and policy makers responsible for

supporting makerspace roll-outs. In addition, this literature review will provide insight into how

districts are utilizing libraries and library media specialists to implement their makerspace

programs.

This literature review also holds significance in providing educators and educational

leaders with information on student perception of transformational teaching practices. Student

feedback is a powerful tool that provides both educators and students with the opportunity to

reflect, to deepen understanding and to improve learning outcomes. Ebenezer, J., Columbus, R,

Kaya, O., Zhang, L., & Ebenezer, D. (2012) note that when educators engage in risk taking and

professional learning with their students, their instruction improves and student achievement

increases. Without an understanding of student perception of makerspace integration strategies,

educators will be limited in their ability to gauge their impact (Ebenezer et al., 2012). Thus, this

lit review seeks to understand how instructional library media specialists, classroom teachers,

students and administrators perceive the implementation of makerspaces and their impact on

4C’s skills acquisition, student engagement and deeper learning.

Makerspaces Defined

Over the last few years, makerspaces have gained attention from policymakers,

practitioners, and scholars. President Obama put the maker movement on display at the first-ever

White House Maker Faire in Summer of 2014 and implemented policies to equip schools and

encourage entrepreneurial innovation (Fried & Wetstone, 2014). The power behind the maker

movement is the “DIY citizenship” it encourages; Obama and other maker champions assert that

31

young people will best change the world through their ability to make and innovate rather than

consume it (Ratto & Boler, 2014).

A makerspace is a physical place where informal, collaborative learning can happen

through hands-on creation, using any combination of cross-disciplinary tools. Akin to a

laboratory, the kind of learning that takes place in a makerspace is hands-on, iterative,

experimental and touches on a wide array of transliteracies (Britton, 2012).

The underlying goal of a maker space is to encourage innovative thinking and creativity

through an open-ended learning environment. Proponents of makerspaces reason that such

environments foster 4C’s skills development and deeper levels of learning and student

engagement. Besides instructing students in innovation processes, makerspaces are designed to

teach them how to solve problems and present their ideas and projects effectively. Through

development of entrepreneurial, creative and collaborative skills, students are guided toward

competence in real world problem solving. These skills were identified by the Partnership for

21st Century Skills (2015).

Components of makerspaces. Makerspaces are sites of rich experimentation and

innovation where learners construct artifacts that provide evidence for learning content, process,

and identity. Through making, learners build relationships with knowledge, communities, and

themselves; the relationships built are worked out through an iterative making process that

results in the creation of external artifacts. In makerspaces, makers innovate new media,

technologies, and literacies, which expand the ways in which learning is currently represented

and demonstrated in K-12 educational settings. What does one learn from 3D printing, creating a

banjo out of a plastic bottle, programming a homemade robot to move? How do the artifacts

produced provide evidence of learning?

32

The literature outlining makerspaces agrees on five core characteristics: physical space,

low and high-tech materials, user-driven creation, diffuse learning through collaboration, and

cross-disciplinary integration (Bevan, B., Gutwill, J.P., Petrich, M., & Wilkinson, K., 2015;

Dougherty, 2012; Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014).

Current literature defines makerspaces as physical spaces. But the emphasis in a

makerspace is on the hands-on, material-based creation processes as well as physical interactions

that take place there.

The literature also notes that makerspaces are equipped with both low and high-tech tools

(Sheridan, 2011) for hands-on production. These materials and tools might include everything

from circuit parts, art supplies, and craft materials, to laser cutters, 3D printers and electronics

kits. Makerspaces provide access to traditional and emerging tools and materials for fabrication

and creation.

Moreover, the literature emphasizes that makerspaces are designed to encourage open-

ended, independent projects. Activities in a makerspace may encompass tinkering, exploratory

play, or creative production/deconstruction. Vossoughi & Bevan (2014) note that, “the aesthetic

and playful qualities of many making activities may operate to create a particularly low barrier

for participation. Making thus looks and feels different from more traditional, open-ended,

inquiry activities” (p. 4). The self-driven nature of makerspace activities allows for a learner’s

ownership, empowerment and personal passion to emerge.

In addition, the literature outlines how makerspaces rely on diffuse learning through

facilitation, peer-to-peer knowledge-sharing, and collaboration. Wilkinson, K., & Petrich, M.

(2013) highlight the importance of facilitation of tinkering studio activities. Sheridan (2011)

33

notes that participants themselves lead, teach, and learn through collaboration as they join the

makerspace’s community of practice.

Lastly, the literature agrees that makerspaces allow cross-disciplinary integration of

science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics. Sheridan et al. (2014) suggest that a key

distinction of makerspaces from other learning settings is the way they “support making in

disciplines that are traditionally separate” (p. 526).

Range of makerspace learning environments. Makerspaces as learning environments

exist in both formal and informal settings. Many makerspaces resemble art studios, where

participants work independently or collaboratively with materials to design and make (Halverson

& Sheridan, 2014). Based on analysis of visual arts classes, Hetland, Winner, Veenema, and

Sheridan (2013) identified three key “studio structures” as central to the design of studio learning

environments: (1) in demonstration-lectures, teachers pose open-ended challenges, show

exemplars and demonstrate processes to engage and inform students (2) in students-at-work,

students work on their projects and teachers observe, providing individualized instruction as

necessary and (3) in exhibitions, students’ work is shared with a community beyond the studio

classroom environment.

Hetland (2013) focused on traditional visual art forms in classroom environments, but

these three studio structures have applications beyond to the teaching of digital and media arts

such as graphic design, computer animation and more. These informal learning environments

tend to involve a higher degree of peer mentoring and coaching than traditional classroom

environments. They offer a similar structure to makerspaces currently being created in library,

museum and other settings and allow for a look at “pedagogical structure in the flow of the

34

multiple informal interactions and activities characteristic of makerspaces.” (Haverson &

Sheridan, 2014).

Looking through a “community of practice” lens helps to frame the learning that takes

place in makerspaces. Community of practice refers to the people who work in a common

domain and through their participation in the community share knowledge and experiences (Lave

& Wenger, 1991). The communities of practice framework, where learning is part of ongoing

social interaction rather than a distinct activity, allows for exploration of elements specific to

makerspaces. These elements include the shared use of a wide range of resources and materials;

informal learning environments, individual work and collaborative activity; and formal and/or

informal documentation of work in progress and participation. An assumption of the framework

is that the community has a shared domain of interest (Wenger, 1998). The act of “making”

becomes that pivotal point around which all learners creatively connect.

Individual library makerspaces exhibit their unique flavors of creative activity, from

sewing and costume design to music recording, graphic design, computer programming, and

more. All of these spaces revolve around design thinking principles of identifying a need,

problem solving, iteration or redesign, and creation of a final product. These spaces promote

identity and community (Wenger, 1998). Much of the observed activity in makerspaces (e.g.

playing, talking, tinkering, walking) could seem peripheral to making, yet these activities are

central to learning and forming a sense of community and are important to providing space and

time for idea generation. (Sheridan, 2014).

To date, research on making activity in educational contexts has focused primarily on

program design, implementation, analysis of settings and assessment (Davis & Blikstein, 2017;

Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014). Vossoughi et al. (2013) have reported

35

on a multiyear ethnographic study on equity-oriented pedagogical practices that support student

engagement in tinkering in afterschool settings. As understanding of the concept of “tinkering”

and/or creative play with real world results, continues to expand, there is growing interest in

documenting the learning that takes place in makerspaces.

Across the making literature, researchers note the deep engagement of young people, the

opportunities provided for real world problem solving, and the potential for the development of

new dispositions, understandings, and directions through activity and reflection (e.g., Sheridan,

2014; Vossoughi et al, 2013, Davis & Blikstein, 2017).

“Tinkering” and making (creating) are potentially powerful contexts for learning. But

although they have deep roots in leading theories of pedagogy, in the present era of educational

accountability and high stakes testing, they challenge many stakeholders’ ideas of “what learning

looks like.” (Bevan, et al. 2015). Tensions and contradictions exist between educators’ expansive

visions of what learning looks like and the sometimes more restricted accountability era

definitions of learning (Booker, Vossoughi, & Hooper, 2014, 2017). Equity of access is also an

important consideration in assessing the effectiveness of learning environments. Hence, there is a

need for further research on the benefits of informal learning such as that which takes place in

makerspaces.

In various studies, tinkering has been defined in terms of “imaginative play,” (Brahms,

2014, p. 4), “purposeful play” (ibid, p. 20), and “playing with materials” (Sheridan et al., 2014).

Martinez & Stager (2013) argues that play is an important component of learning because

learners are able to develop confidence in their own abilities to learn and create and she calls for

more educators to integrate play into learning settings.

36

Not everyone has readily accepted the idea that the playful activities in makerspaces

constitute significant learning. As Petrich, Wilkinson, and Bevan (2013) have noted, some

people have observed tinkering activities and questioned, “Well, it looks like fun... [pause] ...but

are they learning?” (p. 52).

Maker spaces and maker activities offer access to creative learning resources which can

lead to innovation and creativity. As part of a participatory planning study of Helsinki Central

Library, authors experimented with a form of collaborative brainstorming with and by “makers.”

By drawing elements from both lead-user workshops and participatory design, they conducted a

study allowing engagement with local maker communities to identify the issues relevant for a

public maker space in 2020. Participants envisioned a small, prototype maker space and were

invited to execute activities collaboratively. Results indicated that the constructivist opportunity

to experiment and create activities on a rolling basis resulted in a high level of engagement

(Hyysalo, 2014). But does this translate across all makerspaces?

Practitioners and researchers are beginning to look closely at these learning zones to

determine who uses makerspaces, what occurs in makerspaces, and how makerspaces can

facilitate learning. Research that has examined learning across a range of makerspaces and

tinkering studios has suggested the significance of playfulness and engagement, self-directed

goal-setting, facilitation or peer-to-peer knowledge-sharing, and contextualized learning that

crosses subject domains (Bevan et al., 2014; Brahms, 2014; Sheridan et al., 2014). These studies

have also noted a lack of support to show that evidences of learning map to specific components

of subject domains such as science, technology, or art (ibid).

37

If makerspaces are to become significant contributions within educational settings or

systems, then research must be done that further qualifies and validates these playful activities

within learning contexts.

Learning within Makerspaces

Agency by Design is a multi-year research project currently underway out of the Harvard

Graduate School of Education’s Project Zero that is also looking at learning within making from

the lens of agency and self-efficacy (Agency by Design, 2015). Through partnerships with pre K-

12 classrooms in Oakland, CA, the researchers are examining “maker empowerment,” which

they define as those elements of a learner’s self-discovery in, capacity for, and confidence

around making (ibid, p. 4). The researchers preliminary findings thus far lead them to conclude

that “the most salient benefits of maker-centered learning for young people have to do with

developing a sense of self and a sense of community that empower them to engage with and

shape the designed dimension of their world” (ibid, p. 7). This conclusion is emerging from data

that highlights learning outcomes related to a learner’s development of identity and self

confidence.

In efforts to validate making as a legitimate path toward learning, scholars are working to

provide empirical evidence of the intrinsic learning value of making. Learning theory such as

Papert’s (1980) constructionism and Lave and Wenger’s (1991) situated learning connect with

the spirit of learning through making, but development of and access to new technologies has

also fundamentally expanded the types of learning with practical applications that are now

possible.

For example, learners are able to make abstract ideas come to life through models by 3D

printing a tangible rollercoaster to explore with physics concepts (Blikstein & Kranich, 2013).

38

Other new tools such as laser cutters, construction kits and microcontrollers such as Makey

Makey and Arduino, along with easier programming tools such as Scratch (Resnick, Maloney,

Monroy-Hernandez, Rusk, Eastmond, Brennan, 2009) also lend themselves to learning through

making.

Researchers have begun to explore the disciplinary value of making by connecting these

new technologies to subject specific contexts. Activities such as building with 3D printers and

laser cutters, programming, and crafting Play-Doh into circuits have obvious connections with

STEM disciplines. Scholars have noted that new technologies like Squishy Circuits make

complex STEM problems more accessible to learners. In paper computing, makers use

conductive tape or paint in place of wires to make their circuits; with Squishy Circuits they use

Play-Doh; and with e-textiles they use conductive thread. Making with these technologies helps

learners develop circuitry and programming skills and practices, along with engineering thinking

(Kafai & Burke, 2014; Peppler & Glosson, 2013).

Makerspaces as constructivist learning zones. Makerspaces can be classified as

constructivist learning zones. Varied theoretical orientations (Phillips 1995) explore different

facets of constructivism such as cognitive development, social aspects, and the role of context.

According to Matthews (2000), the educational literature identifies eighteen different forms of

constructivism, yet most scholars place the forms into three categories: (1) sociological, (2),

psychological, and (3) radical constructivism.

Richardson (2003) calls constructivist pedagogy “the creation of classroom

environments, activities, and methods that are grounded in a constructivist theory of learning,

with goals that focus on individual students developing deep understandings in the subject matter

of interest and habits of mind that aid in future learning.”

39

As a theory, constructivism proposes that learning is neither a stimulus-response

phenomenon nor a passive process of receiving knowledge. Instead, it is an adaptive activity

requiring the building of conceptual structures through reflection and abstraction; an active

process of knowledge construction influenced by how one interacts with and interprets new ideas

and events (Lambert 1995; Maclellan and Soden 2004; Glaserfeld 1995).

The principles of the constructivist view of learning can be summarized as follows:

learning is an active process; learning is an adaptive activity; learning is situated in the context in

which it occurs; knowledge is not innate, passively absorbed or invented but constructed by the

learner; all knowledge is personal; all knowledge is socially constructed; learning is essentially a

process of making sense of the world; experience and prior understanding play a role in learning;

social interaction plays a role in learning; effective learning requires meaningful, open-ended,

challenging problems for the learner to solve. (Fox 2001).

Design thinking and the makerspace connection. Researchers are exploring the

STEM/STEAM connection as a means to highlight the value of design thinking in cross-

disciplinary education. In one example, scholars described how e-textiles were utilized to

illustrate how the aesthetic characteristics of making intersect with the arts and have the potential

to shift the gender inequity of STEM fields (Buchholz, Shively, Peppler, & Wohlwend, 2014).

According to Carroll, Goldman, Britos, Koh, Royalty & Hornstein (2010), “Design

thinking is an approach to learning that focuses on developing students’ creative confidence.

Students engage in hands on projects that focus on building empathy, promoting a bias toward

action, encouraging ideation, and fostering active problem solving.” Proponents of design

thinking argue that children learn best by making tangible artifacts in what are termed

makerspaces and support the use of digital media in designs.

40

Dan Ryder, an English teacher based in Maine, is an example of an out of the box

educator embracing design thinking in the classroom. His students regularly produce 3D models

of poems and problem solve with an emphasis on empathy-based solutions. In one lesson, Ryder

instructs students to take a character from Romeo & Juliet, identify a problem the characters

face, and then design a real world solution or prototype. Students use materials ranging from

electronic components called “Little Bits,” to Legos and 3D printing supplies. Artifacts created

in this particular lesson have included a system of sensors to detect when too much fighting is

going on between characters, and a device to monitor Romeo’s heartbeat. “English is what it

says on the door,” says Ryder. “I’m teaching them how to write and how to read. I’ve just found

if I take the approach of what’s the best practice for English teaching, I’m blocking out a whole

bunch of transferable skills.” (Feinberg, 2016).

According to constructionists, meaning is made through tangible artifacts that are built

and shared. As Ackermann argued, “if our minds, senses, and bodies are expanded through use

of personal and cultural tools, then these tools become incorporated, an integral part of

ourselves” (1996, p. 27). Design thinking activities in makerspaces offer students an opportunity

to develop transliteracy skills through pursuit of making activities that align with their personal

passions.

The K-12 Lab Network at Stanford’s d. school explains that by becoming well-versed in

design thinking, a student is more equipped to recognize the needs and restraints of a problem,

develop innovative solutions, and constructively utilize feedback (Speicher, 2013). Application

of design thinking is student-centered and hands-on. It seeks to prepare learners through

development of 4C’s skills, enabling them to solve complex problems through collaboration,

communication, and innovation.

41

Various approaches to design thinking align well with makerspace learning. One, from

IDEO, is centered on three steps; discover, ideate, and prototype. The discover phase is

comprised of developing essential background information about a design topic. In the ideation

phase, the designer (student) allows him/herself to be an imaginative risk-taker, developing as

many ideas as possible to address the problem at hand. The last step, the prototype phase,

involves developing a model and immediately testing it on users in order to learn quickly from

feedback and failure. For the purpose of Maker activities, Martinez and Stager (2013) stress the

importance of a spiraling; iterative design that supports rapid prototyping and that may not be

entirely planned out from start to finish. Proponents of makerspaces as design thinking labs

argue that the format has the capability of reframing the way students learn in the areas of

STEAM, including science, technology, engineering, mathematics and the arts.

According to Brahms and Crowley (2014), one of the appeals of making as a learning

process for STE(A)M education is that it provides numerous entry points to participation.

Making provides participants opportunities to learn and apply multi-disciplinary knowledge and

skills while tinkering and expressing one’s self to multiple audiences (Martinez & Stager, 2013;

Sheridan, Halverson, Litts, Brahms, Jacobs-Priebe & Owens, 2014; West-Puckett, 2013).

Educational supporters like Martinez and Stager (2013) and Lee Martin (2015) assert that maker

activities provide an opportunity for educational innovation.

The argument for constructionist learning experiences is growing as recent national

standards in science education like the Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC, 2012) and

the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) are focused less on disciplinary content and

more on the application of content using science and engineering practices. The NGSS (NGSS

Lead States, 2013) adopted the Framework’s (NRC, 2012) eight science and engineering

42

practices and raised engineering design to the same level as scientific inquiry. These practices

include:

1. Asking and defining problems

2. Developing and using models

3. Planning and carrying out investigations

4. Analyzing and interpreting data

5. Using mathematics and computational thinking

6. Constructing explanations and designing solutions

7. Engaging in argument from evidence

8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information

Supporters of making like Honey and Kanter (2013), Martinez and Stager (2013), and

Quinn and Bell (2013) believe the design process is central to STEM education.

“Design is a powerful vehicle for teaching science, technology, engineering, and math

(STEM) content in an integrated and inspiring way. Through the design process, one learns how

to identify a problem or need, how to consider options and constraints, and how to plan, model,

test, and iterate solutions, rendering higher-order thinking skills, tangible, and visible. Design-

based learning engages students as critical thinkers and problem-solvers and presents science and

technology as powerful tools to use in solving some of the world’s most pressing

challenges.”(Honey and Kanter (2013) p. 3-4)

Design-based STEM education holds promise as a means to build students’ interest in

and knowledge of STEM/STEAM areas. Makerspace learning potentially provides a doorway for

more students to engage in STEAM education, including those who have previously been

underrepresented. (Honey & Kanter, 2013; Kafai et al., 2014; Quinn & Bell, 2013) Brahms

43

(2014) found that making “encourage(s) community members to tinker at the edges and

intersections of disciplinary participation” and “has the potential to make disciplinary knowledge

and skill more accessible to people who feel peripheral…” (p. 93).

Cross-disciplinary applications. Several studies have looked across disciplinary bounds

to suggest the benefit of cross-disciplinary activities that often take place in makerspaces.

Following the Constructionist learning theories of Seymour Papert, the MIT Media Lab has spent

years exploring best practices for designing activities that combine low and high-tech

technologies (Resnik & Rosenbaum, 2013). Resnik & Rosenbaum (2013) outline several core

elements of makerspace activities found to impact learning, including immediate feedback, fluid

experimentation, open exploration, immersive experience, and reflection. Eisenberg & Buechley

(2008) propose that, "New fabrication tools and devices do not, in our opinion, threaten to uproot

this [craft] tradition but rather have the potential to enrich it tremendously" (p. 62).

Unique to the maker movement is the affordable cost offered through sharing of

resources to new media technologies that encourage creativity and innovation. The

multidisciplinary nature of learning projects that combine engineering principles, fine arts or

craft, and/or digital media art, lends itself to creative outcomes (Sheridan, Halverson, Litts,

Brahms, Jacobs-Priebe, & Owens 2014). In addition, today’s maker movement is defined as

nurturing community of learners or “makers” (Sheridan, et al., 2014). The community of makers

is strengthened through district-wide and national Maker Faires that can offer members of the

maker community a vital platform for sharing their work.

Sheridan, et al. (2014) explains the value of the multidisciplinary learning approach,

“Makerspaces seem to break down disciplinary boundaries in ways that facilitate process- and

44

product-oriented practices, leading to innovative work with a range of tools, materials, and

processes” (p. 527).

Tishman (2014), notes, “While innovation and STEM tend to be the buzzwords

associated with the maker movement, when you talk with maker educators working in schools

and maker spaces, the real news is what kids are learning about collaboration, about community,

about complexity, and about themselves” (p. 6).

Makerspaces and transliteracy. The concept of multiliteracies is built on the belief that

knowledge is “embedded in social, cultural, and material contexts” (New London Group, 1996,

p. 82) and that learning transpires best through hands-on experience (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000).

Literacy scholars have advocated for a movement to redefine literacy in formal learning

environments (Barton, Hamilton, & Ivanic, 2000; New London Group, 1996; Lankshear &

Knobel, 2003). Amongst the rise of many new forms of digital media, these scholars are

proponents of a shift in our understanding of literacy.

Makerspaces are ideal locations for the application of transliteracy approaches to

learning. Multimodal literacy scholars believe that new media and technologies are “increasing

complexity and inter-relationship of different modes of meaning” (New London Group, 1996, p.

79). The New London Group (1996) identifies six modes as resources for construction of

meaning-making processes: Linguistic, Visual, Audio, Gestural, Spatial, and Multimodal Design;

Multimodal Design unites all other modes as complex and fluid meaning-making networks. Each

mode consists of “Design Elements,” or features, that learners can use as resources for

representation. Redefining literacy to align with a multiliteracies perspective presents important

implications for the design of learning environments such as makerspaces.

45

A multiliteracies lens brings to light the relationship between a community and a learner.

From a communities of practice (Wenger, 1998) perspective, both participation in the space itself

and participation with other members are foundations for learning. Learning in makerspaces

often happens through a collaborative process. Makerspaces are unique reflections of their own

communities.

Communities of practice, participatory culture and makerspaces. Aligning with

multiliteracies scholars, Lave and Wenger (1991) describe knowledge as situated in specific

contexts, and meaning making as a result of what occurs through interactions with others in these

contexts. In a community of practice, learning is continuously happening (Lave & Wenger, 1991;

Wenger 1998). Learners become members of groups and build relationships with other members

through their participation in collective problem solving.

At the community level, which could refer to a school or any other community,

community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998, 2002) becomes a way to form

communities around new literacies. Participatory culture (Jenkins et al., 2006) is described as

multiple communities that practice and create through the use of different technologies and

media. A community Maker Faire is one example of this idea, as participants follow their

passions, create and learn as they go, then share their creations with others.

Litts (2015) asserts, “Both constructionism and multiliteracies are concerned with

building learners’ design literacies, putting engagement and conversation with design at the

forefront of learning.”

Constructionism and multiliteracies both feature community and space design as a key

feature of learning environments (Kafai, Peppler, & Chapman, 2009; Sawyer, 2006). Theorists

describe a natural progression from “messing around” to more deeply engaging with knowledge

46

as interest grows (Kafai & Harel, 1991; Ito, et. al., 2010). Makerspaces allow members to circle

from play to creation and back again to play, with an emphasis on process over product.

The cyclical nature of the design thinking process has shown to be effective at increasing

content knowledge and transfer (Fortus, Krajcik, Dershimer, Marx, & Mamlok-Naaman, 2005).

Even more, Halverson (2013) asserts that the creativity process itself provides evidence for

learning. The Design framework of multiliteracies (New London Group, 1996) explicates how

learners in makerspaces iteratively make meaning; makerspaces are full of resources with which

members design and “redesign,” creating new meaning and artifacts.

Litts (2015) notes, “Direct and indirect collaboration through space and people is the ‘air’

of makerspaces; it is what keeps them alive and well. The design of makerspaces is fueled by a

desire to make things with people, whether explicitly or implicitly. Sometimes makers work on

projects together, other times they work on similar projects next to each other, and still other

times they work on different projects individually, but in the same space… The gem of

makerspaces is that there are electrical, artistic, technical, mechanical, and myriad other types of

knowledge and expertise floating around the space in the form of people, tools, and other

materials/resources.”

While available resources vary across makerspaces, student makers are typically

encouraged to follow their individual passions. Whether they are creating artistic projects or

building new inventions, makers are connected by their interest in making and/or problem-

solving. Students use tools, materials, and resources to investigate and innovate. Placing learning

in real-world contexts and problems is a feature of makerspaces that aligns with situated learning

theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Prerequisites to authentic making include freedom and

autonomy.

47

The Maker Movement and Its Impact

The Maker Movement in education has emerged as a growing trend. Makerspaces are

appearing in a growing number of U.S. schools across the country. In a grass-roots fashion, the

movement is spreading by educators and school leaders who see the benefits that hands-on

learning activities have on engaging their students. The International Society of Technology

Educators received close to 4,000 proposal submissions for their annual conference, and they

aggregate the data to determine popular topics. The trending topics of 2016 all touched on

Makerspace activities: coding and robotics, Maker Movement, STEAM, student-driven learning,

and flexible learning environments (ISTE Connects, 2016).

Dougherty (2012) discusses the momentum that teachers have brought to the movement,

and urges institutions to consider the maker movement as a model for developing organizations

to foster talent that he believes may lead to a more innovative economy and society at large (p.

12). In his study entitled, “Digital Fabrication and ‘Making’ in Education: The Democratization

of Invention,” Blikstein (2013) explores the implementation of ‘FabLabs’ for digital fabrication,

a branch of the maker movement. He describes the movement towards making as a part of an

expansion of acceptable disciplinary knowledge within formal education settings. Blikstein

(2013) believes that creation of a maker culture will lead to future innovation. He writes, “Digital

fabrication and making could be a new and major chapter in this process of bringing powerful

ideas, literacies, and expressive tools to children. Today, the range of accepted disciplinary

knowledge has expanded to include not only programming, but also engineering and design. In

addition, there are calls everywhere for educational approaches that foster creativity and

inventiveness” (p. 2).

48

Makerspaces as constructivist learning environments are designed to inspire student

creativity and problem solving. In a self-directed learning situation, students become participants

in a natural learning cycle that leads to higher levels of engagement. Students pursue their

passions in a do-it-yourself space, with the teacher acting more peripheral than central to

learning. Students are challenged to be creators rather than consumers. Hagel, Seely, Brown, and

Davison (2010) describe the elements necessary to develop successful creation spaces--

participants, interactions, and environments (p. 140). Yet they also warn that achieving the

balance between “design and emergence is critical to sustainability and scaling of these

environments (p. 143). Blikstein (2013) describes this constructionist learning environment as

one where there is “...rarely a fixed curriculum,” and where “...Children use technology to build

projects, and teachers act as facilitators of the process” (p. 5).

An important factor in the success of a constructivist classroom is the teacher’s

understanding of constructivism (Windschitl, 2002). Thus, professional development is key for

those educators interested in creating successful makerspace learning environments. In addition

to development of engaging, hands-on activities, educators must create opportunities for sharing

and reflection to deepen the levels of learning.

Peppler and Bender also discuss the role of the teacher as facilitator within an

experiential environment where students are encouraged to use their imaginations. They explain

that teachers of maker classrooms should act as ‘trained facilitators’, as they help students

explore tools and ask, “What do you want to make today?” (Peppler and Bender, p. 23).

In addition to the potential that makerspaces have on increasing innovation and

developing creative artifacts, they also are social spaces where community is developed through

collaborations that emerge out of the design process. Peppler and Bender (2013) describe the

49

potential that makerspaces have on strengthening community through developing collaborative

projects that address local problems.

Foster (2014), finds that makers pursue other makers with expertise in their area of

interest. In describing the collective learning that takes place through making, the authors write,

“The makers participate and seek interdisciplinary communities of learners to make...they seek

relationships with individuals of different backgrounds than themselves and have a value for

knowledge” (p. 4).

Thus far, empirical studies have focused on what students learn through targeted making

activities, such as building circuits into textiles (Buechley, Peppler, Eisenbert, & Kafai, 2013) or

using a programming language such as Scratch for interactive media design (Resnick, M.,

Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernandez, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., et al., 2009). As

mentioned previously, despite the popularity of the topic, little documented research exists on the

processes of learning and level of engagement and/or achievement that may occur as a result of

makerspace projects.

Further research on learning within makerspaces is necessary to validate makerspaces as

settings that facilitate significant learning opportunities, both to policymakers, funders, and

practitioners. Design thinking involves both action and reflection and, therefore, can potentially

lead students to deeper levels of learning as well as development of self confidence. How do we

develop students’ risk taking capacities so that they are more comfortable with open ended

challenges and problem solving? Repeated exposure to makerspace activity, plotted in

longitudinal studies, might be helpful in moving understanding of design thinking and its impact

on development of critical thinking skills, forward.

50

The implementation of the maker movement within formal K-12 education may help

bridge the gap between formal classroom knowledge and real world problem solving. However,

more research needs to be done on best practices in implementation of makerspaces, perceptions

of educators and educational leaders about what the movement involves, and impact of

makerspaces on deeper levels of student engagement and learning. A research gap exists on the

connection of a maker culture to 21st century learning goals advocated by the Common Core

standards: specifically, collaboration, communication, creativity, and critical thinking. In

addition to helping students become more familiar with the ability to create ideas, helping

students to communicate their ideas effectively, collaborate with others, and think critically, may

help students meet the challenges of the twenty-first century (Trilling & Fadel, 2009).

Maker culture. The process of making, creating and experimenting is often part of a

hybrid approach which connects digital learning with design. In digital spaces, the use of Web

2.0 tools (e.g. blogs and wikis) and other representations (e.g.mindmapping and infographics)

promotes a creativity that involves the repurposing of ideas (NMC 2015). Innovations in

technology including 3D printers and robotics are often part of the maker process and at maker

events such as hackdays a variety of materials and tools are used (e.g. soldering irons, Lego,

sewing machines, Raspberry Pi Computers) for collaborative problem solving.

Maker cultures have been blossoming across the countries and even globally, both in K-

12 and Higher Ed worlds. At Harvard University, Karen Brennan imagined the lecture theatre

she was assigned to teach in, re-purposing it as a creator space. Working with a room of tiered,

fixed seats, she introduced small group working, experiential learning activities, and pasted the

walls with paper to encourage students to draw the flow of their ideas (NMC, 2015).

51

Other institutions are building new learning spaces from the ground up. Case Western

Reserve University has invested over $35 million in a project to create an innovation center that

has maker philosophy at its core. The “Think Box Centre for Innovation,” similarly, was

designed as a makerspace in which hands-on collaborative learning is the driving principle of

curriculum design. In 2014 Arizona State University held an international Maker Summit to open

a dialogue about integrating Maker Culture into degree programs and the admissions process

(NMC, 2015).

As part of a participatory planning study of Helsinki Central Library, authors

experimented with a form of collaborative brainstorming with and by “makers.” By drawing

elements from both lead-user workshops and participatory design, they conducted a study

allowing engagement with local maker communities to identify the issues relevant for a public

maker space in 2020. Participants envisioned a small, prototype maker space and were invited to

execute activities collaboratively. Results indicated that the constructivist opportunity to

experiment and create activities on a rolling basis resulted in a high level of engagement

(Hyysalo, 2014).

Adult learners who are given opportunities to think outside the box are more likely to

grow to embrace that philosophy and will be more likely to courageously model it through the

learning activities they design for their own classrooms.

There is a lack of research concerning how and if successful teachers continue to change

over time with sustained PD in innovative methods. One Iowa study was designed to address

such research gaps. The teacher leaders involved served as staff members for Iowa Chautauqua

and continue to develop and improve in their use of constructivist practices through sustained

52

training and activity. Results of the research indicate that the teacher leaders do continue to

develop further in their use of constructivist practices over time (Singh, 2012).

Educational leaders need to consider the importance of professional development as it

relates to best makerspace practices, in order to create and sustain a maker culture that uses

makerspaces to their full potential. Adult learners who are given opportunities to think outside

the box will grow to embrace that philosophy and will be more likely to courageously model it

through the learning activities they design for their own classrooms. This has repercussions for

makerspace implementation, which is more than just a matter of setting up a space with learning

resources. At its ideal, a makerspace is a student-centered learning zone that offers student voice

and choice as well as opportunities for students to develop 21st century skills.

Teaching for Understanding is an educational pedagogy that uses inquiry as a foundation

and framework. The concept of allowing for uncertainty permits the teacher to model thinking

and actions that the teacher hopes to elicit from students. Wiske, Franz & Breit, (2005) asserted

that teachers who are brave learners would be able to foster the same behavior in their students.

Unfortunately, researchers have found that many teachers are not adequately trained in how to

successfully implement creative, problem based learning projects. Geist and Hohn (2009)

reported that most preservice and practicing teachers do not have a strong background in the arts,

and therefore, are not proficient to develop engaging creative activities for the classroom.

Tomlinson (2001) addressed the importance of designing learning activities for all

students that emphasize critical and creative thinking. Tomlinson believed that classroom tasks

should require students to understand and apply ideas. Further, Tomlinson (2009) asserted that

teachers should facilitate instruction that offers a broad range of possibilities in order to address

53

the wide range of needs that students possess. Establishment of a maker culture in classrooms

and makerspaces through modeling may well offer a path toward addressing those needs.

Some researchers and practitioners have documented a drop in creativity and curiosity as

socialization becomes more important for students in the lower grades (Marcon, 1995; Timmel,

2001). Children may experience a loss in the ability to generate original ideas when they begin to

feel the pressure of conventionality (Runco, 2007). The decline in creative thinking may also be

a result of the increased emphasis on standardized testing, which has moved the emphasis in

schools toward rote learning, and away from critical, creative thinking activities. By adding the

“A” back (Arts) into STEM for a STEAM focus through creation of makerspace learning

opportunities, educators can support a needed re-focus on creative thinking skills across

curriculum areas.

Sousa (2009) explored the use of Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy in the classroom in

conjunction with creative experiences, showing them to bring about deep levels of engagement

with content material. Sousa asserted that creative, artistic activities connect students to

themselves and to others because students draw upon their own resources to produce the result.

Sousa highlighted the addition of a new level of Bloom’s Taxonomy, “Create,” added in 2001.

Moga, Berger, Hetland, and Winner (2000) emphasized that the inclusion of the arts in

school can foster creative thinking skills in other content areas beyond the arts. Maker activities

extend STEM learning as students create products to address real world problems.

The Componential Theory of Creativity (Amabile, 1996) defines creativity as the result

of a confluence of factors. Other studies confirm Amabile’s theory, that creativity is the result of

using creative approaches for thinking differently, of being intrinsically motivated in the process,

and having expert knowledge of the content, and knowing how to use available resources

54

(Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Simonton, 2000). Makerspace activities have the potential to deepen

understanding of content, to increase practice with creativity skills, and to increase motivation

and engagement through an encouraging environment where students feel safe to take risks.

Through experimentation and tinkering, students build confidence in a safe environment where

new ideas and risk taking are the norm.

Assessment in makerspaces. The literature on assessment in makerspaces is lacking.

However, comparable research exists in assessing outcomes for problem based learning, which is

similar. In PBL, students are presented with an open ended problem that mirrors the complexities

of real-world issues. There is not one defined answer, and multiple solutions may help the

participants define which result may best fit the issue. In makerspaces, students often brainstorm

a solution to a real-world problem that they have identified. As with PBL, there are multiple

solutions and approaches. Problem-based learning lends itself to performance-based assessments;

and makerspace learning falls under the umbrella of performance-based activities.

Luterbach and Brown (2011) maintained that teachers should not try to assess students on

4C’s skills using testing methods from the nineteenth century. The authors asserted that not all

learning could be measured through multiple choice testing. They proposed that assessments of

student knowledge should be diverse because assessments should document specific 4C’s skills

and knowledge, thereby revealing a student's ability to be an innovative problem-solver. The

authors preferred assessment ideas include keeping records of student abilities in a computer

inventory of accomplishments and compiling student work in digital portfolios (Luterbach &

Brown, 2011).

The Miami Museum of Science ("Alternative Assessment Definitions," 2001)

recommends four types of alternative assessment: performance based, authentic/project, portfolio

55

and journal. Design journals may be analyzed as a means to demonstrate growth over time.

Analysis of a student’s design journal could provide evidence of iteration, recognizing errors,

solving problems and metacognition. Competencies that can be assessed in a makerspace

include both hard skills such as working with tools and manipulating materials; and soft skills

such as determination, teamwork and effort; design thinking, craftsmanship, community building

and content understanding (Yokana 2015).

The portfolio is a commonly used makerspace assessment tool in many districts, though

much makerspace learning at this point in time remains informal and undocumented. Web tools

can be used to develop online portfolios (Chang and Ratliff, 2015). Portfolios are used to

document and share student maker projects, with the development of the portfolio considered a

valuable skill by itself as students learn how to express themselves and document their work

(Chang and Ratliff, 2015).

The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21) is a US based cross sector non-profit

organization with education, government, and industry partners that focuses on the nature of

learning in the 21st century, supporting educators in aligning their curricula with innovations in

education, and showcasing examples of strategies and policies to enhance education outcomes

(P21, 2016). P21 identifies the importance of the 4Cs: critical thinking, communication,

collaboration, and creativity, as an area of educational importance along with Life and Career

Skills and Information, Media, and Technology Skills. The P21 Framework for 21st Century

Learning focuses on the value of learners as engaged critical thinkers with a broad knowledge

base.

Computational thinking is one more lens through which we can view the constructivist

approach with tangible products and outcomes. The International Society for Technology

56

Educators and the Computer Science Teachers Association created a definition of computational

thinking with the input of hundreds of educators, researchers and industry leaders. These groups

describe CT as a problem-solving process with many distinguishing characteristics. First, the

user can articulate a problem in a way that enables a computer or other tools to assist in its

solution. Data is logically arranged so that it can be analyzed; data is abstracted through models

and simulations. A series of ordered steps, or algorithmic thinking, is used to automate solutions.

Consolidating steps and resources to improve efficiency are key. Any given problem can be

generalized, and transfer can occur across additional problems. Moreover, they defined

dispositions associated with CT: poise while working with complexity, perseverance when faced

with hard problems, lenience when dealing with ambiguity, aptitude when facing open-ended

problems, and the capability to work with others to attain a common goal (Barr & Stephenson,

2011). Computational thinking is not regulated to dealing with computers, but rather the

principles and approaches of analytical problem solving that derive from computer science

(Wing, 2006).

There are three different commonly used strategies for assessing the development of

computational thinking. Researchers at Harvard’s ScratchEd online community use three

approaches: (1) artifact-based interviews, (2) design scenarios, and (3) learner documentation.

They have focused on evolving familiarity and fluency with computational thinking practices.

The focus on practices emerged through work with young learners — “realizing that most

concept-oriented assessments (e.g., checking for the presence of particular blocks in a projects as

indicators of concept fluency, quizzes about definitions of concepts) were insufficient in

representing a learner's development as a "computational thinker".”

57

District Implementation of Makerspaces

More and more districts across the U.S. are joining the maker movement, whether

through development of cutting edge makerspaces with new, expensive technologies or simpler,

low key versions of the same with low cost materials such as screwdrivers, Legos and crayons.

Educators and educational leaders are embracing the idea of learning through making and are

launching makerspaces that allow students to guide themselves through hands-on learning that

blends core curriculum concepts with future-ready skills including the 4C’s of creativity,

communication, collaboration and critical thinking.

Districts vary widely in their makerspace implementation strategies. Some are creating

makerspaces in all of their buildings, while others are starting with small, pilot makerspaces in

individual classrooms or libraries.

In Albemarle, Virginia, all 26 schools have makerspaces and advanced tech tools

including 3D printers and laser cutters. In one exemplary makerspace programming activity

there, students cut down trees and worked through several designs before completing movable,

nine-foot platforms in their cafeteria. Ira Socol, the district’s assistant director for educational

technology and innovation, stated:

We don’t separate maker time from curricular time. Making is how we teach and how

kids learn; instead of viewing it as an add-on, we’ve tried to embed it throughout the

curriculum… Suddenly you’ve got kids who normally might be failing math now

working in very high-level trigonometry and calculus.” (DA Special Report, 2017)

Making goes beyond STEM to include STEAM concepts in Albermarle. For example,

high school students from one of the district’s poorest neighborhoods created Rube Goldberg-

like devices to depict the heroic narratives they had read in language arts classes. A ball bearing

58

(symbolizing the hero on a quest) starts rolling on a track attached to a wall; it then falls onto the

F9 key on a keyboard, which boots up a Minecraft episode that also sends an alert to an attached

cell phone. The buzzing phone starts the next ball bearing rolling off a table. Students’ ideas,

rather than Standards, guide these projects. “In our definition of maker work,” Socol stated, “we

talk about what students’ passions are, and we fit them into curriculum.” (DA Special Report,

2017).

Winnetka Public Schools outside Chicago uses the term “HAMSTER” (humanities, arts,

math, science, technology engineering and reading) to describe the work done in its

makerspaces. In early elementary grades, teachers introduce their classes to maker projects. On

the first day, students might play with Hot Wheels cars and tracks. Over the next few days, they

tackle design challenges that force them to raise and lower tracks, and then begin measuring

speed and distances. Maureen Chertow Miller, the district’s director of technology, said, “We

don’t want students to consider these spaces just places where they get to go and tinker for 40

minutes. We want this to be something they can apply to the world around them. (DA Special

Report, 2017).

In rural Llano ISD in Texas, students get bonus points if they use skills learned in

makerspaces in their regular classrooms. In one project, students 3D-printed replicas of cells,

rather than the traditional Styrofoam ball models. One student added electric circuits. Before

they can start building, students have to research their ideas and write proposals describing their

projects in well-articulated detail.

But math, writing and science aren’t the only core concepts that transfer back to the

regular classrooms. In Llano, as well as in Carmel Central School District in New York,

educators have seen behavior improve among students who consider using the makerspace to be

59

a special privilege.

“The teachers are not doing much classroom management because the kids want to be there—

you’re getting 100 percent out of them,” Rob Leonard, from the technology department at

Carmel High School, said, “It eliminates a lot of disciplinary problems.” (DA Special Report,

2017).

Carmel doesn’t allows middle and high school students to work (supervised by teachers)

during free periods or after school in two of the high school’s makerspaces. For academic

assessment, teachers can measure students’ progress in a variety of ways, such as by setting and

measuring goals, requiring presentations about makerspace projects, and regular observation.

(DA Special Report, 2017).

These examples illustrate just some of the many paths toward makerspace

implementation across the U.S. at this time. The makerspaces are driven by new technologies

and an emphasis on fostering STEM skills, but also by interest in promoting non-academic, “soft

skills” qualities in students, such as creativity, problem-solving and determination. When it

comes to creating makerspaces across grade levels, the design and emphases differ widely from

school to school, district to district and state to state, focusing on particular skills, tools and types

of projects depending on the age of students and focus of educators and educational leaders.

Nearly two-thirds of the education leaders surveyed for “District Administration”

reported operating at least one makerspace in their districts. Most respondents described their

makerspaces as either “about average” or “basic” in terms of technology and scale. Reasons cited

by survey respondents on the launching of their makerspaces revolved around accelerating

learning: 75 percent said the hands-on projects engage students more deeply in the core

curriculum while also helping students develop soft skills such as teamwork, creativity, problem-

60

solving and learning from failure. Seventy percent also stated that makerspace experiences better

connect students to real-world innovation and entrepreneurship. Survey results showed that

participants’ makerspaces are evenly spread between elementary, middle and high schools.

Those district leaders who have not yet implemented makerspaces stated that they have not yet

done so due to expense and difficulty of assessing the learning (DA Special Report, 2017).

Many districts are pursuing partnerships and grant funding opportunities as a means to

build, implement and/or expand their makerspaces. For instance, in Western Pennsylvania,

Robert Morris University recently launched a partnership to add maker spaces in the Avonworth,

Cornell, Quaker Valley and Moon Area school districts. The partnership, dubbed the Ohio River

Consortium, secured a $225,000, two-year grant from the Grable Foundation, a Pittsburgh

nonprofit, to pay for materials, supplies and teacher training. The consortium's focus this year is

to bring maker education to the primary grades. It will concentrate on middle schools next year

(Raap, 2015).

In addition to universities, museums are logical partners in makerspace implementation.

For example, The Children's Museum of Pittsburgh pioneered the concept first by providing

maker workshops to more than 20 school districts. Ken Lockette, the district's assistant

superintendent, attended a maker boot camp three or four years ago at the Children's Museum

and became inspired. District officials installed a maker space a short while later in the

collaboration center, a shared space between the high school and middle school. They consulted

with the museum in designing the space. For the primary grades, a teacher wheeled a cart from

classroom to classroom and facilitated maker activities. Last year, teachers began using a

classroom in the Primary Center's basement as a maker space. The center has more than 400

students in kindergarten through second grade (Raap, 2015).

61

The district is using its share of the Ohio River Consortium grant to add a maker space to

its elementary school, which has 385 students in third through fifth grades.

“By the end of this year, we're going to have maker spaces in all our buildings,” Lockette said.

“Kids are going to have these experiences all the way from kindergarten up to 12th grade.”

(Raap, 2015).

Similarly, Other districts are beginning to incorporate “maker ed” into their curriculum.

Teachers are undergoing training. “This is a whole new concept for our staff, and it's a new

concept for me,” said Aaron Thomas, Cornell's superintendent. “It'll be ongoing throughout this

year. It'll not be done in a week or a month. It'll be continuing to transform.” (Raap, 2015).

As districts look to implement makerspaces, professional development needs to be

considered as well. In Avonworth, many teachers struggled at the onset of implementation of the

maker ed program. “It's very messy. The traditional way of teaching is easier,” Ralston said.

“To say, ‘I'm going to give a test every Friday and these are going to be things I go through in

my lectures,' that's simple. But when you're designing an activity that you don't really know

which way it's going to go when the kids start on it, that's difficult.” Despite a bumpy start, the

shift has been worth it, said Becky Kolesar, a third-grade teacher at Avonworth Elementary

School (Raap, 2015).

As an example of an in-school makerspace designed from the ground up, Lane Tech

College Preparatory High School in Chicago created an environment rarely seen in high schools,

where lack of space is typically the norm (THE Journal, 2016). The Lane Tech Innovation and

Creation Lab is clean, open, and equipped with four Epilog laser cutters, 10 MakerBot and UP!

3D printers, six ShapeOko2 CNC mills, four Silhouette Cameo vinyl cutters, four MakerBot 3D

Scanners, 30 Mac- Book Pro Retina laptops, two 15-foot wall projectors, a mobile Smart Board,

62

multiple custom-designed workspaces with power drops, collaboration spaces with HDTV and

laptop HDMI switching, a large variety of production and prototyping materials along with

power and hand tools (THE Journal, 2016).

School libraries and makerspaces. AASL’s Standards for the 21st-Century Learner

outline provides guidelines for effective teaching that inspires students. The standards encourage

school library programs to support the development of certain learner dispositions that reflect

and support these goals (AASL 2009). According to Standards for the 21st Century Learner in

Action, “Acquiring knowledge alone does not guarantee that this learning will be used and

applied. Learning in the twenty-first century also requires a capacity to learn that reflects a range

of dispositions: to be curious, resilient, flexible, imaginative, critical, reflective, and self-

evaluative” (AASL 2009, 40). Makerspaces make sense as a resource toward this end goal.

Although Makerspaces began as informal centers for tinkering and creating, their goals

overlap with the goals of formal education and many of the dispositions listed in the AASL

Standards. Students in makerspaces: display initiative and engagement by positing questions and

investigating the answers beyond the collection of superficial facts (1.2.1); demonstrate

adaptability by changing the inquiry focus, questions, resources, or strategies when necessary to

achieve success (1.2.5); use both divergent and convergent thinking to formulate alternative

conclusions and test them against evidence (2.2.2); demonstrate leadership and confidence by

presenting ideas to others in both formal and informal situations (3.2.1); demonstrate motivation

by seeking information to answer personal questions and interests, trying a variety of formats

and genres, and displaying a willingness to go beyond academic requirements (4.2.2); maintain

openness to new ideas by considering divergent opinions, changing opinions or conclusions

when evidence supports the change, and seeking information about new ideas encountered

63

through academic and personal experience (4.2.3) (AASL 2009).

Many schools across the country are incorporating Makerspaces into their school

libraries, oftentimes through the leadership of their library media specialists, who see

makerspaces as a natural complement to more traditional library program offerings. The ways

districts are utilizing their libraries in implementation of makerspaces varies widely from locale

to locale.

Though scheduling, layout and materials may differ, commonalities exist in terms of the

overall purpose of these library makerspaces which allow for access to equipment and materials

along with student opportunity for the free pursuit of creative interests and activities.

School library media centers, as independent learning zones, have much in common with

makerspaces, as locations in school buildings that allow for and encourage independent learning

and exploration of personal interests through provision of resources and various forms of media.

Through the maker movement, however, library makerspaces are blossoming in innovative ways

that utilize more technology, tools and advanced resources. “It is a more focused, dedicated and

intentional effort blending creativity, inquiry and kinesthetics.” (Loertscher, Preddy & Derry,

2013). Makerspaces are an increasingly prominent fixture within libraries that transform the

library into a place of creation (Britton 2012).

As a connecting channel between students’ personal interests and classroom curriculum,

the school library serves as an ideal focal point for makerspace philosophy. School libraries are

natural hubs of learning, innovation and collaboration, whose purpose is to provide equal and

free access to materials and learning opportunities. “When school libraries, educational

curriculum and maker mentality work together both practically and ideologically, it is ultimately

students who will benefit in this new model for education.” (Gustafson, 2013).

64

Making is an activity that encourages students to use the library in a new way: to create,

use, and share (Canino-Fluit, 2014). When makerspaces are incorporated into libraries, patrons

are offered new opportunities to collaborate, learn through play, problem solve, build,

investigate, and produce (Britton, 2012). No two makerspaces are the same. Some emphasize

technology from 3D printers and imaging computers; robotics and electronics; to lego

Mindstorms. Other emphasize the arts, and may feature materials ranging from vinyl and laser

cutters to poster makers and music recording equipment.

Programs that are rich in content that crosses discipline areas and promotes higher order,

creative thinking, hands-on learning and student voice will provide meaning to students beyond

the meeting of college prep requirements and engage their full beings.

Makerspaces are an ideal path toward development of higher order thinking and creativity.

Eisner states, “What school programs tend to emphasize is the development of a

constricted conception of thinking. Not all thinking is mediated by words or numbers, nor is all

thinking rule-abiding. Many of the most productive modes of thought are nonverbal and

illogical. These modes operate in visual, auditory, metaphoric, synesthetic ways and use forms of

conception and expression that far exceed the limits of logically prescribed criteria or discursive

or mathematical forms of thinking. When attention to such intellectual processes, or forms, of

thinking is absent or marginal, they are not likely to be developed within school programs,

although their development might take place outside of school.” (Eisner, 1994).

Tinkering and making reflect a history of pedagogical theory based on practical, physical,

and learner-driven inquiries advanced by educators such as Dewey (1938), Papert (1980) and

others. In the context of tinkering, students and experts work side by side, assist one another, and

shift roles depending on the task, goals, or tools at hand. These interactions support learning and

65

identity development in ways that align with theories of learning developed by Vygotsky (1978),

Friere (1970), and Lave and Wenger (1991).

Yet despite these pedagogical roots, and despite the growing popularity of the maker

movement, researchers have been challenged to articulate the learning that is possible through

makerspace activities. This may be due in part to narrow definitions of learning that have

emphasized content knowledge at the expense of creativity and other ways of learning/knowing.

This overemphasis on content over process has become more pronounced during the past two

decades, as accountability-based school improvement efforts accelerated (Stager & Martinez,

2013). The recent emphasis of the Framework for K-12 Science Education (National Research

Council [NRC], 2011) on the practices of science and engineering practices as a path toward the

development of conceptual understanding, critical thinking and deeper learning provides a new

opportunity to recognize how creative, open-ended learning activities can create deep insights,

identification, and understanding for the learner.

As library media specialists are charged with collaborating across discipline areas,

makerspace activity complements the recent emphasis on hands-on science and a cross-

disciplinary, STEAM centered approach to learning. Many library media specialists, working in

conjunction with administrators and classroom teachers, have taken a lead over the past several

years in makerspace implementation by creating space and tools for it and by encouraging a

maker culture within their school communities. While forward thinking educational leaders are

taking a district-wide approach to Makerspace implementation, some library media specialists

find themselves alone in terms of support and funding within their districts. As districts look to

persuade stakeholders of the benefits of makerspaces, one large selling point is their reach, which

extends in school libraries across grade levels and subject areas.

66

Professional development. As districts begin strategic implementation of makerspaces,

professional development for library media specialists and teachers becomes an important

consideration. Educational leaders are asking questions about the skills, knowledge and aptitudes

necessary to implement makerspaces in reference to the core mission and goals of the library as

well as larger school and district wide strategic goals.

Similar to the establishment of a “PLC” or professional learning community,

establishment of a maker community and/or maker culture takes time and effort. By looking at

research into successful PLC implementation it is possible to identify steps toward establishment

of a maker culture, in that both require collaboration and an environment where risk taking is

encouraged.

To effect successful PLC cultures, districts ideally engage in professional behaviors

focused on five critical practices: ownership in decision making, re-culturing the organization

and professional staff, establishing organizational learning theory protocols, evaluating

organizational learning theory practices, and creating a sustainability plan. Adherence to these

five practices institutes operational and conceptual learning consistent with organizational

learning theory and creates a culture of professional learning district-wide (Boone, 2014).

In one large scale study, investigators sought to understand how collaborative teacher

interaction is contingent upon teacher characteristics and school-organizational contexts. The

study conducted a series of linear modeling analyses based on a nationally representative sample

of about 2,500 teachers across 149 middle schools in South Korea. The data are from the OECD

Teaching and Learning International Survey 2008. The results from this study suggests that

teacher collegiality may be understood largely as teachers’ collective effort to deal with

67

uncertainties that arise from their approach to teaching as a constructivist endeavor to engage

students in meaningful inquiry-based learning.

Since makerspaces tend to be less formally structured, educators in these settings need to

learn the best strategies for facilitating student learning in an open-ended environment. The

problem-based learning literature emphasizes the need for staff development for successful

implementation (Stepien, Gallagher, & Workman, 1993). Administrative understanding of the

function and benefits of makerspace learning environments is critical.

Makerspace teaching runs against the grain of the training received by many educators.

Thus, professional development needs to explicitly address practices for maximizing makerspace

engagement and learning in order for makerspaces to be more than just resource centers housing

shiny objects. Related professional development needs to provide collaborative opportunities for

educators to share with each other about their makerspace experiences.

Feedback is best received in an environment of safety in which all learners feel valued,

and in an environment of open curiosity where questioning is encouraged and not knowing is

considered the natural entry point to discovery and engagement with learning material.

Both principals and teachers contribute to shared instructional leadership. Principals and

teachers contribute to the leadership equation in each school in different ways, according to

school context and personnel. Research shows that teachers learn more when teachers and

principals strike the right balance between the status quo and intentional movement toward

purposeful change. Other factors that influence teacher learning include the shared belief that

teachers can and must educate every student, and respectful, open relationships among

colleagues. With these conditions, teachers learn to be better teachers and student achievement

increases (Printy, 2006).

68

Sternberg (2015) notes, “When people are used to doing things in a certain way, they

often do not change how they do things unless they have to. And if there is no reward in teaching

for creativity, few teachers are likely to venture into that endeavor. So nothing changes because

nothing has to” (p. 116). Yet, research shows evidence of the power of creative learning

environments and possibilities for exemplary, 4C’s learning models that emphasize deep levels

of learning (Davies, Dean, & Ball, 2013; Craft, Cremin, Hay, & Clack, 2014).

Zhao (2012) notes “making” is product oriented, creative, and active; “making” is the

antithesis of what schooling has been for students as “passive consumers and recipients of

whatever adults give them: books, facilities, knowledge, tests, and disciplines” (Zhao, 2012, p.

209). According to Martin (2015), making activities promote elements of learning often missing

in traditional public education. These elements of “maker mindset” include the following

characteristics: playful, asset- and growth-oriented, failure positive, and collaborative (p. 7;

Martin, 2015). Research on tinkering (making) found that in the process of tinkering the learner

is met with a learning environment containing an abundance of different tools and resources

without an immediately identifiable plan (Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013). Petrich et al. (2013)

said, “The process of becoming stuck and then ‘unstuck’ is at the heart of tinkering” (p. 55)

Still, educators question how makerspace activities meet curricular requirements and

standards based learning (Vossoughi & Bevan, 2015). Bevan et al. (2015) noted, “the informal

science field has been challenged to articulate the learning that is possible or that has been

realized through tinkering programs” (p. 100). Educators want to know, “What is learned here?”

and “How does this learning translate to the disciplines and domains that we care about in K-12

education?” (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014, p. 501). In my own district, one library media

69

colleague descriptively referred to the challenges of her makerspace learning environment as

“the chaos of the Wild West.”

Bevan et al. (2015) documented the activity of youth participants framed by the

Tinkering Learning Dimensions Framework, a tool that was previously developed by the lead

author of the study. The Tinkering Learning Dimensions Framework (TLDF) was refined

concurrently with the case study (Bevan et al., 2015). The Framework is organized around four

learning dimensions: 1) Engagement; 2) Initiative and intentionality; 3) Social scaffolding; and

4) Development of understanding.

During the investigation Bevan et al. (2015) found participants displayed aspects of the

four learning dimensions. For evidence of engagement, learners spent time tinkering in activities,

played, explored, and tried things over and over. The learners also remained after they finished

one activity to start something new (Bevan et al., 2015, p.104).

Participants showed initiative and focused determination by persisting in the face of

frustration and showing confidence when disagreeing with each other, demonstrating intrinsic

task motivation (Bevan et al., 2015, p. 104). Participants sought feedback and when stuck,

attempted to use innovative approaches as modeled by facilitators. In this way, participants

responded to appropriate extrinsic motivation. The participants used the social environment to

ask for help or inspiration for new ideas, to connect and collaborate with other workers, and to

use available tools (Bevan et al., 2015, p. 105). The Makerspace provided a safe environment for

risk taking and failure.

In addition, participants in the study showed their understanding of content or attainment

of new skills through their explanations, which showed connections to prior knowledge as well

70

as new knowledge. They strove to understand fully through questioning, and expressed

enthusiasm and excitement when completing projects (Bevan et al., 2015, p. 105).

Another case study by Voussoughi et. al (2015) investigated the activities of students in

an after school Tinkering program serving minority youth. The program is designed to engage

students in designing and building a variety of projects through a workshop model curriculum.

Projects are STEM related and have an added artistic dimension. Observations included:

“orientations towards iteration, drafts, and mistakes; increasing curiosity about the process

through which artifacts and machines are made; the appropriation of tinkering practices across

activities/settings; growing confidence in problem solving, tool-use and scientific language; and

new forms of collaboration” (p. 46).

In makerspace settings, the degree of training the facilitator teachers receive could

influence the degree of success or failure of the learners. The comfort level, or discomfort level

of the facilitator in a chaotic, “Wild West” learning environment more than likely plays a role in

makerspace learning and student engagement, though more research needs to be done in this

area.

Districts are approaching makerspace professional development in a wide range of ways.

Some invite the expertise of guest makers to share their craft (Sheridan et al. 2014). Within a

school, teachers are often recruited to serve as mentors through professional development on

making and to share about curricular connections (Plemons 2014). Some makerspace facilitators

also utilize their own students as mentors to new makers. Sheridan et al. (2014) noted that

leadership is often distributed in makerspaces with participants creating in a cross-disciplinary

fashion in the same space. “Educators should understand some of the unique challenges inherent

71

in facilitating learners as they undertake their own interest-driven and discovery-oriented

projects in makerspaces.” (Oliver, 2016).

Studies on diffusion of innovation, technology and makerspace integration. Schools

are often able to clearly articulate the innovations they hope to achieve; however,

implementation continues to be an area of struggle (Frank, Zhao & Borman, 2004). To affect

true, broad reaching change, attention must be given to the organization’s structures and social

systems (Frank et al., 2004).

Stosic & Stosic (2013) found that innovation in education is not the current norm in spite

of the word being used widely in educational circles. Within the DoI framework, the findings

suggest that the lack of innovation is largely the result of limited access to experts in the area of

innovation, along with the failure of the organization to prepare their infrastructure or provide

professional development to teaching staff prior to implementation. Teacher preparation and

support are essential in bringing innovation forward to transform teaching and learning (Stosic &

Stosic, 2013).

“The choice to adopt a new technology requires the knowledge that it exists and

information concerning its suitability to the potential adopter’s situation” (Levin, Stephan, &

Winkler, 2012, p. 1774). The rate at which an innovation is successfully implemented is thus

dependent on the effective communication of objectives, urgency of timeline established and

available organizational resources.

Time is another critical factor in the implementation of any given innovation. In helping

teachers understand the purpose of an innovation, teachers are more likely to provide the time

needed for the innovation (Kebritchi, 2010). Opportunities need to be structured in for

collaboration, professional development and implementation practice (Kebritchi, 2010).

72

In the case of makerspaces, educators need to understand the value behind their

implementation as well as the strategies for maximizing learning outcomes through them.

Teacher leaders, library media specialists and other tech integration specialists can serve as role

models in the implementation process to pave the way for others. Frank et al. (2004) studied

schools in the process of implementing computer integration. He noted that communication and

collaboration is a reciprocal process throughout any given innovation implementation, and that

members of the social system of an organization continuously influence one another (Frank et

al., 2004). Peer to peer learning and sharing is important, and when teachers have ownership in

professional learning related to the implementation of a given innovation, sustainability of the

innovation becomes possible (Hung, Lee, & Lim, 2010).

Trentin (2012) notes that an organization must develop an effective innovation strategy

such that the innovation becomes an integrated part of the system rather than just an “add on.” In

the case of makerspaces, curriculum connections and collaborative teaching and learning

activities thus make sense as two strong innovation strategies to connect makerspace activity

with classroom learning. But they are only a starting point; two paths amongst many.

Laura Fleming, author of “Worlds of Making,” and a library media specialist and

makerspace expert from Milford, New Jersey, states “Simply understanding the value of

innovation is not enough. Innovation is unpredictable and by nature should be free form.

Attempts should not be made to put it in any sort of box, however, developing a strategy for how

you will nurture and cultivate that innovation is critical. Without an explicit strategy, you end up

with pockets of innovation, that although have value, sometimes are not valued and even flat out

ignored. The goal of having an innovation strategy is to build internal capacity and effectively

73

leveraging that in order to lead to systemic changes, that ultimately all learners will benefit from”

(Fleming, 2015).

Summary

This literature review explored the innovation of makerspace learning environments in

schools and libraries across the country. Specifically, the review defined makerspaces; explored

their impact on student engagement and deeper learning including 4C’s skills development

(communication, collaboration, creativity and critical thinking); investigated the ways in which

districts are pursuing and rolling out makerspaces; and examined how districts are utilizing

school libraries to implement their makerspace programs. The review concluded with an

overview of studies that look at the Diffusion of Innovation framework in relation to technology

and makerspace integration efforts.

As previously stated, the skills that students require for college and career readiness have

radically changed (OECD, 2015). Educators must prepare students to compete in a globalized,

interconnected world with 21st century skills including the 4C’s of collaboration,

communication, critical thinking and creativity (OECD, 2015; Partnership for 21st Century

Skills, 2009). Thus, educators must adopt innovative approaches that embrace inquiry-based

teaching and learning. Inquiry-based, technology rich, cross-disciplinary, STEM/STEAM

approaches to teaching engage students and inspire them to construct new knowledge, problem

solve, create and have an authentic voice in their own learning (Fullan and Langworthy, 2014;

Groff, 2013; Huberman et al., 2014; OECD, 2015; Zhao, 2012). In response to the current call

for change in educational approaches, many districts are implementing makerspace learning

environments.

74

As interest in makerspaces continues to expand, there is a growing need to document the

learning that takes place in makerspaces, the level of student engagement, and the conditions,

teaching methods, resources and space utilization that leads to optimal learning outcomes in

makerspace environments. There is also a need to document how districts are pursuing the

implementation of makerspaces and how districts are utilizing school libraries and the expertise

of school library media specialists in their implementation process.

Adoption of new learning environments poses unique challenges for educators (Groff,

2013). Teachers need ongoing professional development and the support of leaders in making a

successful transition (Keengwe & Onchwari, 2011). Ertmer et al. (2012) notes that professional

development that focuses on strategies that facilitate changes in attitudes and beliefs is essential.

As noted earlier, teachers need reassurance that the “chaos of the Wild West” is both manageable

and has something to offer them in terms of student learning outcomes.

As school districts implement makerspace programs, understanding the elements of

Diffusion of Innovation, including communication channels, time and social systems, can

provide insight into potential barriers and strategies for implementation success (Frank, et al.,

2004; Kebritchi, 2010; Stosic & Stosic, 2013). Innovations succeed and are sustained when a

clear vision is articulated by leaders, valued by organizational members, communicated

frequently to stakeholders and implemented alongside ongoing professional development (Frank

et al., 204; Kebritchi, 2010; Stosic & Stosic, 203).Thus, understanding of the elements of DoI

research is revealing of the impact of makerspaces on teaching and learning.

75

Chapter III: Methodology The proposed study sought to answer how administrators, library media specialists,

teachers and students perceive the implementation and impact of a district wide makerspace

initiative, with a particular focus on its impact on teaching, student engagement, and student

learning. The case study methodology is well suited to addressing the problem of practice

because, as Merriam (1985) states, “The case study offers a framework for investigating complex

social units containing multiple variables. Grounded in real life context, the case study, as a

holistic, life-like account offers insights and illuminates meanings” (p. 210).

By linking the Diffusion of Innovation (DoI) theoretical framework with the current

practices of the proposed district research site, this researcher hoped to increase the knowledge

and understanding of the identified phenomenon for her district if not others, resulting in

research based findings (Culpin & Scott, 2011).

The specific focus of this study was to investigate how district stakeholders –

administrators, media and instructional technology specialists, teachers, and students – perceive

new makerspaces are making an impact in the district, in particular on student engagement,

deeper learning, and 21st century skills (communication, collaboration, critical thinking and

creativity).

Research Questions

Four questions guided this research study:

1. How has the district organized its structures, practices, and use of resources to

support purposeful implementation of makerspaces with the specific intent of

fostering students’ deeper learning and 4C’s skills development?

2. What do stakeholders perceive as the outcomes and impact of the makerspaces?

76

3. What do stakeholders perceive as the challenges of the makerspaces?

4. What could stakeholders be doing to better support student learning in makerspaces?

Research Paradigm and Study Propositions

As this researcher is sought to understand the perceptions of library media and

instructional technology specialists, classroom teachers, administrator and student participant

groups included in this study, she usde the constructivist-interpretivist paradigm as a lens. The

constructivist-interpretivist paradigm allowed the researcher to understand how the participants

make sense of their reality. Since this researcher is a member of the organization intended for the

proposed study, the constructivist-interpretivist paradigm aligned well with the sense-making

process which will result from interviews with the focus groups (Ponterrato, 2005). To confront

biases, the researcher developed propositions outlining her assumptions based on the work of

Yin (1981; 1997; 2009; 2012; 2013) and Stake (1995). Propositions supported the researcher’s

direction, scope and data collection, providing a useful guide for the study (Miles, Huberman;

Saldana, 2015; Stake, 1995). The propositions follow:

- Organizations that diffuse innovations with intention and clear purpose, addressing

existing social systems, time and communication channels, will have a greater

likelihood of achieving their intended objectives.

- Library Media Specialists and Instructional Technology Specialists, working in

conjunction with educational leaders within their buildings, can take the lead in

successful makerspace implementation given opportunities for collaboration, support,

resources and time.

77

- Students will experience increased engagement, the acquisition of 21st century skills

including the 4C’s (creativity, collaboration, communication and critical thinking),

and opportunities for deeper learning in makerspace environments.

Research Tradition

Sharon Merriam, Robert Stake and Robert Yin, seminal researchers of case study

research, agree that case studies support different purposes from topic exploration and

examination to building theory. Merriam (1985) defines case study as “an intensive, holistic

description and analysis of the phenomenon or social unit being studied” (p. 206). Analysis

occurs through the study of multiple sources of data (Merriam, 1998; Stake, 1994; Yin, 2012).

As such, the case study approach aligns with the intention of this study to understand the

pheonomenon of makerspace implementation at the proposed site.

Through case studies, the researcher provides a deep description and holistic

understanding not possible with quantitative measures (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Merriam, 1998;

Stake, 1978, 1995; Yin, 2013). Quantitative studies often fail to capture context and the lived

experiences of the participants (Radley & Chamberlain, 2012). The case study approach allowed

this researcher to use rich description to provide relevant findings that educational leaders,

library media and instructional technology specialists and classroom teachers can consider when

implementing makerspaces in their educational settings.

The case study is one of the most commonly utilized qualitative research methods, yet

educational researchers as well as the general public often question its usefulness, validity, and

application. Critics who gravitate toward the straightforward logic of quantitative research often

miss the value inherent in qualitative case study research. This criticism has hindered full

acceptance of qualitative case study research methodology (Yazan, 2015).

78

Most case studies attempt to answer “who”, “how”, and “why” questions (Baxter & Jack,

2008; Farquhar, 2012; Yin, 1998). Case studies can also be used if a researcher is interested in a

process, monitoring, causal explanation, or study of unique situations (Merriam, 1998). Data

from case study research is collected from a wide range of sources (Yazan, 2015). This allows

for depth of understanding of a phenomenon that is based in a specific context (Farquhar, 2012).

Moreover, case studies can be qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods and they can

incorporate other research methodologies, such as phenomenology.

Three main seminal authors, Merriam (1998), Stake (1995), and Yin (1998), offer

different approaches to case study methodology. Researchers may choose to follow a single

approach or to integrate parts from various approaches (Farquhar, 2012; Yazan, 2015), providing

flexibility and customization according to topic and individual situation.

Merriam’s approach to case study has the goal of gaining understanding through a deep

level of inquiry. The approach includes several types of case studies, including ethnographic,

historical, historical-organizational, psychological, sociological, interpretive/analytical, and

evaluative case studies (Merriam, 1998).

Stake’s approach emphasizes multiple perspectives, with researchers acting in the role of

interpreters (Yazan, 2015) who make sense of their world.

This researcher utilized an instrumental case study approach. Instrumental case studies

provide insight into a phenomenon (Stake, 1995). As explained through the philosophy behind

the approach, processes for data collection, data analysis and presentation of findings, the case

study methodology is best suited to studies that examine a specific phenomenon within the

boundaries of its immediate context. The researcher selects the case that provides the best

opportunity to understand the phenomenon they have targeted (Stake, 1995). In this study, the

79

researcher selected the proposed district for the potential insights that she can provide for use by

other educators and policy makers in implementation of makerspace programs.

Further, this researcher focused her study on embedded units within the district

(Creswell, 2012). These embedded units included district and building administrators, library

media and instructional technology specialists, classroom teachers and coordinators of STEAM

related subjects (Science, Arts, Mathematics) and students from elementary, middle and high

school grade levels (see Table 1). In examining these embedded units of stakeholders, she

developed an understanding of the perceptions of library media and instructional technology

specialists, district and building level administrators, classroom teachers and students within and

across these focus groups. Researchers use single case studies to investigate a representative case

(Yin, 2009). This researcher used a single district as the site for the proposed study. Data

collection included interviews with administrator, library media and instructional technology

specialists (Digital Literacy Team members), classroom teachers and student focus groups. The

collection and analysis of data is critical to the presentation of valid, reliable, generalizable

findings in case studies (Creswell, 2012).

80

Table 1 Planned Stakeholder Individuals and Groups that Participated in the Study

Stakeholders Focus Group and Individual

Interview Participants

Number of Individual and

Focus Group Participants

Administrators Building Administrators: Principals

1

District Administrators: Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent of Information Services and Administration

2

Digital Literacy Team Members

Library Media Specialists; Instructional Technology Specialists

8-10

Classroom Teachers Science Teachers Arts Teachers Math Teachers ELA Teachers

3-6 at each building

Students Elementary, Middle School, High School

2-6 from each building

Study Site and Participants

This researcher is a high school library media specialist within the site selected for this

study who is interested in understanding how library media and instructional technology

specialists, classroom teachers, administrators and students perceive the district’s makerspaces,

related supports and impact on student engagement and learning.

The district is a small, suburban New England district south of Boston, with three

elementary schools, one middle school and one high school and a student population of

81

approximately 3,500. The study will include focus groups from each of the buildings. Each

building has a makerspace available to students, most of which are housed in the school libraries.

The stakeholders included in the study will include district and building level

administrators, library media and instructional technology specialists, classroom teachers and

identified students across grade levels (see Table 1.0). As previously noted, this researcher

investigated her problem of practice across the embedded units of each building. She interviewed

district and building level administrators, a focus group of Digital Literacy members (library

media specialists and instructional technology specialists), individual classroom teachers and a

focus group of elementary, middle and high school students.

Classroom teachers selected represented a range of grade levels and STEAM subject area

expertise from elementary, middle and high school, offering a wide range of perspectives on the

structures, supports and impact of makerspaces on student engagement and achievement.

Similarly, the inclusion of a representative sample of students, administrators and library

media/instructional technology specialists provided rich description about the phenomenon in

this district.

As previously noted, this researcher selected the proposed site to understand library

media specialist, classroom teacher, student and administrator perception of makerspace

planning and roll-out. Over the last several years, the district has expanded technology resources

in all building libraries. Creation of makerspace areas in the school libraries has been an ongoing

project and priority as part of a re-imagining of the school libraries.

In the developing makerspaces, students are invited to build, tinker, explore and imagine.

In addition to adding materials and resources in each makerspace, lego walls were constructed in

each space in 2016. Lego walls are large areas covered with base plates that allow for vertical

82

and horizontal play, partner work, and artistic representation. They can be used to connect to

curricular projects, as a base for stop-motion animation, or as a source of student creativity and

expression. As of 2016, each library also was equipped with a dedicated green screen wall and

cameras/ iPads for student multimedia projects. Addition of more materials and resources is

scheduled over the next school years as the district continues to expand the makerspaces.

Recruitment and Access

This researcher used typical case selection to recruit participants for this study. She

recruited volunteers for each focus group. She also requested that all library media specialists

and district level administrators participate in focus groups and individual interviews. As

participation is voluntary, this researcher included the current district superintendent in

discussions about potential, allowable incentives. It is important to note that this researcher, as

one member of a team of library media specialists, is not responsible for the evaluation of any

participant.

To recruit the participants, she sent a letter to the Superintendent and principals

(Appendix A), parents of students under eighteen or students who are eighteen (Appendix B),

and teachers (Appendix C). This letter outlined the purpose of the study, the scope of the study,

and the potential risks and benefits of the study.

Once this researcher received approval from the Northeastern University Institutional

Review Board (IRB), she recruited the participants. First, this researcher provided the participant

with the previously described letter through e-mail. After a potential participant expressed

interest, this researcher provided them with an opportunity to meet with her to ask follow-up

questions, prior to committing to focus group or individual interviews. During the meetings, the

researcher emphasized that participation was voluntary and that a participant could choose to opt

83

out at any time during the study. This researcher also ensured the participants that she would

assign a pseudonym to the data collected, and not mention them by name on any documents

related to the study. The researcher also obtained a signature of informed consent provided by

the university and demographic information (Appendix H, I, J) from the participant and/or

parent/guardian prior to the research process beginning.

Data Collection

As part of this case study, the researcher conducted individual and focus group interviews

consisting of library media specialists, classroom teachers, administrators and students that lasted

approximately 60 minutes each, recording the data for transcription and analysis (see Table 1.0).

The administrator group included the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent of

Administration and Information Services, as well as one building principal. The classroom

teacher group included teachers from the elementary, middle and high school level. In addition,

the researcher include two-six students from each elementary, middle and high school building.

This researcher held the majority of the focus groups and individual interviews during the

school day at the building sites most convenient for participants. The researcher provided

opportunities for a follow-up interview if needed for clarification of responses or at the request

of the participant. This researcher conducted interviews to capture the voices of the participants

within their current context. The topic of the focus groups and individual interviews addressed

the following questions (Appendix E, F, G):

1. How does each group define “makerspace” and makerspace learning activity?

2. How do they define and perceive the district’s intent to increase 21st century skills

development including the 4C’s, student engagement and deeper learning as a factor

in this innovation?

84

3. How does each group perceive the structures, practices, supports and communication

channels around the development, rollout, implementation and refinement of the

makerspace innovation?

4. How does each group describe the time, use of resources and supports provided by

the district and school in makerspace implementation?

5. How does each group describe the role of the organization’s social systems in the

process?

6. How do they describe changes in teaching and learning as a result of makerspace

implementation (if any)?

7. What are the stories that exemplify what has occurred as part of and the result of the

makerspace innovation?

This researcher followed the interview protocol (Appendix E, F, G) that she developed as

part of her Northeastern Program. Each participant answered demographic questions about

themselves, such as their role within the organization and length of time within that role. In

addition, participants responded to open-ended questions designed to allow them an opportunity

to explain their perceptions about makerspace implementation, supports, 21st century (4C’s)

skills and deeper learning. She reminded participants about the purpose of the study, the

voluntary nature of their participation, and risks and benefits of the study prior to beginning the

interview and recording their responses. The researcher reminded all participants that interviews

would be recorded and that participants had the choice to opt out at any time. As required, this

researcher submitted this protocol to the Northeastern University IRB prior to engaging in focus

group and individual interviews.

85

To develop a greater understanding of the context of the study, in addition to the above

this researcher also conducted a document review. The review of documents provided additional

evidence to inform, confirm and validate the data from focus group interviews (Yin, 2014). She

collectws and analyzes documents and artifacts relevant to makerspace implementation,

including protocols, plans, surveys, library and DLT (Digital Literacy Team) websites, and

student work/reflections. The researcher reminded participants that they might choose to submit

a project description, curriculum-related lesson or student work on a strictly voluntary basis. She

also reminded teachers to remove personally identifiable information from student work samples.

In order to reflect and analyze data throughout the study, this researcher also developed

relevant field notes. The field notes supported her in the eventual development of findings and

study limitations.

Data Storage

The researcher stored data collected from the interviews, focus group transcripts and

document reviews on her laptop computer. She also uploaded and stored this data using

MAXQDA software. As the data was stored on her personal computer, requiring a login

password, others are prohibited from access. As a further precaution in maintaining privacy and

security of data, this researcher assigned pseudonyms to all participants to protect their identities.

This researcher chose to use a transcription service. The service did not have access to the

real names of the participants. This researcher destroyed all audio tapes once the transcription

process was complete. She locked all signed, informed consent forms and documents in a file

cabinet in her private, home office.

86

Data Analysis

Researchers typically conduct data analysis in two cycles of coding (Saldana, 2015). In

the first cycle, the researcher used In-Vivo coding in order to capture the words and language of

the participants (Saldana, 2016). For second cycle coding, the researcher used pattern coding and

memo writing in order to develop themes which connected to each of the research questions

(Sadana, 2015; Yin, 2009). As the researcher coded and worked toward a thematic analysis of

the data, she connected the qualitative data to the propositions developed prior to the beginning

of the study, in order to better understand the reality of the phenomenon (Stake, 2005; Yin,

2009).

In an effort to understand the phenomenon of makerspaces through library media and

instructional technology specialists, classroom teacher, administrator and student perceptions,

this researcher analyzde the data from document reviews, individual and focus group interviews

to produce a meaningful set of findings linked to theory and research. She analyzed this data

based upon an initial-cycle and second-cycle coding system using MAXQDA software. In using

the software, the researcher sorted data for coding and analysis (Yin, 2009). By examining the

data across participant focus groups, she was able to understand the similarities and differences

of experiences and perspectives across the participant groups. Through this process of analysis,

this researcher was able to develop findings, generalizations and conclusions based on evidence

(Yin, 2009). She then presented the data through descriptive charts, graphs and narrative

(Creswell, 2012).

Trustworthiness

Critically important to the research process, Merriam (1998), Stake (1994) and Yin

(2012, 2013) agree that the researcher must collect and analyze data utilizing methods that

87

ensure validity, reliability and generalizability. This researcher employed triangulation of data

across sources to ensure validity, reliability and generalizability of data and findings (Merriam,

1998, Stake, 1994; Yin, 2009, 2013). She triangulated the data from individual interviews, focus

groups, document reviews and field notes to support her findings (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana,

2014).

Moreover, she informed participants that they would have the opportunity to engage in

member checking to confirm for themselves the accuracy of her transcriptions. This allowed

participants to feel confident in data captured by the researcher. She also used analytic memos as

a means by which to state her own assumptions and reflect, thereby establishing transparency in

the analytic process (Saldana, 2015).

Finally, in an effort to ensure validity of results, this researcher did her best to include

participants that represent a broad range of organizational members. Prior to beginning the

interviews, this researcher informed the participants of the purpose of the study as well as

reminded them of her own positionality. She assured participants of their anonymity and verified

that their participation was in no way evaluative, as this researcher does not evaluate other

library media specialists, instructional technology specialists, teachers, students or

administrators. In addition, she provided participants with assurances that she would use

pseudonyms to protect their identity and that she would not share their personal data.

Protection of Human Subjects

This researcher adhered to the Northeastern University IRB requirements in the

protection of the participants engaged in the study. As noted above, prior to the beginning of the

research study, this researcher reminded the participants that their involvement in the study was

voluntary and that they could opt out at any time. Additionally, she carefully reviewed, in writing

88

and verbally, the purpose, scope and potential risks and benefits of the study during the informed

consent process and prior to the individual and focus group interviews.

This researcher provided further protection of the students under eighteen years of age

through signed, informed consent from both the student as well as parents/guardians. To clarify,

this researcher did not conduct any intervention on student participants, but simply engaged in

dialog to understand their experiences and perceptions. As such, “The procedure presents

experiences to subjects that are reasonably commensurate with those encountered in their actual

or expected medical, dental, psychological, social or educational situations” (National Institutes

of Health, 2016, n.p.).

As this researcher does not serve in an evaluative role in the organization, the risks to the

participants are minimal. Furthermore, she provided further protection to all participants through

use of pseudonyms and confidential collection, storage, analysis and reporting of data.

89

Chapter IV: Results

The aim of this study was to explore the perceptions of administrators, library and IT

specialists, teachers and students about makerspace implementation and the acquisition of deeper

learning and 4C’s skills. The following research questions guided the study:

1. How has the district organized its structures, practices, and use of resources to

support purposeful implementation of makerspaces with the specific intent of

fostering students’ deeper learning and 4C’s skills development?

2. What do stakeholders perceive as the outcomes and impact of the makerspaces?

3. What do stakeholders perceive as the challenges of the makerspaces?

4. What could stakeholders be doing to better support student learning in makerspaces?

Data were collected from focus groups, semi-structured one-on-one interviews, and

document review. Data analysis was guided by Saldana’s (2015) first cycle and second cycle of

coding. Following this introduction, the second section of the chapter will provide a brief

description of the sample. The third section of the chapter contains the details of the data

analysis procedures. The fourth section of the chapter contains the presentation of the findings,

and the fifth section will conclude the chapter with a summary of the chapter highlights.

Summary of the Study Site, Participants, and Data Collected

The sample of the study included the stakeholders of the district’s makerspaces. The

stakeholders involved were administrators, library and IT specialists, teachers and students. The

participants were recruited from small, suburban New England district south of Boston, with

three elementary schools, one middle school and one high school and a student population of

approximately 3,500.

90

The data collection procedures for this study involved focus groups, semi-structured

interviews, and document reviews. The data analysis procedures that guided this study was

Saldana’s (2015) first cycle and second cycle of coding. Permissions were obtained from the

Institutional Review Board (IRB), and the principals and superintendents from the study site.

Permissions were also obtained from the parents or guardians of the participants aged 18 and

below. Informed consent forms were collected from the participants above 18 years old, and

from the parents or guardian of the participants aged 18 and below.

The researcher then contacted the participants of the focus group for the schedule. The

focus group interviews were scheduled at a private conference room in the library of one high

school. Each focus group interview had a duration of about 60 minutes. The interviews were

guided by an interview protocol (Appendix E, F, G) developed by the researcher. One-on-one

semi-structured interviews were also conducted. The duration of each one-on-one interview was

approximately 30 minutes. Furthermore, the researcher also kept field notes and conducted

document reviews. The researcher asked permission from administrators and various participants

to take photos of makerspace projects and resources, as well as documents and artifacts relevant

to makerspace implementation, including protocols, plans, surveys, and library and DLT (Digital

Literacy Team) websites.

All of the data were transcribed and uploaded to MAXQDA software. After the data have

been uploaded to MAXQDA software, the researcher began data analysis procedures. The

researcher began data analysis following the first cycle of coding recommended by Saldana

(2015). First, the researcher differentiated the data collected from focus group interviews, and

individual interviews. Data from the different stakeholders were initially analyzed separately.

Second, the researcher began the first cycle of coding. The researcher familiarized herself with

91

the data, and then began in vivo coding (Saldana, 2015). In vivo coding involved using the

“actual language” of the participants as the key words for labeling or coding the data. The first

cycle of coding allowed the researcher to form initial patterns in the data, as well as to identify

similarities and differences in the data, or to codify (Saldana, 2015). As separate coding was

conducted per stakeholder at this point, the researcher was able to identify patterns in the data

specific to one group of stakeholders. For example, one of the recurring patterns in the data

specific to the library specialists was “curriculum connections.” Only library specialists as a

group mentioned the recommendation to integrate makerspace in the curriculum planning. In

vivo coding was conducted by reading all of the transcripts line by line, in which the researcher

looked for key words using the exact words of the participants. Using the exact words of the

participants also ensured that the findings were in the context of the participants’ perceptions.

The first cycle of coding was conducted in a cyclical manner. The researcher repeatedly read the

data, and refined the coding as needed. The first cycle of coding ended when the researcher has

found sufficient initial patterns in the data.

The second cycle of coding began in order to identify themes. The second cycle of coding

involved focus coding. The data from the different stakeholder were still analyzed separately,

and then as a whole in order to identify themes as a whole, and to address the research questions.

The transcripts were again closely read, together with the codes assigned. Data with similar

thematic meaning were grouped together. Relationships among the groups of data were analyzed

to derive themes. Similarly, the second cycle of coding was a cyclical process, in which coding

was repeatedly conducted and refined until themes emerged to address the research questions.

92

Findings

This section contains the presentation of the study findings. This section is organized

into four sub-sections to address the three research questions. The first sub-section addressed the

first research question through the presentation of the support for a purposeful makerspace

implementation. The second sub-second addressed the second research question with the

presentation of student outcomes. The third sub-section also addressed the second research

question with the presentation of the challenges in makerspace implementation. Finally, the

fourth sub-section addressed the third research question through the presentation of the

recommendations to better support makerspace implementation. Each of the sub-section will

include the presentation of themes, as well as narratives and excerpts from the data.

RQ1. How has the district organized its structures, practices, and use of resources to

support purposeful implementation of makerspaces with the specific intent of fostering

students’ deeper learning and 4C’s skills development? Two overarching themes emerged

from a review of the transcripts across stakeholders, one of them being the support of purposeful

implementation of makerspaces. While one participant mentioned parental involvement, and

some participants mentioned accessibility of makerspace location, the overarching themes were:

Table 2

Themes for Support for A Successful Makerspace Implementation

Availability of challenging projects and resources

Administrative support

Availability of challenging projects and resources. Students were generally engaged

with makerspaces when there was an availability of various challenging projects and resources.

93

With “some guidance” from the digital literacy team, the students generally opted to engage in

makerspace projects. The majority of the participants mentioned 3D pens and printers to “be a

hit” among the students, while teachers generally made use of the green screen. As one librarian

said:

I'm wondering how it would be different if we didn't have the 3D pens, because those have taken

off like there's no tomorrow. With those, we've given them a little more structure. When they

first use them, they can write their initials. There's a template for building the Eiffel Tower... so

a lot of kids are working on building the Eiffel Tower.

Several students also claimed that 3D pens and printers were their most used resource in

the makerspace. 3D pens were also generally the first resource students use in the makerspace.

A student from the focus group interview said that students were familiar with 3D printing, as

they see news stories “about how 3D printing is now the future or how it's becoming a like the

new industry.” Another student said:

First of all, I like how there's more than just two things to do. Like there's some variety of stuff.

Cause when I first came to makerspace I started off with 3D pens, and then I sort of started

helping around and then I started fixing things around like the Spheros were broken at one point

and I fixed those. We bought 3D doodlers. We have a lot of 3D pens. They're one of the most

popular things in our library.

For the administrators, they perceived that the digital literacy team was part of the

resources that support a purposeful implementation of makerspaces. One district administrator

claimed that:

Yeah, as I said, I think that there's been a lot more attention now that we have the tools.

I've seen people restructuring, I've seen the librarians who prior to, they were very limited

94

in what they could offer and what their skill set was. My children are an example, I just

know they would come home from library and they'd have a book, and that was what the

librarian did. Now they come home from library and they talk about these programming

activities they did, or they talk about a project that they made. So it's just really

broadened the curriculum tremendously in terms of what our librarian and technology

teachers are able to do with the students.

Administrative support. The participants, especially the teacher librarians, claimed that

the implementation of makerspaces would not be purposeful without administrative support.

The participants perceived that administrative support may range from support of incorporating

makerspace activities in the curriculum to training the librarians to facilitate makerspace

learning. In the focus group of teacher librarians, one participant said that:

I think part of the reason, too, why I wanted to join this team was the fact that when I was

reading about the position, it was the "Digital Literacy Team" and you guys seemed like

you were full-steam ahead and really taking on a lot of the big ideas that were new and

exciting. So I think it's been nice to have the full support of administration and each other

to get this (makerspace implementation) rolling and not just kind of doing it in pockets

because it can be hard to find the time. But once you know like, "Oh, they're doing a

week. We're gonna do a couple days here," you know, it keeps you motivated to get the

kids in here, especially once you see how much fun they're having.

The participants who were administrators also said that they had to work purposefully to

successfully implement the makerspaces. An assistant superintendent, claimed that:

From an administrative perspective, it is always my hope that we as a team come up with a

vision and come up with the process and the product and what we're going to do, so makerspaces

95

aren't any different. Then, that I help the team to pitch the idea, sell it to whoever needs to buy

into it, whether it's financial like the district funding it or the SC coming in or whatever, those

kinds of things. Then as much as I can, writing about it or talking about it at meetings or sharing

it at school committee. I've posted dozens of pictures on the website of Makerspace activities

over the last few years as a way to get the community to understand and all that. However, while

that's my thing, it's really been my hope that the teachers, the members of the committee, the

team who are making these things happen, that they would really carry that torch and do the

work in the buildings of selling the idea and making it compelling for teachers, making it make

sense.

RQ2. What do stakeholders perceive as the outcomes and impact of the

makerspaces? This sub-section attempts to address the second research question through the

presentation of impacts and outcomes of makerspace. The impact of makerspaces was generally

focused on the student outcome. Although some participants mentioned professional

development, and opting to work in the district due to makerspace implementation, positive

student learning outcomes was generally the main impact of the makerspace innovation. Four

overarching themes emerged from the analysis. The themes were:

Table 3

Themes for Outcomes and Impact of the Makerspaces

Meeting learners’ needs

Developing 4Cs skills

Independent learning

Developing STEM skills

96

Meeting learners’ needs. Makerspaces were claimed to make learning fun and easier,

and makerspace activities were perceived to meet learners’ needs for engagement. According to

one administrator, makerspaces have a “pedagogical purpose” as well as a “practical purpose.”

The participant said that students were provided with learning opportunities to not just “absorb”

but also to actually do something. A student part of the focus group interview said that, “It's

easier for you to not have to be drilled with stuff. I find it easier to do the stuff and memorize it

that way.” Another student said that, “Like I would say it's like a fun place where you can like

sort of unleash your thinking and also like learn..., or you could do what you want to do and

there are no instructions...”

One teacher perceived the makerspace as a “low stress” place where students could “hang

out” and “feel free” to make things. A teacher from the focus group interview said that:

Just going on what E has said about meeting the needs of all learners, one thing that we

noticed that happens here a lot is that there's some students who come in either unassisted

or with even just a teacher for a few minutes or with a friend to spend either some break

time in here or earned time, whether it's with the robots or the Lego wall. So it seems to

be a place that all students feel comfortable to come and even, you know, using it as that

break from the classroom that some kids need but still being productive and creative and

positive.

Developing 4Cs. The 4Cs – critical thinking, collaboration, communication, and

creativity – were claimed to be developed through makerspace. The makerspace was perceived

to allow students to practice teamwork, problem solving, and expressing ideas. The students

97

from the focus group interview shared some experiences with learning from peers or by

themselves. One student shared that:

I feel like I probably learned more from friends in this project than I did from my teacher

because everyone's working on something individual. Most of the time I was working on the

same thing. If people are having problems it's usually on the same kind of thing so they can all

gather together and help ... Do the same thing as the teacher, but people have to help each other

because there's 26 of us and only one of her.

Another student shared that:

Pretty much what happened with me was that one day my LED light and my motor were

both working. The next day the motor wasn't working, or I think the LED. I think it was

the motor. I had these two disconnected wires and even when I put them in the same

exact correct spot it still would not work. I had a friend help me and it turned out there

was actually a third wire that wasn't connected.

A participant from the teachers’ focus group interview claimed that teacher librarians

were generally present in the makerspace not to instruct, but to facilitate and encourage

collaboration among students. The participant stated that:

Yeah and you kind of facilitated because the students figured out, some were very quick

to figure out the app, and another student had a question, "I don't know how to do this."

I'd say, "Does anyone know how to delete this piece?" "Oh, I know how to do that, I'll

help them." So it was very collaborative and you know, once they found friends who

could do- I guess, everyone who knew the app was more than willing to share their

knowledge and help someone else very quickly.

98

One student said that there was no right or wrong in the makerspace. The participant said

that, “In a library maker space, students don't have to bind themselves to that (way of thinking).

They're free to explore- they can make what they want to make which I think is a very

fundamental human necessity.” In addition, one teacher claimed that the makerspace was a place

for students to “express themselves.” Students also learn how to solve problems. A student from

the focus group interview said that:

And it really does help like when you're in a job too, like a whole problem solving town

(exists) in the makerspace, like not everything goes right. We had two 3D pens broken.

One Sphero is defective. I just got it fixed... I feel like you need to be able to help be able

to fix some stuff and solve some problems like yourself.

Independent learning. The makerspaces were also perceived to promote independent

learning among students. Generally, teacher librarians’ role in the makerspaces was perceived to

be as facilitators rather than instructors. The participants perceived that makerspace learning was

“very open-ended.” Students learned from “trial and error” methods. A student said that:

Honestly, there was a small description that went along with the iPads and along with the app,

but really it was just playing around and trial and error and I think that's what makerspace is

really about. There's no real "here are the instructions on how to make a video." Just it's you go

in there and you get your hands dirty. It's all about trial and error and working out if I have these

tools and I have this much time, what can I do with these tools and this much time? The answer

(in one case) was (creation of) a promotional video on makerspaces which I believe was shown

at the state librarian conference.

99

One teacher said that students “learned as they go.” Moreover, another teacher claimed

that students learned better with a “less structured” manner of instruction. The participant said

that:

I facilitate it and I also help instruct how to use some of the materials and then usually I

try to take a role of step aside when they get the ball rolling and they know what they're

doing what they want. And then I'm there if they ask me questions. So I help out as much

as I can.

Furthermore, one student was developing a project in the makerspace that required CAD

program, and the participant claimed to have learned the program by herself. The participant

shared that:

That wound up leading me to learning the [CAD 00:09:09] software that I learned (in

order) to eventually model the case and hopefully print it because it gave me an added

advantage to be able to look at it and turn it around in the software and see it from

different angles and make different types of tweaks. Through that process, basically it

wasn't a [CAD 00:09:41] software that I was familiar with before. I was only familiar

with a couple of CAD software that turned out to be not compatible with most 3D

printers.

Developing STEM skills. Makerspace implementation was perceived to develop the

STEM skills of the students. Generally, makerspaces aroused the students’ interest in STEM.

One administrator shared that his daughters were artistic, and used to be “less interested in

programming a robot or in engineering” until 3D printers were introduced at their school. The

daughters’ interest in STEM “has grown tremendously” in which the participant shared that,

“they had asked for both Christmas and Easter, they'd asked me to get them as their top wishlist

100

an item of one of the robots at that school because they wanted to be able to work with it at

home.” A student from the focus group interview claimed that:

Makerspace just helps me learn a lot about how engineering, science, math, art, and ...

basically everything you need to know (connects). It just helps me learn really quickly.

It's not like ... Certain classes might take a year to learn all this, but we can learn it in a

few weeks just by using examples and be able to actually do the thing.

Furthermore, some participants perceived that subjects like engineering were better

learned through practical projects rather than through “academic reading and writing.” One

teacher said that:

My understanding is (of a vision) to go towards STEM. Like using some science, using

some technology. They are using math skills when they're creating these different

objects. And engineering. They're designing things, building things. I think also the

social, the soft skills too, the collaboration, teamwork, that kind of thing.

Some students said that they have developed individual interests and passions through

makerspace exposure. A student shared that:

Even if they don't realize they picked up these passions from the Makerspace, they

discovered that they have a passion to work on in the Makerspace. The Makerspace still

has that effect on them. People who have used the Makerspace do say that, "Oh, now I

know that I can play the keyboard now. I wonder what happens if I get a keyboard for my

computer." The next day one of my friends discovered there was a keyboard here at the

makerspace, played around with it, then he went home, figured out he had a keyboard

like that at home, plugged it into his computer and he made a basic jingle. Because he

101

used the Makerspace, he discovered his passion. He was able to work out, "Oh, well I've

got this stuff. I've got the will to do so. I may as well go do so."

RQ3. What do stakeholders perceive as the challenges of the makerspaces? This sub-

section attempts to address the third research question. The challenges in makerspace

implementation are presented in this sub-section. Two overarching themes were generated from

the data. The themes were:

Table 4.

Themes for Challenges in the Implementation of Makerspaces

Getting teachers on board

Scheduling

Getting teachers on board. While students were generally engaged in makerspace

projects, the participants perceived that classroom teachers were the least involved with the

makerspaces. As teacher librarians were generally the first to be trained on the use of

makerspace, and the students were the targeted users, classroom teachers perceived the

makerspace as added work. One administrator claimed that:

In this case (of) the library makerspaces, I'm sure all the librarian and tech teachers knew

long before any classroom teachers knew that this was coming, this was desired, and

what it was best practice. Now it shows up and the classroom teachers who may not have

had that same level of training and interaction are like, "Wait, this is one more thing you

need me to do? Now I have to do what?" So there's, I think, a hurdle that has to be

overcome in how can we, whenever we roll out anything, how can we make sure

everybody is on the same page and gets the same level of exposure.

102

A participant from the focus group interview with teacher librarians said that classroom

teachers typically did not take the makerspace seriously. The participant said that:

I do think there's a gap though that needs to be bridged because I do think some teachers

look at us as just playing. And I'm kind of sick of that perception. I don't think it's fair,

you know, especially when we need resources like the laptops for a project. Like, just

"What are you doing?" I'm like, "we're doing stuff that is important too. You know, I'm

glad you have something you need to type" but you know, so I would like to see that gap

bridged.

A teacher said that she felt “disconnected” to makerspace. The participant shared that:

To me it seems like a very separate, distant thing. Like, not part of what I do, which I don't know

was the intent, but that's how it seems to me. In fact, when I agreed to talk to you, I went to

[teacher librarian]. I said, "I don't know what maker space is." And she said, "Oh, it's those

stations. We haven't called it that, but that's what it is." And I'm like, "Oh, yeah, you have been

doing ... " So that's how disconnected I feel.

One teacher said that makerspace was “PD [professional development] related,” and that

it was “scary” for educators. The participant said that:

Especially teachers that are used to having control in their classroom, to give up control is

a scary thing, and to give up control and not know what's the end game or what's

available and how can I steer these kids. You're right it does take a lot of PD. It kind of

takes a leap of faith too.

Scheduling. Time spent in makerspaces has been perceived to be flexible; however, due

to the amount of homework, the participants, especially the students, perceived that they lacked

the time to go to the makerspace. Also, makerspace projects took some time to finish, which

103

may be a challenge for some students. A teacher librarian from the focus group interview said

that:

And as much as I like, a forty minute period is- at first, the kids are like, "We get this

whole time to do what we want?" sometimes when they get into things, like especially

the Bloxels and the Little Bits like, they like, figure out how to do it, get part of it done

and then it's like, time to clean up. At least for those kind of things, we don't have a good

way to save it for them to come back to yet and I don't know how we'll really get there

with such a big population.

One teacher perceived that elementary school students have more time to complete

makerspace projects. The participant said that:

I don't think there's enough time because the few minutes that they get for advisory,

which is 28 minutes, it's not that long. They come and before you know it, it's over.

Ideally it'd be nice to have two periods here. I think they probably have more time at the

elementary school because they have longer periods. Here it's very quick. Before you

know it, they have to go back to their classes.

Another teacher was uncertain why library time was used for the makerspace activities.

The participant shared that:

Honestly, I'm not sure how it relates to the library. That is a question I have personally.

Like why is it (makerspace time) library time. And maybe it's because we use the word

library rather than media. But that's a question I would have.

RQ4. What could stakeholders be doing to better support student learning in

makerspaces? This sub-section attempts to address the fourth research question. The

104

recommendations to better support makerspace implementation will be presented. Three

overarching themes emerged from the data. The themes were:

Table 5

Themes for Recommendation to Better Support Student Learning in Makerspaces

Integration in the curriculum

Having coordinator support

Advertising

Integration in the curriculum. The participants generally recommended integrating

makerspace learning across the curriculum. The participants believed that making curriculum

connections may help teachers become more engaged in makerspaces, as well as for more

students to be exposed to makerspace. A teacher from the focus group interview said that:

I think making curriculum connections is going to be really important because I think

classroom teachers even sometimes look at technology and makerspace as like, "oh, this

is one more thing on my plate" instead of something that can help kids show they're

learning. And I think it's just kind of like, [inaudible 00:17:47] to hear the changing of

mindset but I think that that is our next step- making sure that we're showing teachers that

this connects to your curriculum, you know, and you don't have to do it someday twice

Like, this, this will fulfill that.

One administrator believed that incorporating makerspace learning in the curriculum may

not only help the students learn, but also help teacher in professional development. The

participant said that:

105

I could absolutely think of a lot of different ways that teachers could engage in

professional development around makerspaces. First and foremost, I think just their own

engagement and giving themselves the authority or the right to let go and just explore

free play. Sometimes adults don't do that well, because we're a little more planful and

purposeful and don't like to show in front of others that we can't figure out how

something works. But, I guess there's a difference between if you're using a makerspace

for a purposeful goal and expecting students to achieve like a circuit or if you're just

giving them free play, do whatever you want.

Connecting coordinators. While the participants perceived that teacher librarians were

effective, highly collaborative staff members, a stronger connection with coordinators was

recommended. One administrator said that, “Because we're still in its infancy, we need to do a

better job of bringing the coordinators and the other teachers on board and making those

curriculum, content connections.” One student mentioned a need for an “onsite attendant” for

safety reasons for projects that require potentially dangerous tools. The student said that:

If we were in that environment, if we had a totally safe working system and it just happened to

be in the middle of the library, it (still) wouldn't make sense to have people (students) using a

power grill or a saw in the middle of the library.

A teacher from the focus group interview said that coordinators could help “connect” the

curriculum with makerspace activities. The administrator who claimed that the makerspace in

their school was in its infancy also said that:

Yeah. And so I think that's another piece that we could ... or another strategy for

promoting the use of the spaces would be to bring in the coordinators and share, again,

share the vision and potential of what these spaces could be.

106

Advertising. While the makerspaces were a “hit” among students who already use them,

the participants believed that makerspaces needed to be further advertised. The majority of the

participants believed that makerspace needed to be promoted more to high school students than

to elementary students, as elementary students tend to explore more. One teacher said that:

Something we're trying at the high school is, we call them popup events where we have tech help

desk kids that are housed in the library. But we've done to try to promote the library's maker

spaces, set up a table in the foyer as the students are exiting the building. And just have a lot of

visually eye catching flying things and moving robots. And we have candy to lure them over.

And we've had a couple of those that have been really successful as a way to then promote these

little challenge activities that take place in the library.

A teacher librarian said that some students were not aware if they were already in the

makerspace due to lack of clearly defined physical boundaries around each makerspace. The

participant said that, “Sometimes they'll go and they'll sit there and like, "Am I in the

makerspace, or am I not?" They don't really know where it is, or do they know that it's there, so

something like that.”

A teacher librarian in the focus group said that their digital literacy team had been

implementing makerspace activities for a year, although the team had not used the term

“makerspace” yet. The participant said that:

I think maybe we haven't articulated that very well yet. I think that might be one of our

tasks for the next couple years because I know that, for our part, we've definitely been

implementing Maker Space all year but we haven't even really called it makerspace yet.

We have Robot Week, the things that I do during library- I call "Choice Time" which, I

probably should start using common terminology and make sure that people are

107

understanding that what we're doing right now is makerspace so that they, the teachers,

are more familiar with the concept. I don't think they're that familiar yet. The last couple

weeks that we're doing this year we're calling a Maker Fair so I think that's a step in the

right direction.

Summary

The aim of this study was to explore the perceptions of administrators, library and IT

specialists, teachers and students about makerspace implementation and the acquisition of deeper

learning and 4C’s skills. To address the aim of this study, focus group interviews, individual

semi-structured interviews and document reviews were conducted in a small, suburban New

England district south of Boston, with three elementary schools, one middle school and one high

school. The participants of the study were administrators, library and IT specialists, teachers and

students. Data analysis was guided by the first and second cycle of coding by Saldana (2015).

The first cycle of coding involved mainly in vivo coding, while the second cycle of coding

involved focus coding. Initially, data analysis was conducted separately per stakeholder in order

to explore perceptions of the participants specific to one group of stakeholders. Then, the

analysis was conducted as a whole to derive overarching themes, and address the research

questions. To address the first research question, the identified support for the purposeful

implementation of the makerspaces involved availability of challenging projects and resources,

and administrative support. The variety of projects and resources, as well as the level of

difficulty of the projects were perceived to keep the students engaged. Resources were often

provided by the school administrators. Furthermore, administrative support was perceived to be

significant in promoting and integrating makerspaces in the curriculum.

108

For the second research question, the participants perceived that the general impact of

makerspace implementation was strong among the students. The themes that emerged referring

to student outcomes were meeting learners’ needs, developing 4Cs, independent learning, and

developing STEM skills. For the third research question, the perceived challenges in

implementing makerspaces were getting teachers on board, and scheduling.

Finally, to address the fourth research question, the recommendations to better support

makerspace implementations involved integration in the curriculum, establishing stronger

coordinator conn, and advertising. The participants, particularly the library specialists perceived

that makerspace will be more effective if it were integrated to the curriculum. The library

specialists also recommended having a coordinator to manage the makerspace. Finally, the

participants perceived that makerspace required additional advertising, especially to high school

students, and new students in the district. The discussion of the findings will be presented in the

next chapter.

109

Chapter V: Findings, Recommendations, and Conclusions

Revisiting the Problem of Practice

The focus of this study is the development of constructivist learning environments such

as makerspaces to promote student engagement and foster deeper learning, and prepare students

with the wide range of skills necessary for success in a global economy. There is, however, a

lack of strong empirical evidence as to how to best meet the full potential of makerspaces as a

means to accelerate inquiry-based learning, creativity, student engagement, and student learning.

The purpose of this study was to collect and examine administrator, library media, IT

specialists’, classroom teachers’, and students’ perceptions of the impact of makerspaces on

student engagement and student learning, as well as to identify what stakeholders could be doing

to better support student learning and student engagement in makerspaces in a particular district

pursuing makerspaces just south of Boston.

It has been extensively noted that traditional classroom learning environments often stifle

creativity while alternative pedagogies promote deeper levels of learning, engaging students

whole beings. Makerspace learning embraces progressive education ideals advocated by John

Dewey (1938), Maria Montessori (1912) and Loris Malaguzzi (1998) where “making” or

“tinkering” and playful exploration construct knowledge while developing 4C’s skills. Zhao

(2012) notes that making is process and product oriented, creative, and active; with making being

at the opposite end of what schooling has been for students as “passive consumers and recipients

of whatever adults give them: books, facilities, knowledge, tests and disciplines” (Zhao, 2012, p.

209).

Makerspace learning environments show the promise of being an exemplar model for

fostering 4C’s skills development in students. They engage children in a process where cross

110

disciplinary content knowledge is learned in conjunction with the development of deeper level,

creativity related skills. Through experimentation and playful exploration, students build

confidence and instrinsic motivation as learners. The social environment promotes a safe

environment that encourages innovative ideas and risk taking. Makerspaces also offer equitable

opportunities to learning when they are housed and scheduled in such a way as to provide

resources and activities to all students through presentation of multiple opportunities for mastery

of learning objectives in a variety of modalities. Self-directed learning meets diverse needs,

cultivating creativity and critical thinking skills while also achieving traditional content

objectives. This study sought to understand how a mainstream education setting, a traditional K-

12 school district, could implement an alternative learning environment, specifically a

Makerspace program, to cultivate 4C’s skills development alongside traditional content

objectives.

Review of the Methodology

This was a qualitative case study. The population involved in this study were

stakeholders in a suburban New England school district. These included administrators, teachers,

library media and IT specialists, and students. Data were collected from focus groups, semi-

structured one-on-one interviews, and a document review. Data analysis was guided by

Saldana’s (2015) first cycle and second cycle coding of interview and focus group transcripts,

notes taken during the individual interviews and focus groups, and the researcher’s notes based

on examination of district and schoolwide communication documents.

To achieve the goals of this study, the researcher selected one suburban district in its

second year of makerspace implementation. The research design included focus group

discussions with district administrators, building administrators, library media specialists and

111

instructional technology specialists, students in grades 4 through twelve, and core content

teachers in order to provide a well rounded, comprehensive perspective of the makerspace roll

out and its impact.

The focus group and individual interview discussions provided the administrators,

specialist teachers, classroom teachers, and students the opportunity to share their perceptions of

the district’s makerspace implementation and associated support structures. Also, the focus

group discussions allowed the administrators, teachers, and students to explain their

understanding of the impact of makerspaces on student engagement, teaching and learning. To

that end, teachers and students provided documents, including student work samples, written

reflections, lesson plans and anecdotes.

Through the focus group format, the participants engaged in an informal dialog, built on

each other’s comments, and shared their opinions with the researcher and one another. As the

case study methodology is best suited to studies that examine a specific phenomenon within the

boundaries of its natural context, the researcher selected administrators, specialists, students and

teachers from one suburban district south of Boston to understand the research questions framing

the study (Stake, 1994; 1995).

After conducting the focus groups, the researcher transcribed the discussions using

Rev.com. She then uploaded the transcription data into MaxQDA software for coding and

analysis. The researcher also reviewed and analyzed student work samples, written reflections,

lesson plans, school and district documents to triangulate the data with the information gleaned

from the individual interviews and focus groups. She employed In-vivo and descriptive coding to

develop themes aligned with the research questions. Finally, through careful review and analysis,

the researcher developed findings from the identified themes.

112

Following this introduction, the second section of the chapter will provide a brief

discussion of the key findings. The third section of the chapter will present implications for

practice, given the findings. The fourth section contains the limitations of the findings. The fifth

section of the chapter contains the recommendations for future research. The seventh section will

conclude the chapter with a summary of chapter highlights.

Presentation and Discussion of the Major Findings

The major findings of this study are presented in Table 6 and discussed below.

Table 6

Major Findings

Availability of challenging projects and resources opens doors to deeper learning and engagement.

Administrative support ensures makerspaces are used to full potential.

Makerspaces meet multiple learner needs.

Makerspaces support development of 4C’s skills.

Makerspaces support independent learning.

Makerspaces support development of STEM skills.

Makerspace scheduling is a challenge.

Availability of challenging projects and resources opens doors to deeper learning

and engagement. Middle school and elementary students reported being engaged with the

availability of challenging projects and resources such as 3D pens and printers. Teacher-parents

reported that students went home with a lot of conversation on everything they had accomplished

in the makerspaces during the day. This is consistent with the existing literature that promotes

the idea that alternative methods encourage creative, higher-level thinking and expression

113

(Besancon & Lubart, 2007). This higher-level thinking and expression energized students to not

only learn but to share with others what they were learning.

In another example, at the high school level, students in an AP psychology class

demonstrated their thinking about how neurons connect in the brain through creating models

with electronics components and play dough. The teacher observed that where these students

tended to be high level, abstract thinkers, the hands on, collaborative learning in the maker

activity allowed them to ground their ideas and make those ideas visible in a concrete way

through their work with the models as well as their reflections afterwards. The researcher

observed the high level of engagement in the makerspace during the model activity, as well as

the creative range of models produced to demonstrate learning.

This is consistent with the literature that outlines how makerspaces rely on diffuse

learning through facilitation, peer-to-peer knowledge-sharing, and collaboration. Sheridan et al.

(2014) noted that participants themselves lead, teach, and learn through collaboration as they join

a makerspace’s community of practice.

According to participants in the study, the learning enthusiasm spilled over into the after-

school environment. One teacher-parent reported that students went home with a lot of

conversation on everything they had accomplished in the makerspaces during the day.

Administrative support ensures makerspaces are used to full potential. With respect

to implementation, the specialists and teachers reported that the success of makerspaces was the

result of administrative support such as incorporating makerspace activities into the curriculum,

training librarians, and the administrator’s intentional actions toward making it a success. “I was

excited to come work in a district that was implementing makerspaces,” one teacher librarian

114

commented. She also stated, “The support for makerspace learning was part of my reason for

joining the district team.”

Ongoing support for the roll out in this district included regular, positive descriptions of

makerspace activities published in PTSO and district wide newsletters as well as meetings

throughout the year to keep forward momentum and allocate budget dollars toward makerspace

resources. In addition, time was allocated at faculty meetings at the elementary and middle

school levels toward training of staff in makerspace teaching strategies and/or activities, as well

as PD time for STEAM connections and design thinking.

With respect to implementation, the success of makerspaces was the result of

administrative support such as incorporating makerspace activities into the curriculum, training

librarians and IT specialists, and the administrator’s intentional actions toward making it a

success. An administrator stated “…there's been a lot more attention now that we have the tools.”

They further added that students “talk about these programming activities they did, or they talk

about a project that they made…. [makerspaces have] broadened the curriculum tremendously in

terms of what our librarian and technology teachers are able to do with the students.” In the focus

group of teachers and librarians, a participant stated that “it's been nice to have the full support of

administration and each other to get this (makerspace implementation) rolling and not just kind

of doing it in pockets because it can be hard to find the time.”

Makerspaces meet multiple learner needs. Students and teachers across grade levels

reported that the makerspaces promoted engagement and a sense of community Much of the

observed activity in the makerspaces (e.g. playing, sharing, tinkering) could seem peripheral to

learning; yet, these activities are in fact central to learning and are important to providing space

and time for idea generation and knowledge construction. For example, one middle school

115

student described his experience in the makerspace as follows, “Sort of you make your project,

whatever your goal is, okay? And you test it. If it would work out you continue it and evaluate

and share. If it didn't work out you go through another process, which would be redesigning and

you keep going until you get it, and what the engineering (part) is- it's sort of like challenging,

like it's a fun way of learning. Like any way to involve electronics in learning for me, gets me

excited.”

Another student in the same focus group described himself as anxious in certain learning

situations. This was not so in the makerspace. He commented, “I would say that at least this is

how it is for me, it's a good way to unwind and to calm down as best I can cause it's during the

middle of the day… And I like Sphero (programmable robot)… and some other really good

things that are really popular; I like 3D pens, another electronic thing, and the Take Apart where

it's kind of like you can take apart broken electronics and make what looks like a robot.”

Similarly, from the teacher perspective, makerspace learning meets multiple learners’

needs. One teacher commented, “I had them draw some plans and stuff like that, and now they

are building, using various recycled boxes and plastic containers and stuff, and they're wiring the

circuits, and they're using LEDs for eyes, and motors for spinning tails, and the ones doing the

harder projects are doing, like, a motor on it, to make wings move up and down, or make a jaw

open and close. So, this is a project that is an opportunity for (some) students to shine. They're

not always necessarily the same kids who are stronger in everything else. I have to walk some

kids through it. So, this is not something I have enough time to make sure every kid is totally

independent, sometimes that bothers me. But then I look at what a kid like M did, okay, and how

independent she was, or a kid like H, and it's about giving them that chance. Or I look at X,

who's always asking me for help on things, but not on this, and he's being so much more

116

independent, and I look at that, too, so, okay, someone else I have to walk them through it,

maybe, but it's worth it to see those kids get a chance to do that (independent learning).

Okay, so M is kinda quiet in the classroom, she's amazing on stage, and she turns out to be

absolutely amazing doing this. And I had no idea, like I had no idea she had it in her, she's a

good student, she's pretty independent, but I had no idea she could do that. X asks me for help all

the time with everything, but he's loving this, and he's so independent, so I love seeing kids,

some of the same kids, some different kids, really shining. Travis, he gets a lot of help

academically, and he was coming up to me today saying, ‘Well, I built the whole thing, but only

one eye is working.’ “Really? He built the whole thing and one eye is working and he never

asked me for help? That's amazing. And it's a confidence boost, too, he doesn't quite realize it

yet, but at some point, he will, that he did all that by himself. I helped him where the eye was,

but he did the rest. I help him with his homework every single day. So, I love seeing kids be able

to do that.”

Makerspaces support development of 4C’s skills. The underlying goal of a

makerspace is to encourage innovative thinking and creativity through an open-ended learning

environment such as that required for 4Cs skills development. The makerspaces allow students to

innovate and are designed to teach them how to solve problems and present their ideas and

projects successfully. Through development of entrepreneurial and collaborative skills, students

are guided toward competence and confidence in creative problem solving with real world

applications. The study revealed that the makerspaces engaged learners with a pedagogical and

practical purpose. Students found it easier to do stuff and “unleash” their thinking. This led to the

development of the 4Cs where students could problem solve, create and express their ideas.

One teacher described the following example:

117

They had to use “Maker's Empire,” which is an App on the IPad, and they could choose

certain functions within it, blocker or shaper, and they had to design the thing they

wanted J (the makerspace facilitator) to print out for them on the 3D printer. They could

take some pre-made bits, but mostly, they had to design it themselves, and then they had

to rate themselves on how they did on it, and make sure their (product) was creative

enough and stuff like that, and challenging enough, and then he's going to print them and

they're gonna get their little object.

But, Sam, for example, struggled and struggled and struggled, partly because his iPad

was glitching, but he struggled and struggled. He's a kid who, he's a good student, but he was

very little tolerance for not getting something very quickly. He was ready to give up on it, but in

the end, he did a really good job. And then Joe told me that, and I told him, and it was really nice

to be able to give him that feedback.”

The study revealed that the district’s Makerspaces allowed students to innovate and

collaborate to solve problems successfully. One student stated, “I probably learned more from

friends in this project than I did from my teacher because everyone's working on something

individual.” Another student having trouble with an LED motor stated, “I had a friend help me

and it turned out there was actually a third wire that wasn't connected.”

As described above, students help their peers during making activities. The same student

previously mentioned added that “…when I first came to makerspace I started off with 3D pens,

and then I sort of started helping around and then I started fixing things, like the Spheros were

broken at one point and I fixed those.”

118

Makerspaces support independent learning The self-driven nature of makerspace

activities allow for student ownership, empowerment and personal passion to emerge. Students

work on their projects and teachers observe, providing individualized instruction as necessary.

One makerspace facilitator provided the following description:

I facilitate it and I also help instruct how to use some of the materials and then usually I

try to take a role of step aside when they get the ball rolling and they know what they're

doing. I'm there if they ask me questions… They all just come in and whatever interests

them they grab it and they go with it.

Makerspace materials and tools included a wide range of resources, from circuit parts, art

supplies, and craft materials, to green screens, lego walls, 3D printers and electronics kits. One

student stated “I like how there's more than just two things to do. Like there's some variety of

stuff.” The self-guided nature of the makerspace activities provided allowed learners to take

ownership, feel empowered and explore personal interests.

Makerspaces support development of STEM skills. Scholars have noted that new

technologies like Squishy Circuits (Johnson & Thomas, 2010) make complex STEM problems

accessible. Makerspace implementation are perceived to develop the STEM skills of students as

activities such as building with 3D printers and laser cutters, programming, and crafting Play-

Doh into circuits have noticeable connections with STEM disciplines. Generally, the

makerspaces encouraged the students’ interest in STEM areas.

One student described work on maker activities as “it was just playing around and trial

and error... you go in there and you get your hands dirty.” Another teacher claimed that students

learned better with a “less structured” manner of instruction. But it is not only the students

119

learning in makerspaces. A participant shared that to help a student they “self-taught” the version

of CAD software required for their 3D printer.

Makerspaces revolve around design thinking principles of identifying a need, problem

solving, iteration or redesign, and creation of a final product. makerspaces allow cross-

disciplinary integration of science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics making it

easier for administrators to incorporate into existing curriculum. Sheridan et al. (2014) suggest

that a key distinction of makerspaces is the way they “support making in disciplines that are

traditionally separate” (p. 526). Technologies such as Squishy Circuits, 3D printers and Sphero

balls make complex STEM problems understandable.

An administrator whose artistic daughters used to be “less interested in programming a

robot or in engineering” stated that the availability of 3D printers at their school changed their

minds. The daughters’ interest in STEM “has grown tremendously” and “they had asked for

both Christmas and Easter… [for] an item of one of the robots at that school because they

wanted to be able to work with it at home.” A student stated that “Makerspace just helps me

learn a lot about how engineering, science, math, art, and ... basically everything you need to

know (connects). It just helps me learn really quickly.” The participants agreed that subjects like

engineering were better learned through practical projects rather than through “academic reading

and writing.” One teacher said that “They are using math skills when they're creating these

different objects. And engineering. They're designing things, building things.”

These findings support the idea that stakeholders perceive the outcomes and impact of the

makerspaces to be positive and educational, particularly in STEAM arenas, even if they are not

sure how to best incorporate makerspaces into the curriculum.

120

Makerspace scheduling is a challenge. Time spent in makerspaces has been perceived

to be flexible; however, due to their amount of homework, some student participants perceived

that they lacked the time to go to the makerspace. Also, makerspace projects took some time to

finish, which may be a challenge for some students. A teacher librarian from the focus group

interview said that at first, students felt that forty minutes was a lot of time to do what they

wanted. However, as they started to go through the activities, it was time to clean up before they

were finished. Without a good way to save those projects, students had to start the process all

over again during the next makerspace session.

Another scheduling concern had to do with the library time. One newer librarian

expressed confusion as to why makerspace activities were scheduled during library time. She

asked “why is it (makerspace time) library time. And maybe it's because we use the word library

rather than media.” The misunderstanding of the purpose or the role of makerspaces in 21st

century education may aid in understanding as to why library time may be the best time for

‘tinkering’ (Petrich, Wilkinson, & Bevan, 2013).

Participants in this study generally recommended integrating makerspace learning across

the curriculum. The participants believed that making curriculum connections may help teachers

become more engaged in makerspaces, as well as expose more students to the makerspaces.

A teacher from the focus group interview said that “making sure that we're showing teachers that

this connects to your curriculum” will help offset the notion that this is just one more thing for

them to do. An additional benefit, as viewed by an administrator was that incorporating

makerspace projects in the curriculum may not only help the students learn, but also help

teachers in professional development.

121

A connection with coordinators was recommended even though the participants

perceived the teacher librarians to be effective, highly collaborative staff members. One

administrator said that coordinators could help get other teachers onboard, facilitate the

curriculum and content connections, and promote the use of spaces expanding the vision and its

potential.

While a makerspace was popular among students who already used it, the participants

believed that makerspaces needed to be further promoted. Many of the participants believed that

makerspace needed to be promoted more to high school students than to elementary students

who tend to explore more. Through advertising, high school students can understand the value

that makerspaces have on learning curricula necessary for their college career.

One teacher said that they advertised through “popup events.” They have also set up

tables with “eye catching flying things and moving robots” to attract students exiting the

building. Another teacher noted the mix-up around what makerspaces are and how they are

labeled for student confusion around if they were already participating in a makerspace. A

teacher librarian in the focus group said that their digital literacy team had been implementing

makerspace activities for a year, although the team had not used the term “makerspace” yet.

Advertising/promotion of makerspaces key to successful integration. While a

makerspace was popular among students who already used it, the participants believed that

makerspaces needed to be further advertised. Many of the participants believed that makerspace

needed to be promoted more to high school students than to elementary students who tend to

explore more. Through advertising, high school students can understand the value that

makerspaces have on learning curriculum necessary for their college career.

122

One teacher said that they advertised through “popup events.” They have also set up

tables with “eye catching flying things and moving robots” to attract students exiting the

building. Another teacher noted the mix-up around what makerspaces are and how they are

labeled. This caused student confusion around if they were already participating in a makerspace.

One teacher in the focus group said that their team had been implementing makerspace activities

for a year, although the team had not used the term “makerspace” yet.

The literature states that innovations succeed and are sustained when a clear vision is

articulated by leaders, valued by organizational members, communicated frequently to

stakeholders and implemented alongside ongoing professional development (Frank et al., 204;

Kebritchi, 2010; Stosic & Stosic, 203). Better advertising and clearer articulation could help not

only high school and other students, but also teachers and administrators to run successful

makerspace programs.

The third research question asked about what stakeholders could be doing to better

support student learning in makerspaces. The three themes of integration into the curriculum,

connecting coordinators, and advertising the makerspaces through a variety of channels supports

the idea that makerspaces are useful tools for learning but, as the literature states about

innovations, they can only be successful with support from all stakeholders.

Discussion of Findings in Relation to the Theoretical Framework

The study explored the perceptions of administrators, library and IT specialists, teachers

and students about makerspace implementation and the acquisition of deeper learning and 4C’s

skills. The Diffusion of Innovation theoretical framework (Rogers, 2003) was used as a lens to

interpret the findings. As stated by Rogers (2003), “Diffusion is the process in which an

innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social

123

system” (p. 5). DoI addresses the circumstances under which an organization adopts and

reinvents itself over time. DoI focuses on the idea that diffusion occurs within complex social

systems over time. Therefore, Rogers’ (2003) framework provides insight into the structures,

supports and perceptions of people involved in the transition to and implementation of school

makerspaces.

In this study, the innovation studied was the implementation of makerspaces across the

district for the purpose of fostering and supporting deeper learning and the development of 4C’s

in students. A large focus of the research questions centered on the initial perceptions of

stakeholders and students relative to the impact and benefits of makerspaces on student

engagement and deeper level learning. The practical implications of DOI are evidenced by the

student’s own words. A student said, “when I first came to makerspace I started off with 3D

pens, and then I sort of started helping around and then I started fixing things around like the

Spheros were broken at one point and I fixed those.” Another student stated that “There's no real

"here are the instructions on how to make a video." Just it's you go in there and you get your

hands dirty.” An administrator posited that, “there's been a lot more attention now that we have

the tools. I've seen people restructuring, I've seen the librarians who prior to, they were very

limited in what they could offer and what their skill set was.”

In considering communication channels, this study investigated the ways in which the

district communicated with stakeholders to engage them. Frank et al. (2004) in their study of

schools in the process of implementing computer integration noted that communication and

collaboration is a reciprocal process throughout any given innovation implementation, and that

members of the social system of an organization continuously influence one. Hung (2012) noted

that peer to peer learning and sharing are important, and that when teachers have ownership in

124

professional learning related to the implementation of a given innovation, sustainability of the

innovation becomes possible.

This study structured interview questions to examine how district communication

channels influenced the perceptions of each stakeholder group. A challenge during this study was

that classroom teachers were not perceived to be as engaged as library teachers. Administrators

noted that this may have been due to the training provided to library teachers that was not

provided to classroom teachers. Another communication challenge occurred with library

teachers. Some did not understand why the library time was the makerspace time.

The study examined the dimension of time in the district implementation of makerspaces. The

interview questions asked how the stakeholders learned about the makerspace idea, their initial

reactions to district wide implementation based on their practices and systems of supports, the

methods used to encourage stakeholders to implement makerspaces and makerspace activities,

their personal decisions and beliefs relative to makerspace implementation, the implementation

itself and any further steps geared toward improvement in terms of learning outcomes and levels

of student engagement. The study also examined how the social system of the district reacted in

implementing district wide makerspaces and in meeting the previously mentioned objectives of

4C’s skills development and deeper learning. Rogers (2003) noted that few researchers have

examined the role of either communication channels or social systems on the diffusion of

innovation.

This study addressed both the communication channels and the social system.

As noted earlier, classroom teachers were not as aware about makerspaces as library teachers.

Library teachers did not always understand why the library was chosen to be the makerspace

zone. Some of this confusion is the result of inconsistency in the naming used for the

125

makerspaces. The school did not always use the term makerspaces to refer to these new learning

zones. Finally, the lack of consistent communication across stakeholder groups also made some

stakeholders question the value of play and tinkering as real learning and not just fun activities.

By examining these elements of the framework and the five stages in the diffusion of innovation

process, this researcher gained insights into the perceptions of the participants of the district’s

makerspace implementation and the potential influence of the makerspaces on student

engagement and deeper learning.

The results of this study add to the growing literature on the value of makerspaces and on

the usefulness of DoI in studying makerspaces. The findings may also help educational leaders

better articulate the learning that is possible or that has been realized through tinkering or making

opportunities. Additionally, educators and administrators may have an improved understanding

of how to initiate and support the development of makerspaces in their own educational settings.

DoI theory is about how innovation spreads and disperses (“diffuses”) among a collaborative

group. It also can diffuse among persons or groups who use the same tools, frequent the same

areas, are exposed to the same stimuli, etc. The results of this study indicate that the makerspaces

were an innovation that spread unevenly through the district due to the obstacles mentioned

above as some of the themes discovered in the study. In other words, the makerspace concept did

not optimally diffuse due to certain difficulties in implementation. Where those obstacles were

overcome or absent, the DoI occurred as it was intended to.

Transformation of teaching and learning in this study’s learning environments

occurred when the district directed attention to the social systems, time, and

communication channels. Rogers (2003) suggests that a visibly defined innovation is at the

heart of any change. In fact, Rogers (2003) is clear that the innovation does not need to be new,

126

just new to the individual or the organization. In the district presented in this case study, the

administrators, students, and teachers identified the makerspace innovation mainly as intended,

with the goal to increase 4C’s skills, student engagement and STEM/STEAM skills.

Communication channels. Rogers (2003) contends that strong communication channels

are a critical factor to the diffusion of innovation across any organization. Although the

participants agreed that the district must improve its communication of expectations for teaching

and learning, the majority of participants identified the initiative with the intended purpose of

engaging students and fostering 4C’s skills development.

As Rogers (2003) explains, communication channels are necessary to spread information

and expectations regarding an innovation from the adopters to individuals within an organization

who are currently unaware of the innovation or the expectations for implementation. In this

study, participant responses varied on the nature of the communication needed from the district.

Some teachers indicated limited communication from the top but not necessarily perceive that as

a negative.

Top down directives are not always effective. As Rogers (2003) contends, and Tang and

Ang (2002) agree, when the communication channels involve peer-to-peer communication in

support of the innovation, diffusion of that innovation is more likely to occur. Findings reveal

that although communication channels in this particular district could be strengthened, there was

enough general direction and peer-to-peer communication to support the makerspace

implementation.

Social Systems. As such, Rogers (2003) stresses that innovation occurs within the formal

and informal social systems of an organization. Importantly, Rogers (2003) contends that these

social systems either act as catalysts or barriers to the diffusion of innovation. Thus, it is critical

127

that organizations cultivate and attend to the needs of the social systems (Rogers, 2003). In focus

group discussions in this particular district, evidence of small, informal social systems emerged.

For example, within the district’s Digital Literacy and Science departments, a notable difference

surfaced between the early adopters of the makerspace initiative and teachers not yet aware

and/or interested in the makerspaces. Findings suggest that it is critical that schools and districts

cultivate both the formal and more informal social systems to effectively achieve the full

potential of makerspace programs.

Time. Regardless of the social system, all teacher participants called for more time for

scheduling and collaboration around the makerspace initiative. Rogers (2003) suggests that the

element of time is more complicated than the mere provision of opportunity for preparation and

collaboration. First, Rogers noted that leaders of innovation must consider “five main steps in the

innovation-decision process: (1) knowledge, (2) persuasion, (3) decision, (4) implementation,

and (5) confirmation” (2003, p. 20). Each of these elements takes time and overlap with the

elements of communication channels and social systems.

In the instance of makerspace implementation discussed in this study’s district, initial

efforts began with the training of the Digital Literacy Team. At that point, the district began to

communicate about the makerspace initiative and made the initial implementation plan more

visible to all stakeholders. In providing teachers with opportunities for experimentation in the

makerspaces during library and other flexibly scheduled time, ongoing PD, and opportunities for

sharing makerspace success stories, the district hopes to persuade teachers to embrace

makerspace learning. The rate of innovation adoption in this district occurred over the past two

years and is still in its infancy. Hence, findings suggest that this district’s provision of teacher

time and social support systems encouraged the current speed of innovation.

128

The study revealed that teachers integrated makerspace learning activities leading

to deeper learning competencies when provided sufficient communication, support, time,

opportunities for collaboration, and peer evidence of effectiveness. As previously suggested,

individuals are more likely to adopt and implement an innovation more quickly when they

understand the purpose of the innovation, communicate with leaders and peers about that

innovation, and collaborate with members of their social system on its implementation (Rogers,

2003). During the focus groups and individual interviews, administrators acknowledged some

communication and expectation setting regarding makerspace implementation. Students and

teachers recognized some gaps in these channels of communication and expectation, yet

uniformly identified the program positively as well as the systems of associated supports.

Through collaboration with members of the Digital Literacy Team, PD, and experimentation in

some classrooms leading to evidence of increased student engagement and 4C’s skills

development, teachers realized the benefits of makerspace learning. However, some teachers

suggested that the district might engage in more communication regarding the purpose of

makerspaces and the rationale for housing those spaces in the libraries, in order to generate more

awareness, understanding and enthusiasm amongst staff.

Strategic planning and goal setting resulted in makerspace implementation

coherence and transformation in this district’s studied because of its distributive leadership

structures. Based on Roger’s (2003) theory, the case presented in this study engaged in a more

decentralized diffusion of innovation, affording significant opportunities for the Digital Literacy

Team structures to define implementation expectations. Using a decentralized approach

presented opportunities for this district. Regular meetings, outside learning opportunities and

ongoing staff development for DLT supported the diffusion of the makerspace initiative through

129

formal and informal networks, experimentation, shared learning, and samples of student work

and lessons leading to 4C’s skills development and student engagement through makerspace

learning projects.

Discussion of Findings in Relation to the Literature Review

In the section that follows, the researcher presents the findings of the study aligned with

the major areas of Chapter II’s literature review: Makerspaces and 4C’s skills defined; learning

within makerspaces; the maker movement and its impact; and district implementation of

makerspaces.

Makerspaces and 4C’s skills defined. Research and literature defines 4C’s skills as the

communication, collaboration, critical thinking and creativity skills that students need for

success in a global economy (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014; Goff, 2013; Jacobs, 2010; Partnership

for 21st Century Education, 2009; Zhao, 2012). Similarly, the Hewlett Foundation’s (2014)

definition of deeper learning competencies including communication, collaboration, critical

thinking, academic mindsets including learning how to learn and self-directed learning, and

academic content knowledge. The participants in this case study discussed each of these 4C’s

skills and deeper learning competencies as the learning goals and outcomes of the district’s

makerspace programs.

Makerspaces as constructivist learning zones. Makerspaces can be classified as

constructivist learning zones. Varied theoretical orientations (Phillips 1995) explore different

facets of constructivism such as cognitive development, social aspects, and the role of context.

According to Matthews (2000), the educational literature identifies eighteen different forms of

constructivism, yet most scholars place the forms into three categories: (1) sociological, (2),

psychological, and (3) radical constructivism.

130

Richardson (2003) calls constructivist pedagogy “the creation of classroom

environments, activities, and methods that are grounded in a constructivist theory of learning,

with goals that focus on individual students developing deep understandings in the subject matter

of interest and habits of mind that aid in future learning.”The data collected through the focus

groups, individual interviews and document reviews highlighted evidence of 4C’s skills

development in teacher and district materials, student work products and student’s metacognitive

reflections. The district’s library makerspaces provided technology infused, creative

opportunities for communication, collaboration, critical thinking, real-world learning, self-

directed learning, student ownership of learning, and connections to academic content.

Similarly, multiple studies indicated that technology rich, hands-on, constructivist

learning environments provide students ongoing opportunities for meaning making and self-

directed learning (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014; Hatakka, Anderson & Grolound, 2013) through

active collaboration, hands-on application, and real-world learning (Keengwe & Onchwari,

2011; Mishra, Koehler & Henriksen, 2011). Further, several studies revealed that students are

more likely to collaborate, communicate, critically think, employ academic mindsets, transfer

content knowledge, and demonstrate self-directed learning strategies when teachers provide

technology-infused, open ended learning opportunities such as those provided in makerspaces

(AIR, 2014; Guha, Caspary, Stites, Padilla, Arshan, Park Tse, Astudillo, Black, & Adeleman,

2014). Thus, the practices outlined in the literature closely align to the evidence provided by the

district administrators, students, and teachers.

Learning within makerspaces. The finding of this study resulted in several important

contributions to the understanding of makerspaces. In looking to answer the first research

question about how the district has organized its structures, practices, and use of resources to

131

support purposeful implementation of makerspaces, a couple of important revelations were

uncovered. The researcher found that the availability of challenging projects and resources, and

administrative support contributed to a successful implementation. Students enjoyed using 3D

pens and other tools to engage in challenging activities where they could explore and help their

peers explore and solve complex problems. Sheridan et al. (2014) have noted that participants

lead, teach, and learn through collaboration as they join the makerspace’s community of practice.

Districts currently using makerspaces can seek to include challenging projects into their activities

so that students can maximize the benefits obtained. Districts exploring makerspaces can be

assured that positive outcomes are achievable.

For the purpose of Maker activities, Martinez and Stager (2013) stress the importance of

a spiraling; iterative design that supports rapid prototyping and that may not be entirely planned

out from start to finish. Proponents of makerspaces as design thinking labs argue that the format

allows a reframing in the way students learn in the areas of STEAM, including science,

technology, engineering, mathematics and the arts.

According to Brahms and Crowley (2014), one of the appeals of making as a learning

process for STE(A)M education is that it provides numerous entry points to participation.

Making provides participants opportunities to learn and apply multi-disciplinary knowledge and

skills while tinkering and expressing one’s self to multiple audiences (Martinez & Stager, 2013;

Sheridan, Halverson, Litts, Brahms, Jacobs-Priebe & Owens, 2014; West-Puckett, 2013).

Educational supporters like Martinez and Stager (2013) and Lee Martin (2015) assert that maker

activities provide an opportunity for educational innovation.

The maker movement and its impact. The Maker Movement in education has emerged

as a growing trend. Makerspaces are appearing in a growing number of U.S. schools across the

132

country. In a grass-roots fashion, the movement is spreading by educators and school leaders

who see the benefits that hands-on learning activities have on engaging their students. The

International Society of Technology Educators received close to 4,000 proposal submissions for

their annual conference, and they aggregate the data to determine popular topics. The trending

topics of 2016 all touched on Makerspace activities: coding and robotics, Maker Movement,

STEAM, student-driven learning, and flexible learning environments (ISTE Connects, 2016).

In looking to answer the second research question about what stakeholders perceive as the

outcomes, challenges and impact of the makerspaces, meeting learners’ needs, promoting the

4C’s, independent learning, and developing STEM skills were positive outcomes of the

makerspaces. The makerspaces allowed students to lead their own learning, therein fostering

independence and the 4C’s. It also allowed students to work across curriculum content areas

resulting in better development of STEM skills. These findings align to Sheridan et al. (2014)

suggestion that makerspaces “support making in disciplines that are traditionally separate” (p.

526).

Thus far, empirical studies have focused on what students learn through targeted making

activities, such as building circuits into textiles (Buechley, Peppler, Eisenbert, & Kafai, 2013) or

using a programming language such as Scratch for interactive media design (Resnick, M.,

Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernandez, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., et al., 2009). As

mentioned previously, despite the popularity of the topic, little documented research exists on the

processes of learning and level of engagement and/or achievement that may occur as a result of

makerspace projects.

133

Further research on learning within makerspaces is necessary to validate makerspaces as

settings that facilitate significant learning opportunities, both to policymakers, funders, and

practitioners.

The role of innovation, communication channels, time, and social systems. The

diffusion of innovation surrounding makerspace programs is difficult for districts and schools to

achieve. Districts must decide if their best approach is through top-down directives or distributed

leadership opportunities. This Case Study is grounded in Rogers’ (2003) Diffusion of Innovation

(DoI) theoretical framework. Studies investigating educational innovations using DoI as a

framework suggest that initiatives often fail because leadership does not provide the necessary

infrastructure or access to experts to spread the innovation (Stošić & Stošić, 2013). Additional

studies reveal that the spread of the innovative teaching and learning model is dependent upon

clear communication of the program goals and objectives to all stakeholders within the

organization (Levin, Stephen, & Winkler, 2012). Moreover, studies indicate that when districts

provide clear communication of their rationale, teachers are more likely to take the time to

collaborate and implement the intended practices (Kebritchi, 2010).

Finally, studies provide significant data to suggest that it is the social systems including

administrators, students, and teachers within an organization that ultimately diffuse or block the

spread of innovation (Frank, Zhao & Borman, 2004), including makerspace programs. For

example, a study conducted by Hung, Shu-Shing, and Lim (2012) argues that communities of

practice rather than top-down directives are more effective at spreading innovative teaching and

learning practices.

Ultimately, the administrators, students, and teachers participating in this Case Study

agreed that the district did not implement the makerspace initiative with many top-down

134

directives, but rather through a distributed leadership model which benefitted all stakeholders..

Also, the administrators, library media specialists and instructional technology specialists

outlined the numerous opportunities for professional learning through meetings, field trips and

ongoing collaboration to build their knowledge base around makerspace facilitation and

integration.

Most district participants agreed that classroom teachers would have benefited from

greater communications around the vision for makerspace implementation. District

administrators, building administrators, and students acknowledged the need for ongoing

communication of vision as well as further training of classroom teaching staff. Thus, the

findings from this Case Study align closely to the findings in the literature.

District implementation of makerspaces. The third research question sought to

understand what could stakeholders be doing to better support student learning in makerspaces.

The results indicated that getting more classroom teachers on board was required for the success

of the program. The literature supports that engagement and achievement increase when teachers

challenge students with real world problem solving (AIR, 2014; Guha et al, 2014).

Scheduling was another way in which stakeholders could better support student learning. There

was some confusion among teachers as to why library time was the time for the makerspaces.

This challenge can be remedied through more professional training. Many schools across the

nation use library as the makerspace time since library media centers act as independent learning

zones and have much in common with makerspaces. Also, their locations in school buildings

allow for and encourage independent learning and exploration of personal interests through

provision of resources, materials and various forms of media.

135

This question also examined what could stakeholders do to better support student

learning. The findings indicated that integrating the makerspaces into the curriculum, using

coordinators to help “connect” the curriculum with the makerspace activities, and more student

advertising could help stakeholders better support student learning. This is also consistent with

the literature that innovation implementation is successful when stakeholders are engaged

throughout the planning and implementation process (Frank et al., 2004).

The literature review findings suggested that innovation will diffuse throughout an

organization/school, but not necessarily smoothly or evenly. Sheridan et al. (2004) anticipated

difficulties in integrating makerspaces into curricula. Frank et al. (2004) stated that innovation

will diffuse optimally when all who are affected are engaged in the process. The findings of the

present study confirm that bringing all stakeholders on board is needed for the full and smooth

implementation of makerspaces.

Conclusion

Makerspaces are not a new phenomenon as such, as students at the elementary and

secondary levels have always been afforded the opportunity, to varying degrees, to exercise their

creative skills and learn new ways to be creative. However, the concept of makerspaces as

dedicated and purposeful implementations to help foster student learning, innovation, and

creativity is new. This school district was a worthwhile case study because it has adopted

makerspaces as part of its curricula, through dedicated spaces and optimally scheduled student

time.

There was a consensus among the stakeholders that the makerspaces were valuable in

fostering student learning. Students enjoyed the challenges presented and the ability to exercise

their creative skills. Administrators and teachers reported that the availability and use of the

136

makerspaces had helped students with the development of the 4Cs and their STEM skills. There

were some potential difficulties noted with scheduling, location, and promotion of the

makerspaces, but these were only perceived as practical difficulties, not insurmountable

obstacles.

Problems of scheduling related to the most vital perceived necessity: getting teachers “on

board” with the concept of makerspaces. As an added educational tool, teachers welcomed the

concept and use of makerspaces; however, they did add complexity to the already challenging

issue of scheduling and space allocation. All agreed that teacher buy-in is vital to the success of

the makerspaces program.

Significance of the Study

The potential significance of this study goes well beyond the particular school district

involved in this study. Teachers, administrators, and parents are engaged in an ongoing search

nationwide for the best ways to impart STEM skills and the 4Cs to students. While not every

school district would necessarily be welcome to the idea of makerspaces, the example examined

in this study suggests a new way to foster student learning and innovation. The concept of

makerspaces could inspire other school districts to either implement their own makerspaces or

invent something similar of their own.

Furthermore, there is widespread recognition in pedagogical practice that students should

be afforded the opportunity to learn on their own. Makerspaces allow them to do this. Students

who learn on their own initiative are more engaged and experience better academic outcomes

than those who simply learn passively. The need for a place and time for students to engage in

independent, creative learning has been recognized for some time but it has often been a

challenge to meet that need, a factor that was mentioned by several stakeholders, particularly

137

teachers. If the need for and benefit afford by makerspaces is emphasized, then stakeholders will

exert extra effort to make sure that makerspaces, or something similar, are available to students.

Many schools across the country are incorporating makerspaces into their school

libraries, oftentimes through the leadership of their library media specialists, who see

makerspaces as a natural complement to more traditional library program offerings. School

library media centers, as independent learning zones, have much in common with makerspaces,

as locations in school buildings that allow for and encourage independent learning and

exploration of personal interests through provision of resources, materials and various forms of

media. Since makerspaces are constructivist learning environments, it makes sense that they can

be in the library where all the school’s scholarly sources and media resources are housed. In this

regard, makerspaces are moving the library environment from a space for consumption to a place

of creation (Austin et al. 2011; Bagley 2012; Britton 2012a, 2012b; Britton and Considine 2012;

IMLS 2012; Scott 2012). This is consistent with the goal of and the literature about makerspaces.

Gustafson (2013) stated that “When school libraries, educational curriculum and maker mentality

work together both practically and ideologically, it is ultimately students who will benefit in this

new model for education.” These findings support the need for more research and training so that

classroom teachers and library teachers understand the value of makerspaces and the reasons

library time is a good time to host makerspaces.

Recommendations

After careful review of the research findings, the researcher offers the following

recommendations for district and school leaders to consider:

1. Create and implement a long-range makerspace implementation plan that includes

measurable objectives and systems of supports.

138

2. Connect makerspace teaching and learning goals to 4C’s skills and deeper learning

competencies.

3. Integrate makerspace learning activities across the curriculum.

4. Get classroom teachers on board through two-way communication regarding the

implementation plan, and perceived supports and barriers.

5. Connect coordinators/department heads with the makerspace program for increased

integration with classroom learning.

6. Continue to study the impact of makerspaces on 4C’s skills development and student

engagement in future years of implementation to gain longitudinal understanding.

Create and implement a long-range makerspace vision and implementation plan

that includes systems of supports. Both district and school leaders discussed the importance of

long-range planning to implement the makerspace program to foster 4C’s skills and deeper

learning. One administrator commented, “From an administrative perspective, it is always my

hope that we as a team come up with a vision and come up with the process and the product and

what we're going to do, so Makerspaces isn't any different. Then that I help the team to pitch the

idea, sell it to whoever needs to buy into it, whether it's financial like the District funding it or

the SCF coming in or whatever, those kinds of things. Then as much as I can, writing about it or

talking about it at meetings or sharing it at school committee. I've posted dozens of pictures on

the website of Makerspace activities over the last few years as a way to get the community to

understand and all that. However, while that's my thing, it's really been my hope that the

teachers, the members of the committee, the team who are making these things happen, that they

would really carry that torch and do the work in the buildings of selling the idea and making it

compelling for teachers, making it make sense. The majority of administrator and teacher

139

participants reflected on the importance of including systems of supports to build and sustain an

effective makerspace implementation. Through the continued development and implementation

of a strategic vision and adequate supports, the district positions itself to transform teaching and

learning using their makerspace programs as a catalyst for 4C’s skills development and

innovative, deeper learning. The administrator and teacher participants all stressed that if

teachers don’t understand the vision and purpose, they will be less likely to embrace makerspace

learning activities.

Connect teaching and learning goals to 4C’s skills and deeper learning

competencies. Some of the district’s teachers articulated a need to understand the goals of the

makerspace program better. At the same time, administrators, students, and teachers all agreed

that the overall purpose of the makerspace implementation specifically, should be to foster the

acquisition of 4C’s skills and deeper learning (DL) competencies. During the discussion, the

participants used words such as “creativity”, “21st century skills,” “self-directed learning,”

“STEM/STEAM,” “design thinking,” and “problem solving.” The administrators, students, and

teachers provided numerous examples of lessons, work samples and student reflections targeting

4C’s skills and DL. Lessons and work samples included 3D models of neurons, electric animal

projects, 3D pen architecture creations, lego creations, bristle bot challenge events and more…

The findings suggest that in clearly articulating the goals of makerspace implementation to

include 4C’s skills and DL, schools are more likely to see increased application of these skills

and competencies.

Integrate makerspace learning across the curriculum. Consistent with the existing

literature, participants in this study generally recommended integrating makerspace learning

140

across the curriculum. The participants believed that making curriculum connections may help

teachers become more engaged in makerspaces, as well as expose more students to makerspace.

A teacher from the focus group interview said that “making sure that we're showing

teachers that this connects to your curriculum” will help offset the notion that this is just one

more thing for them to do. An additional benefit, as viewed by an administrator was that

incorporating makerspace activities in the curriculum may not only help the students learn, but

also help teachers in professional development.

Trentin (2012) noted that an organization must develop an effective innovation strategy

such that the innovation becomes an integrated part of the system. In the case of makerspaces,

curriculum connections and collaborative, co-teaching and/or co-facilitating efforts thus make

sense as two strong innovation strategies to connect makerspace activity with classroom

learning.

Get classroom teachers on board through two-way communication regarding the

makerspace implementation plan, and barriers and supports. For this study, library teachers

led the makerspaces. This led to students who were generally engaged in makerspace projects,

but the perception was that classroom teachers were the least involved with the makerspaces.

One administrator claimed that since library teachers were the first ones trained they understood

the relevance and were prepared. The classroom teachers however, saw it as one more thing they

needed to do. A teacher stated that she felt “disconnected” to makerspace. It was not part of what

she did in her classroom or knew the intent behind it. Another teacher felt that it was a way “to

give up control [which was] a scary thing.”

Connect coordinators/department heads to the makerspace program for increased

integration with classroom learning. Establishment of a connection with coordinators was

141

recommended even though participants perceived the teacher librarians to be effective, highly

collaborative staff members. One administrator said that, “Because we're still in its infancy, we

need to do a better job of bringing the coordinators and the other teachers on board and making

those curriculum, content connections.” A teacher from the focus group interview said that

coordinators could help “connect” the curriculum with makerspace activities. Another

administrator stated that connecting coordinators could also help with promoting the use of

makerspaces, thereby expanding the vision and its potential. Any educational innovation that

has staying power tends to connect integration and successful implementation with adequate

structures and supports as well as an understanding of the perceptions of stakeholders.

Continue to study the impact of makerspaces on 4C’s skills development and

student engagement in future years of implementation to gain longitudinal understanding.

Although the district is in its second year of makerspace implementation, the makerspaces are

still a new concept in library programming across elementary, middle school and high school

sites. New resources are still being added and makerspace programming activities are still being

developed. For the district to understand the implications of makerspaces across the district, they

should engage in a longitudinal study that encompasses the perspectives of teachers, students,

and parents across grade levels for an extended period of five to seven years.

The ongoing findings from such a study will allow the district to continue to make decisions

about the makerspaces that will inform practices related to 4C’s skills development, deeper

learning and student engagement.

Further Recommendations/Implications for Practice

Establishment of a maker culture. In order to promote makerspace learning, it is

important to focus on the establishment of a maker culture. Though the tools are important, the

142

concept of students as makers and the importance of promoting that concept will lead to greater

buy in across classrooms, schools and districts regardless of the amount of shiny equipment and

new tools. This study revealed that in the building where a former administrator had embraced

the role of creativity and “making” in learning, more examples of teachers implementing

integrated maker projects was occurring. Where the administrator had highly valued and fostered

a culture of creativity, even several years after a change in administration, the evidence of

integrated makerspace learning was still apparent across grade levels and curriculum areas. In

schools where students have more opportunities to play, tinker and create independently in the

process of learning, the learning is less likely to be dismissed as play without purpose.

Documentation of student learning. To emphasize the learning process and design

thinking in action through making, student learning projects are easily documented through a

wide range of simple, inexpensive technology tools such as “FlipGrid” and “SeeSaw.” Benefits

include not only ongoing assessment of student learning but also the opportunity to promote how

learning takes place in makerspaces to a wider range of stakeholders including parents and

community members. Through events such as maker fairs, teachers and educational leaders also

have a rich opportunity to share the deeper learning taking place in makerspaces as students

share their enthusiasm with parents. The possibilities of partnerships, where parents and other

community members facilitate maker sessions related to their own areas of expertise, can also

serve the purpose of further establishing a maker culture in our school communities in which all

members of the community have the opportunity to celebrate creativity and 4C’s skills

development. In the district studied, parents were invited to building maker events regularly, in

which their sons and daughters demonstrated and explained their maker projects, ranging from

robots to 3D printing creations.

143

Emphasis on student voice and choice. By involving students in the roll out of

makerspaces through including them in the decision making process about resources and

projects, students will naturally be more engaged. Students at the high school of the district

studied helped to design student surveys to assess the success of monthly maker challenge

activities, as well as developed resource wish lists based on their areas of interest. Grant funding

of maker resources matched student requests related to passions ranging from music composition

to robotics and theater costume design.

Professional development for teachers. From pre-service learning to veteran teacher

staff development, makerspace/constructivist teaching methods, strategies and goals need to be

consistently taught in order to make the most difference for all stakeholders in any given school

community. In this district, members of the DLT were offered ongoing field trip visits to

exemplary makerspaces where they were given hands on makerspace learning time to help them

understand the value of makerspace learning, use of specific maker resources, and maker

teaching strategies and/or facilitation skills. Teachers need help in jumping the hurdle from

viewing makerspace learning as “the chaos of the wild West,” as one study participant put it, to

seeing that chaos as a necessary part of the creative, learning process in action with the potential

result of deeper student learning competencies.

Future Studies

Future research into the stakeholders’ perceptions about effectiveness of makerspace

implementation and the acquisition of deeper learning and 4C’s skills could help further prove

the educational value of makerspaces. Future studies should look to use the DoI framework

within a broader context including several school districts or a larger urban school district

without ties to the researcher. This would help minimize pro-innovation bias, individual-blame

144

bias, recall problem and equality concerns. It would also help mitigate any biases by the

researcher during the research and interpretation process. An added consideration is the district

size and location. Smaller implementations have resources and time challenges similarly faced

by larger implementations. However, they also have the benefit of size when communicating

within and across stakeholders and when providing training. A larger implementation may reveal

challenges not seen in this small, New England suburban school district. The size of the school

district may also impact the tools available in makerspaces. Students enjoyed the use of 3D pens

and printers as these facilitated 3D models. Districts without such resources would be at a

disadvantage of reaping all the benefits of makerspaces. Similarly, rural districts may be at a

disadvantage from location and internet access that would limit the use of iPads to access world

wide web. They may also have older staff that is not as comfortable with technology or with

change. Future studies could help mediate these challenges and provide evidence of the value of

makerspaces that applies to districts with varying resources and at varying locations.

The researcher also recommends that methodologies other than case studies be considered in

future research. The approach used in this study was worthwhile and yielded quality, usable data,

but other approaches, such as phenomenology, could be quite useful as well. As with almost all

research, the findings of future studies on this topic could add to the body of knowledge and

inform future practice. The researcher recommends the replication of this research in other

settings and contexts. The findings of this study suggest that such future research would be

valuable and would help stakeholders determine best practices in fostering the 4Cs and STEM

skills in students through makerspaces.

145

Validity of the Study

To ensure that the results are of this study were valid, the researcher included participants

that represented a broad range of organizational members. Prior to the discussions, the researcher

informed the participants of the purpose of the study as well as reminded them of her

positionality. She assured the participants of their anonymity and verified that their participation

was in no way evaluative. Since this researcher does not evaluate teachers, students, or

administrators, the participants reported comfort in freely responding. Furthermore, the

researcher clarified her biases and outlined the research propositions before the start of the study.

Since Rogers (2003) notes that innovation bias can occur in studies such as this, the researcher

maintained reflective journals as part of the process. In addition, she engaged in member

checking to ensure the accuracy of the data collected and transcribed. The researcher followed

the researcher guides and questions to ensure the validity of the data collected.

Internal validity refers to the believability and trustworthiness of the findings. This is assured in

two ways: ensuring that the participants understand what the researcher requires for the study

and verifying the data via triangulation. These standards were followed by making sure that

participants knew the purpose and goal of the study; and by making sure that the interviews

elicited the information that was needed to answer the research questions. Multiple sources of

data provided triangulation and assisted the data analysis process.

External validity refers to the transferability or generalizability of the results. This study

could only be replicated in other settings wherein the concept of makerspaces is being utilized.

However, this study’s methods could be applied to other settings wherein dedicated spaces for

student learning and creativity are being employed. This was assured by the detailed and

thorough explanation of the study’s methods in Chapter 3 and the data analysis in Chapter 4.

146

Limitations of the Study

There are several limitations of this study that should be considered. First is the

theoretical framework. Rogers (2003) describes several limitation of the DoI framework ranging

from pro-innovation bias to individual-blame bias, recall problem and equality.

Pro-innovation bias refers to the assumption that the social system of the organization should

adopt and easily, expediently, carry out the innovation. Tang and Ang (2002) point out that the

emphasis on DoI tends to be on the organization, rather than on the individual members of the

organization who are most impacted by a given innovation. This limitation has been addressed

by including the perceptions of the library media specialists who are implementing makerspace

programming in the district’s libraries, as well as the perceptions of students who have been

involved with makerspace learning activities.

In addition, Rogers (2003) suggests that conducting research during the innovation

process may help offset pro-innovation bias. Since the makerspaces in the district are still in the

process of being built, resourced and implemented fully, the timing of the study was fortuitous.

Other strategies in offsetting pro-innovation bias included studying the successes and failures in

implementation of the innovation concurrently, acknowledging rejection of the innovation

including the extreme of discontinuation, re-invention, and considering the motivation for

innovation (Rogers, 2003; Tang & Ang, 2002).

DoI individual-blame bias is where an individual member of the organization is blamed

for the failed innovation, rather than the organization (Rogers, 2003). As suggested by Rogers

(2003), the researcher broadened the interview questions to investigate not only the decisions of

the individual, but also the decisions of the larger group of stakeholders involved with a given

innovation, and the decisions of organizational leaders lending oversight from above. By

147

investigating perceptions of multiple embedded units within the organization as focus groups,

this study worked to avoid individual-blame bias.

To address the recall issue, the case study approach was used that allowed multiple

members of the organization to retell the events, while document reviews provided additional

evidence of those events (Rogers, 2003). Rogers (2003) also recommended that researchers use

high-quality interview questions, survey questions and trained interviewers to account for the

recall problem. This research study utilized both strategies relevant to the recall problem.

Finally, Rogers (2003) notes that DoI may also lead to issues of equality, creating socioeconomic

gaps between members of the social system. As this study occurred in a public-school system

that offers all members access to makerspaces and makerspace resources through its school

libraries, this issue was less likely to present itself.

The next limitation includes the size and location of the study- suburban New England

district south of Boston, with three elementary schools, one middle school and one high school

and a student population of approximately 3,500. Such a limited sample size, the location, and

the qualitative nature of the study limit the generalizability of the findings.

A further limitation includes the connection of the researcher to the researched as this

researcher is a high school library media specialist within the site selected for this study. Another

limitation is the researcher’s belief and fascination for creative and independent learning. The

researcher is a lifelong learner involved in the library sciences who believes in creative and

independent learning. More details about this can found in the positionality statement. Although

purposeful measures were taken to avoid any personal bias, this is a connection that is

noteworthy for the consumers of this study.

148

Conclusion

The aim of this study was to explore the perceptions of administrators, library and IT

specialists, teachers and students about makerspace implementation and the acquisition of deeper

learning and 4C’s skills. To address the aim of this study, focus group interviews, individual

semi-structured interviews and document reviews were conducted in a small, suburban New

England district south of Boston.

The results of the first research question indicated that the availability of challenging

projects and resources, and administrative support help promote the purposeful implementation

of makerspaces with the specific intent of fostering students’ deeper learning and 4C’s skills

development.

The results of the second research question referring to student outcomes and the impact

of makerspaces found that makerspaces were deemed to be meeting learners’ needs as they help

develop 4C’s skills, foster independent learning, and aid in promoting STEM skills.

For the third research question, the perceived challenges in implementing makerspace

were getting teachers on board and scheduling. Part of the third question also explored

recommendations to better support makerspace implementations. The research found that

integration in the curriculum, having coordinators support, and advertising helped promote

successful makerspace implementations.

These findings support the existing literature promoting the idea that 21st century students

can benefit from makerspaces. Not only do makerspaces promote creative thinking, problem

solving, collaboration and communication, but they also advance STEM learning. As Sheridan et

al. (2014) suggested, a key distinction of makerspaces is the way they “support making in

disciplines that are traditionally separate” (p. 526).

149

The limitations of the findings include the limitations of the DoI framework, the location

and size of the study, the researcher’s connection to the studied school district and the

researcher’s fascination for creative and independent learning. Future research can look to

structure larger, possibly quantitative studies with school districts across the United States testing

the usefulness of the DoI framework in makerspace studies and mitigating the limitations of this

study.

Overall the findings make sound contributions of the possibility of makerspaces to help

students creatively engage and acquire core competencies required for 21st century, 4C’s

learning.

Personal Comments

In my fifteen+ years of work as a library media specialist, I have had the opportunity to

work in a wide range of K-12 school settings including public and private schools in several

states as well as abroad. I have witnessed vast differences in school climate, student and staff

well-being related to the degree of creative, open ended discovery experiences available and

encouraged in those school communities. Those schools where I observed the largest number of

happy students and equally happy staff had ample creative playtime built into their curriculum

and schedule within and beyond the school day, along with numerous elements of shared, project

based learning.

In my opinion, education that does not guide students toward a sense of wonder about the

world is incomplete. Creative, open ended experiences such as those provided in makerspaces

have the potential to light student passions and connect students to the wider world.

Equitable access to makerspace learning activities could transform teaching and learning

if approached in a thoughtful, balanced manner that includes enough structure to ensure that 21st

150

century, 4C’s skills and deeper learning (DL) competencies are achieved while allowing

students’ sense of discovery and spirit of creative freedom to thrive.

Makerspace learning activities, at their ideal, have the potential to unlock student

passions and empower them to become self-directed learners. Educators and school leaders

hoping to create a maker culture in their school communities need to unlearn more traditional

teaching methods in order to serve as effective makerspace learning facilitators.

Reflecting on my own efforts to introduce makerspace learning in my library and to

connect that learning with the curriculum, I became curious about the structures and supports in

place in other schools and districts that allow a maker culture to thrive. I wanted to understand

how the structures and systems might influence the level of student engagements and

development of 4C’s, deeper learning competencies. In addition, I wanted to understand how

educators and district leaders might best organize themselves and systems of support to enhance

the level of staff and student engagement and deeper learning taking place in makerspace

learning environments.

The research design of this study allowed me to answer these questions within the context

of a participant-researcher. Because of my work with this study, including the data collection,

analysis, and formulation of findings, I have developed a better understanding of my research

questions.

In my own district, I look forward to continuing my work with the Digital Literacy Team

to expand, promote and build the makerspace program across grade levels and curriculum areas.

In the new year, I will be presenting to staff at one of our elementary buildings alongside DLT

colleagues. The presentation will include hands on learning time in which staff will take part in a

range of makerspace activities. As a Digital Literacy Team effort, we will continue long range

151

planning with goals of expanding the program to include additional resources in each

makerspace, establish more curriculum connections through collaboration with classroom

teachers, document student learning taking place in the makerspaces, plan and schedule regular

maker challenges during the school day as well as host evening events to showcase makerspace

learning activities.

Additional steps in my own learning process include continued expansion of my current

role as co-leader of the MassCUE Makerspace SIG group, which provides educators with an

ongoing opportunity to share and learn together. In addition to regular virtual meetings and guest

speaker events, the SIG provides members with field trip opportunities to exemplary

makerspaces in Massachusetts and beyond. As a co-leader of that SIG, I have the chance to

learn, grow and influence the makerspace movement not only from within my own state but also

in the larger New England area. As PD Chair for MassCUE, I hope to continue to identify and

recruit makerspace educators, leaders and other experts from around the country to present and

teach at our annual Fall Conference and for other workshop and conference events.

Furthermore, as part of my volunteer work on ISTE’s STEM PLN leadership team and as

PD Chair for that PLN, I plan to continue to plan, organize and take part in national makerspace

related workshops, events and webinars as well as assisting with STEM/STEAM playgrounds

which provide educators with hands on learning opportunities incorporating makerspace

projects, activities and tools. Since global education is another passion of mine, I also hope to

investigate, identify, showcase, facilitate and/or participate in global STEM maker learning

projects to help educators and students in my own district and beyond connect with students and

educators aross the globe in the solving of real world problems that tackle important and worthy,

“beautiful” questions that ideally, go beyond the superficial to embrace the profound.

152

What Should We Do About That Moon?

A wine bottle fell from a wagon and broke open in a field.

That night one hundred beetles and all their cousins gathered.

And did some serious binge drinking.

They even found some seed husks nearby and began to play them like drums and whirl.

This made God very happy.

Then the “night candle” rose into the sky and one drunk creature, laying down his

instrument, said to his friend – for no apparent reason,

“What should we do about that moon?

Seems to Hafiz most everyone has laid aside the music tackling such profoundly useless

questions.

Hafiz, “The Gift”

153

References

Ackerman, P. L. (1996). Adult Intelligence. ERIC Digest. Aljughaiman, A., & Mowrer-Reynolds, E. (2005). Teachers’ Conceptions of Creativity and Creative Students. Journal Of Creative Behavior, 39(1), 17-34. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Westview press. American Association of School Librarians. (2009). Standards for the 21st-century learner in action. Chicago, Ill: American Association of School Librarians. American Institutes for Research. (2014). Does deeper learning improve student outcomes? Results from the study of deeper learning: Opportunities and outcomes. Washington, D.C.: American Institutes for Research. Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: what is Involved and what is the role of the computer science education community?. Acm Inroads, 2(1), 48-54. Barton, D., Hamilton, M., & Ivanič, R. (Eds.). (2000). Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context. Psychology Press. Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The qualitative report, 13(4), 544-559. Beghetto, R.A., & Kaufman, J.C. (2014). Classroom contexts for creativity. High Ability Studies, 25(1), 53-69. Berger, W. (2014). A more beautiful question: The power of inquiry to spark breakthrough ideas. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. Besançon, M., & Lubart, T. (2008). Differences in the development of creative

154

competencies in children schooled in diverse learning environments. Learning and individual differences, 18(4), 381-389. Bevan, B, Gutwill, J.P., Petrich, M., & Wilkinson, K. (2015). Learning Through STEM- Rich Tinkering: Findings From a Jointly Negotiated Research Project Taken Up in Practice.Science Education, 99(1), 98-120. Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and ‘making’ in education: The democratization of invention. FabLabs: Of machines, makers and inventors, 4. Blikstein, P., & Krannich, D. (2013). The makers' movement and FabLabs in education: experiences, technologies, and research. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on interaction design and children (pp. 613-616). ACM. Boone, S. (2014). Using organizational learning to increase operational and conceptual mental models within professional Learning Communities. Journal of Psychological Issues in Org Culture, 5: 85–99. Brahms, L. (2014). Making as a learning process: Identifying and supporting family learning in informal settings (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh). Brahms, L., & Crowley K. (2015). Textual analysis of Make Magazine: Core practices of an emerging learning community Britton, L. (2012). The makings of maker spaces. Retrieved from http://www.thedigitalshift.com/2012/10/public-services/the-makings-of-maker-spaces Buchholz, B., Shively, K., Peppler, K., & Wohlwend, K. (2014). Hands on, hands off: Gendered access in crafting and electronics practices. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21(4), 278-297. Buechley, L., Peppler, K., Eisenberg, M., & Yasmin, K. (2013). Textile Messages:

155

Dispatches from the World of E-Textiles and Education. New Literacies and Digital Epistemologies. Volume 62. Peter Lang Publishing Group. 29 Broadway 18th Floor, New York, NY 10006. Canino-Fluit, A. (2014). School library makerspaces: Making it up as I go. Teacher Librarian, 41(5), 21-28. Carroll, M., Goldman, S., Britos, L., Koh, J., Royalty, A., & Hornstein, M. (2010). Destination, imagination and the fires within: Design thinking in a middle school classroom. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 29(1), 37-53. Chang, S. & Ratliff, C. (2015). Creating an authentic maker education rubric. Edutopia. Clapp, E. P., Ross, J., Ryan, J. O., Tishman, S., Berger, R., & Donner, W. (2017). Maker- centered learning: Empowering young people to shape their worlds. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. Psychology Press. Craft, A., Cremin, T., Hay, P., & Clack, J. (2014). Creative primary schools: developing and maintaining pedagogy for creativity. Ethnography and Education, 9(1), 16-34. Creswell, J. W.(2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research, 4. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Collins. Culpin, V., & Scott, H. (2012). The effectiveness of a live case study approach: Increasing knowledge and understanding of ‘hard’versus ‘soft’skills in executive education. Management Learning, 43(5), 565-577.

156

Davies, R. S., Dean, D. L., & Ball, N. (2013). Flipping the classroom and instructional technology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course. Davis, R. L., Schneider, B., & Blikstein, P. (2017). Making the Invisible Visible: A New Method for Capturing Student Development in Makerspaces. Philadelphia, PA: International Society of the Learning Sciences.. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan. District Administration. DA Special Report. Makerspaces: Meeting of the Minds (2017). DA Custom Publishing. Dougherty, D. (2012). The maker movement. Innovations, 7(3), 11-14. Ebenezer, J., Columbus, R, Kaya, O., Zhang, L., & Ebenezer, D. (2012). One science teacher’s professional development experience: A case study exploring changes in students’ perceptions of their fluency with innovative technologies. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(1), 22-37. Eisenberg, M. and Buechley, L. (2008). Pervasive Fabrication: Making Construction Ubiquitous in Education. Journal of Software, 3(4), pp. 62-68. Eisner, E. (1994). The Three Curricula That All Schools Teach. In The Educational Imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs (pp. 87-107). New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423-435. Farquhar, J. D. (2012). Case study research for business. Sage. Fleming, L. (2015). Worlds of making: Best practices for establishing a makerspace for

157

your school. Corwin Press. Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Dershimer, R. C., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok‐Naaman, R. (2005). Design‐based science and real‐world problem‐solving. International Journal of Science Education, 27(7), 855-879. Foster, M. C. H. (2014). An ethos of sharing in the maker community. age, 24, 1. Fox, R. (2001). Constructivism examined. Oxford review of education, 27(1), 23-35. Frank, K.A., Zhao, Y., & Borman, K. (2004). Social capita and the diffusion of innovations within organizations: The case of computer technology in schools. Sociology of Education, 77(1), 148-171. Doi: 10.1177/003804070407700203 Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder. Fried, B, & Wetstone, K. (2014). President Obama at the White House Maker Faire: “Today’s DIY is tomorrow’s ‘made in America’”[White House blog post]. Fullan, M &, Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep Learning, London: Pearson. Geist, E., & Hohn, J. (2009). Encouraging creativity in the face of administrative convenience: How our schools discourage divergent thinking. Education, 130, 141- 140. Groff, J. (2013). Technology-rich innovative learning environments. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/TechnologyRich%20Innovative%20Learning%20 Environments%20Jennifer%20Groff.pdf Guha, R., Caspary, K., Stites, R., Padilla, Cl, Arshan, N., Park C., Tse, V., Astudillo, S., Black, A., & Adelman, N. (2014) Taking stock of the California Linked Learning

158

District Initiative. Fifth-year evaluation report. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Gustafson, E. (2013). Meeting Needs: Makerspaces and school libraries. School Library Monthly, 29(8), 35-36. Hagel, J., Brown, J. S., & Davison, L. (2008). Shaping strategy in a world of constant disruption. Harvard Business Review, 86(10), 80-89. Halverson, E.R., & Sheridan, K.M. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495-504. Harmancioglu, N., Droge, C, & Calantone, R. J. (2009). Theoretical lenses and domain definitions in innovation research. European Journal of Marketing, 43(1/2), 229-263. doi.org/10.1108/03090560910923319 Hetland, L. (2013). Studio thinking 2: The real benefits of visual arts education. Holcolm, L.B. (2009). Results & lessons learned from 1:1 laptop initiatives: a collective review. Tech Trends, 53(6), 49-55. Honey, M., & Kanter, D. (2013). Design-Make-Play: Growing the next generation of science innovators. New York: New York Hall of Science. Huberman, M., Bitter, C., Anthony, J., & O’Day, J. (2014). Opportunities and outcomes: The shape of deeper learning strategies, structures and cultures in deeper learning network high schools (Research Report No. 1). Retrieved from the American Institutes for Research website: http://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/Report%201%20The%20Shape 20of%Deeper%20Learning_9-23-14v2.pdf Hung, D. W. L., Lee, S. S., & Lim, K. Y. T. (2012). Sustaining research innovations in educational technology through communities of practice. Educational Technology,

159

52(4), 33-37. Hyysalo, Sampsa, Kohtala, Cindy, Helminen, Pia, Mäkinen, Samuli, Miettinen, Virve & Muurinen, Lotta. (2014). Collaborative futuring with and by makers. CoDesign, 10:3-4, 209-228.

ISTE Connects. (2016). The 10 hottest topics in ed tech. Retrieved from

https://www.iste.org/explore/articleDetail?articleid=674

Jacobs, H.H. (2010). Curriculum 21: Essential education for a changing world. Alexandria, VA: ASCD Publishers. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. NYU press. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). The NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Higher Education Edition. New Media Consortium. 6101 West Courtyard Drive Building One Suite 100, Austin, TX 78730. Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2014). Connected code: Why children need to learn programming. Kafai, Y., & Harel, I. (1991). Learning through design and teaching: Exploring social and collaborative aspects of constructionism. Kafai, Y. B., Peppler, K. A., & Chapman, R. N. (2009). The Computer Clubhouse: Constructionism and Creativity in Youth Communities. Technology, Education— Connections. Teachers College Press. 1234 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10027. Kebritchi, M. (2010). Factors affecting teachers' adoption of educational computer games: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 256-270. Keengwe, J., & Onchwari, G. (2011). Fostering meaningful student learning through

160

constructivist pedagogy and technology integration. Learning tools and teaching approaches through ICT advancements, 239-249. Lambert, L. (1995). Toward a theory of constructivist leadership. The constructivist leader, 2851. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom learning. Open University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (Cambridge, UK, & New York, Cambridge University Press). Levin, S. G., Stephan, P. E., & Winkler, A. E. (2012). Innovation in academe: the diffusion of information technologies. Applied Economics, 44(14), 1765-1782. Litts, B. K. (2015). Making learning: Makerspaces as learning environments (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Wisconsin-Madison). Loertscher, D. V., Preddy, L., & Derry, B. (2013). Makerspaces in the school library learning commons and the uTEC Maker Model. Teacher Librarian, 41(2), 48. Luterbach, K. J., & Brown, C. (2011). Education for the 21st century. International journal of applied educational studies, 11(1), 14-33. Machi, L.A., & McEvoy, B. T. (2012). The literature review: Six steps to success (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Maclellan, E., & Soden, R. (2004). The importance of epistemic cognition in student- centred learning. Instructional Science, 32(3), 253-268. Madda, Mary Jo (2016). Albemarle County Schools’ Journey From a Makerspace to a Maker District. EdSurge. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2016-05-02-albemarle- county-schools-journey-from-a-makerspace-to-a-maker-district.

161

Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the Maker Movement for education. Journal of Pre- College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 5(1), 4. Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to Learn: Making. Tinkering, and Engineering in the Classroom, Constructing Modern Knowledge Press, Torrance, CA. Martinez, S., & Stager, G. S. (2013). Making Matters! How the Maker Movement is transforming education. We Are Teachers. Mathews, M. R. (2000). Appraising constructivism in science and mathematics education. National Society for the Study of Education, 99th yearbook, 161. Merriam, S. B. (1985). The case study in educational research: A review of selected literature. The Journal of Educational Thought (JET)/Revue de la Pensée Educative, 204-217. Miami Museum of Science. (2001.) Constructivism and the Five E's. http://www.miamisci.org/ph/lpintro5e.html Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis. Sage. Moga, E., Burger, K., Hetland, L., & Winner, E. (2000). Does studying the arts engender creative thinking? Evidence for near but not far transfer. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3/4), 91-104. National Research Council. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. J. W. Pellegrino & M.L. Hilton (Eds.) Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard educational review, 66(1), 60-93. Ngiam, J., Khosla, A., Kim, M., Nam, J., Lee, H., & Ng, A. Y. (2011). Multimodal deep

162

learning. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on machine learning (ICML-11) (pp. 689-696). OECD. (2015). Students computers and learning: Making the connection. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264239555-en Oliver, K. M. (2016). Professional development considerations for makerspace leaders, part one: Addressing “what?” and “why?”. TechTrends, 60(2), 160-166. Oplinger, J. L., Heiman, M. A. M., Dickens, M., & Foster, M. C. H. (2014). Making and engineering: Understanding similarities and differences. age, 24, 1. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2015). P21 framework definitions. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25 4ItemId Papert, Seymour. (1980) Mindstorms :children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books. Peppler, K., & Glosson, D. (2013). Stitching circuits: Learning about circuitry through e- textile materials. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(5), 751-763. Petrich, M., Wilkinson, K., & Bevan, B. (2013). It looks like fun, but are they learning. Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators, 50-70. Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational researcher, 24(7), 5-12. Plemmons, A. (2014). Building a culture of creation. Teacher Librarian, 41(5), 12. Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of counseling psychology,

163

52(2), 126. Printy, S. M. (2006). Shared Leadership for Teacher and Student Learning. Theory Into Practice, 45(2), 125-132.

Project Tomorrow (2015). Digital learning 24/7: Understanding technology-enhanced learning in the lives of today’s students. Speak Up 2014 National Findings from K-12 Students. Irvine, CA: Project Tomorrow. P21.org. (2016). Framework for 21st Century Learning. [online] Available at: http://www.P21.org. Quinn, H. & Bell, P. (2013). How designing, making, and playing relate to the learning goals of K–12 science education. In M. Honey & D. E. Kanter (Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 17–33). New York: Routledge. Raap, Tony. Trib Total Media (2015). Maker spaces become more common in schools across western Pennsylvania. http://triblive.com/news/. Radley, A., & Chamberlain, K. (2012). The study of the case: Conceptualising case study research. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 22(5), 390-399. Ratto, M., & Boler, M. (2014). DIY citizenship: critical making and social media. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., ... & Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60-67. Resnick, M., & Rosenbaum, E. (2013). Designing for tinkerability. Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators, 163-181.

164

Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers college record, 105(9), 1623- 1640. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press. Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity: Theories and Themes: Research. Development and Practice. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage. Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Educating for innovation. Thinking skills and creativity, 1(1), 41- 48. Schacter, J., Yeow Meng, T., & Zifkin, D. (2006). How Much Does Creative Teaching Enhance Elementary School Students’ Achievement?. Journal of Creative Behavior, 40(1), 47-72. Sheridan, K.M. (2011). Envision and observe: Using the studio thinking framework for

learning and teaching in digital arts. Mind, Brain, and Education, 5(1), 19-26.

Sheridan, K., Halverson, E., Litts, B., Brahms, L. Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T. (2014).

Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three maker spaces. Harvard

Educational Review, 84(4), 505--531.

Simonton, D. K. (2000). Creativity: Cognitive, personal, developmental, and social

aspects. American psychologist, 55(1), 151.

Singh A, Yager S, Yutakom N, Yager R, Moustafa Ali M. (2012). Constructivist teaching practices used by five teacher leaders for the Iowa chautauqua professional development program. International Journal Of Environmental & Science Education [serial online]. 7 (2): 197-216. Sousa, D. A. (Ed.). (2009). How the gifted brain learns. Corwin Press.

165

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage. Stepien, W. J., Gallagher, S. A., & Workman, D. (1993). Problem-based learning for traditional and interdisciplinary classrooms. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16(4), 338-357. Sternberg, R. J. (2015). Teaching for creativity: The sounds of silence. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(2), 115. Stošić, L., & Stošić, I. (2013). Diffusion of innovation in modern school. International Journal Of Cognitive Research In Science, Engineering And Education (IJCRSEE), 1(1), 5-13. Tang, P.S., & Ang, PH. (2002). The diffusion of information technology in Singapore schools: a process framework. New Media & Society, 4(4), 457-478. Doi: 10.1177/14614440232146676 Tappan,M.B.(1998).Socioculturalpsychologyandcaringpedagogy:Exploring

Vygotsky's"HiddenCurriculum".EducationalPsychologist,33(1),23-33.Timmel,J.L.(2001).Creativityandacculturation:PsychologicalandculturaleffectsonthedivergentthinkingofCubanpreadolescentimmigrantsenteringtheUnitedStates.Tishman,S.(2001).Addedvalue:Adispositionalperspectiveonthinking.InACosta(Ed.),Developingminds:Aresourcebookforteachingthinking,thirdedition(pp.72–75).Alexandria,VA:AssociationforSupervisionandCurriculumDevelopment.Tomlinson,C.A.(2009).LearningProfiles&Achievement.Schooladministrator,66(2),28-29.

166

Topper,A.,&Lancaster,S.(2013).Commonchallengesandexperiencesofschooldistrictsthatareimplementingone-to-onecomputinginitiatives.ComputersintheSchools,30(4),346-358.Doi:10.1080/07380569.2013.844640Trentin,G.(2014).Howtotransformadireeducationalneedintoawonderfulopportunityforinnovationandteachers'professionaldevelopment.ItalianJournalofEducationalTechnology,22(1),31-38.Trilling,B.,&Fadel,C.(2009).21stcenturyskills:Learningforlifeinourtimes.JohnWiley&Sons.Vygotsky,L.(1978).Interactionbetweenlearninganddevelopment.Readingsonthedevelopmentofchildren,23(3),34-41.VonGlasersfeld,E.(1995).RadicalConstructivism:AWayofKnowingandLearning.StudiesinMathematicsEducationSeries:6.FalmerPress,Taylor&FrancisInc.,1900FrostRoad,Suite101,Bristol,PA19007.Vossoughi,S.,&Bevan,B.(2014).MakingandTinkering:AReviewoftheLiterature.NationalResearchCouncilCommitteeonOutofSchoolTimeSTEMWashington,DC:NationalResearchCouncil,1-55Vossoughi,S.,Escudé,M.,Kong,F.,&Hooper,P.(2013,October).Tinkering,learning&equityintheafter-schoolsetting.InannualFabLearnconference.PaloAlto,CA:StanfordUniversity.Vossoughi,S.,Hooper,P.K.,&Escudé,M.(2016).Makingthroughthelensofcultureandpower:Towardtransformativevisionsforeducationalequity.HarvardEducationalReview,86(2),206-232.Waters, John K. (2016). What makes a great makerspace. THE Journal. 1-2

167

Wenger,E.(1998).Communitiesofpractice:Learning,meaning,andidentity.Cambridge,U.K:CambridgeUniversityPress.Wenger,E.,McDermott,R.A.,&Snyder,W.(2002).Cultivatingcommunitiesofpractice:Aguidetomanagingknowledge.HarvardBusinessPress.Wilkinson, K., Petrich, M., & Exploratorium (Organization),. (2013). The art of tinkering: Meet 150+ makers working at the intersection of art, science & technology. Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of educational research, 72(2), 131-175. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35. Wiske, M. S., Franz, K. R., & Breit, L. (2005). Teaching for understanding with technology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Wohlwend, K., & Peppler, K. (2015). All rigor and no play is no way to improve learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(8), 22-26. Yazan, B. (2015). Three approaches to case study methods in education: Yin, Merriam, and Stake. The Qualitative Report, 20(2), 134-152. Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage publications. Yokana, L. (2015). Creating an authentic maker education rubric. Edutopia. Zhao, Y. (2012). World class learners: Educating creative and entrepreneurial students. Corwin Press.

168

AppendixA:AdministratorFocusGroupProtocol

Institution:_____________________________________________________Participants(TitleandName):______________________________________Researcher:_____________________________________________________Date:_____________________________________LocationofFocusGroup:____________________________________

Previouslyattainedbackgroundinformation

Researchquestion:Theoverarchingresearchquestionforthisstudyishowteachers,students,andadministratorsperceivetheimplementationoflibrarymakerspaces,andtheirimpactonstudentengagementand4C’sskillsdevelopment(creativity,collaboration,criticalthinkingandcommunication).

PartI:IntroductoryQuestionObjectives(5-7minutes),tobeginaftersignedinformedconsentiscollected

IntroductoryProtocol

Iwanttothankyouinadvanceforyourtimeandyourwillingnesstoparticipateinthisfocusgroup,IamadoctoralstudentatNortheasternUniversityandthisfocusgroupispartoftherequirementsformydoctoraldissertation.IhaveselectedyoutospeakwithmetodaybecauseIidentifiedyouassomeonewithavaluableperspectiveabouttheimplementationofmakerspacesinthedistrict.Myresearchprojectfocusesontheexperienceofadministrators,teachers,andstudentswithaparticularinterestinunderstandinghowthesegroupsdescribetheirperceptionsoftheimplementationoflibrarymakerspacesinourdistrictandtheirimpactonstudentengagementandstudentlearning.Throughthisstudy,Ihopetogainmoreinsightintoyourperceptionsofourlibrarymakerspaces,especiallyhowtheyrelateto4C’sskillsdevelopmentanddeeperlearningcompetencies.Ihopethatthiswillallowmetoidentifywaysinwhichwecanbettersupportteachers,studentsandadministratorsinvolvedinmakerspaceprograms.

BecauseyourresponsesareimportantandIwanttomakesuretocaptureeverythingyousay,Iwouldliketoaudiotapeourconversationtoday.DoIhaveyourpermissiontorecordthisfocusgroupdiscussion?

ThankYou.Iamturningontherecordernow.

Iwillalsobetakingwrittennotesduringthefocusgroup.

169

IcanassureyouthatallresponseswillremainconfidentialandIwillonlyuseapseudonymwhenquotingfromthetranscripts.Assuch,itisimportantthatyounotsharetheresponsesfromothermembersoftoday’sfocusgroupwithpeopleoutsideofthisroom.Iwillbetheonlyonesprivytothetapes,whichIwilleventuallydestroyaftertheyaretranscribed.Tomeetourhumansubjects’requirementsattheuniversity,youmustsigntheformIhavewithme.Tosummarizewhatisinthisdocument,itstatesthat:(1)allinformationwillbeheldconfidential,(2)yourparticipationisvoluntaryandyoumaystopatanytimeifyoufeeluncomfortable,and(3)wedonotintendtoinflictanyharm.Doyouhaveanyquestionsaboutthefocusgroupprocessorthisform?

Wehaveplannedthisfocusgroupmeetingtolastabout60minutes.Duringthistime,IhaveseveralquestionsthatIwouldliketocover.If,atanytime,youareuncomfortablewithaquestionorneedmetore-phrase,pleasefeelfreetoletmeknow.

First,Iwillbeginaskingyouquestionsaboutyourroleattheschool.

1. Whatisyouradministrative/teachingrole?2. Howlonghaveyoubeeninthisrole?3. Whatsubject(s)do/didyouteach[priortobecominganadministrator]?4. Howlonghaveyoubeenateacher/anadministratorforthisschool/district?

Iwillnowaskyousomequestionsabouttheimplementationofmakerspaces,thestructureandsupportsinplace,thecommunicationaboutmakerspaces,theprofessionaldevelopmentopportunities,thetimeallottedforimplementationandtheroleofthedistrict’socialsystem.Iwouldliketohearaboutyourexperienceinyourownwords.Yourresponsesmayincludebothacademicandnon-academicelementsasappropriate.

5. Inyourownwords,canyoudescribethedistrict’smakerspaceinnovationinitiative?6. Whydoyouthinkthedistrictimplementedlibrarymakerspaces?Inotherwords,

whatwastheoverarchingpurpose?7. Canyoudescribetherolloutandimplementationofthelibrarymakerspacesand

yourthoughtsaboutitsinfluenceonstudentengagementandlearning?8. Whatdoesthelibrarymakerspaceinitiativemeanforadministrators?9. What,ifanythinghaschangedinteachingandlearningbecauseofthemakerspace

initiative?10. Areyouwillingtosharesomestories,worksamples,and/ordocumentsthat

exemplifywhathasoccurredinteachingandlearningasaresultofmakerspaceimplementation?

11. Doyouhaveanyadditionalquestionsorcommentsthatyouwouldliketoshare?

Duringthediscussion,theresearcherisinterestedinthebelowlook-fors:

• Descriptionofthedistrict’simplementationofmakerspacesincludingwhyandhowthemakerspaceswerecreatedineachlibrary.

• Thechannelsofcommunicationleadinguptoandduringthemakerspaceimplementation

170

• Theperceptionoftheparticipantssurroundingthemakerspaceprogramobjectives,andthedistrict’ssuccessinachievingthem.

• Thestructuresandsystemsofsupportinplacethathavehelpedwithmakerspaceintegration.

• Thebarriers,ifany,thatareinthewayoffullutilizationofthelibrarymakerspaces.

• Theroleofthesocialsystemsoftheschoolininfluencingthemakerspaceimplementation

• Thestructuresinplaceformakerspaceuseintheschoolandhowthestructureswereestablished

• Thefrequency,types,andeffectivenessofprofessionaldevelopmentopportunitiesthedistrictorschoolhasofferedrelatedtomakerspaces

• Perceivedbenefitsand/ordownsidesoflibrarymakerspaces• Howparticipantsfeelabouttheintegrationofmakerspacesinteachingand

learning• Roleofmakerspacesinfosteringandsupportingthedevelopmentof

students’4C’sskillsanddeeperlearning?• Examplesof

-Communication -Collaboration -CriticalThinking -Creativity -GlobalCitizenship -CognitiveFactors -CriticalThinking -ContentMastery -InterpersonalFactors -Collaboration -Communication -IntrapersonalFactors -AcademicMindsets -LearningHowtoLearn

Thankyouforyourparticipationtodayandforbeingwillingtoanswermyquestions.Iwillreviewourfocusgroupdiscussions.IfIhaveanyfollow-upquestionsorneedclarification,mayIreachouttoyou?Ifyouhaveanyfurtherquestions,pleasereachouttome.Ifyouhaveworksamplesorlessonsthatyouarewillingtoshare,pleasecompletethelessonplan/worksampleformandreturntome.

Thankyouforyourparticipationinthisimportantstudy.Iamendingtherecordingnow.

171

AppendixB

StudentFocusGroupProtocol

Institution:_____________________________________________________Participants(TitleandName):______________________________________Researcher:_____________________________________________________Date:_____________________________________LocationofFocusGroup:____________________________________

Previouslyattainedbackgroundinformation

Researchquestion:Theoverarchingresearchquestionforthisstudyishowteachers,students,andadministratorsperceivetheimplementationoflibrarymakerspaces,andtheirimpactonstudentengagementand4C’sskillsdevelopmentofcreativity,collaboration,criticalthinkingandcommunication.PartI:IntroductoryQuestionObjectives(5-7minutes),tobeginaftersignedinformedconsentiscollectedIntroductoryProtocol

Iwanttothankyouinadvanceforyourtimeandyourwillingnesstoparticipateinthisfocusgroup,IamadoctoralstudentatNortheasternUniversityandthisfocusgroupispartoftherequirementsformydoctoraldissertation.IhaveselectedyoutospeakwithmetodaybecauseIidentifiedyouassomeonewithavaluableperspectiveabouttheimplementationofmakerspacesinthedistrict.Myresearchprojectfocusesontheexperienceofadministrators,teachers,andstudentswithaparticularinterestinunderstandinghowthesegroupsdescribetheirperceptionsoftheimplementationoflibrarymakerspacesinourdistrictandtheirimpactonstudentengagementandstudentlearning.Throughthisstudy,Ihopetogainmoreinsightintoyourperceptionsofourlibrarymakerspaces,especiallyhowtheyrelateto4C’sskillsdevelopmentanddeeperlearningcompetencies.Ihopethatthiswillallowmetoidentifywaysinwhichwecanbettersupportteachers,studentsandadministratorsinvolvedinmakerspaceprograms.

172

BecauseyourresponsesareimportantandIwanttomakesuretocaptureeverythingyousay,Iwouldliketoaudiotapeourconversationtoday.DoIhaveyourpermissiontorecordthisfocusgroupdiscussion?ThankYou.Iamturningontherecordingnow.Iwillalsobetakingwrittennotesduringthefocusgroupdiscussion.IcanassureyouthatallresponseswillremainconfidentialandIwillonlyuseapseudonymwhenquotingfromthetranscripts.Assuch,itisimportantthatyounotsharetheresponsesfromothermembersoftoday’sfocusgroupwithpeopleoutsideofthisroom.Iwillbetheonlyonesprivytothetapes,whichIwilleventuallydestroyaftertheyaretranscribed.Tomeetourhumansubjects’requirementsattheuniversity,youmustsigntheformIhavewithme.Tosummarizewhatisinthisdocument,itstatesthat:(1)allinformationwillbeheldconfidential,(2)yourparticipationisvoluntaryandyoumaystopatanytimeifyoufeeluncomfortable,and(3)wedonotintendtoinflictanyharm.Doyouhaveanyquestionsaboutthefocusgroupprocessorthisform?Wehaveplannedthismeetingtolastabout60-75minutes.Duringthistime,IhaveseveralquestionsthatIwouldliketocover.If,atanytime,youareuncomfortablewithaquestionorneedmetore-phrase,pleasefeelfreetoletmeknow.

First,Iwillbeginaskingyouquestionsaboutyou.

1. Whatgradeareyouin?2. Howlonghaveyoubeenastudentinthedistrict?3. Howlonghaveyouhadaccesstothelibrarymakerspaceinyourschool?

Iwillnowaskyousomequestionsaboutthelibrarymakerspace.Iwouldliketohearaboutyourexperienceinyourownwords.Yourresponsesmayincludebothacademicandnon-academicelementsasappropriate.

4. Inyourownwords,canyoudescribethelibrarymakerspace?5. Areyouenjoyingthemakerspace?6. Whatdoyoulikebestaboutit?7. WhatareyoulearningintheMakerspace?Canyoutellmeaboutitandgivemean

example?8. WhatcreativethinkingstrategiesdidyoulearnintheMakerspace?Doyouthink

thesestrategieswouldbeusefulinotherschoolsubjectsorinlife?Ifso,canyougiveexamples?

9. Doyouthinkthiswayoflearningisvaluable?Ordoyouprefertobeinaregularclassroomsetting?

10. Didthelibrarystaffhelp?Ifso,how?11. Ifanewstudentcametoyourschool,whatwouldyoutellthemaboutthe

Makerspace?

173

Duringthediscussion,theresearcherisinterestedinthebelowlook-fors:

• Descriptionofthedistrict’simplementationofmakerspacesincludingwhyandhowthemakerspaceswerecreatedineachlibrary.

• Thechannelsofcommunicationleadinguptoandduringthemakerspaceimplementation

• Theperceptionoftheparticipantssurroundingthemakerspaceprogramobjectives,andthedistrict’ssuccessinachievingthem.

• Thestructuresandsystemsofsupportinplacethathavehelpedwithmakerspaceintegration.

• Thebarriers,ifany,thatareinthewayoffullutilizationofthelibrarymakerspaces.

• Theroleofthesocialsystemsoftheschoolininfluencingthemakerspaceimplementation

• Therequirementsformakerspaceuseintheschoolandhowtherequirementswereestablished

• Thefrequency,types,andeffectivenessofprofessionaldevelopmentopportunitiesthedistrictorschoolhasofferedrelatedtomakerspaces

• Perceivedbenefitsand/ordownsidesoflibrarymakerspaces• Howparticipantsfeelabouttheintegrationofmakerspacesinteachingand

learning• Roleofmakerspacesinfosteringandsupportingthedevelopmentof

students’4C’sskillsanddeeperlearning?• Examplesof

-Communication -Collaboration -CriticalThinking -Creativity -GlobalCitizenship -CognitiveFactors -CriticalThinking -ContentMastery -InterpersonalFactors -Collaboration -Communication -IntrapersonalFactors -AcademicMindsets -LearningHowtoLearnThankyouforyourparticipationtodayandforbeingwillingtoanswermyquestions.Iwillreviewourfocusgroupdiscussions.IfIhaveanyfollow-upquestionsorneedclarification,mayIreachouttoyou?Ifyouhaveanyfurtherquestions,pleasereachouttome.Ifyouhaveworksamplesorlessonsthatyouarewillingtoshare,pleasecompletethelessonplan/worksampleformandreturntome.

Thankyouforyourparticipationinthisimportantstudy.Iamendingtherecordingnow.

174

AppendixC

TeacherFocusGroupProtocol

Institution:_____________________________________________________Participants(TitleandName):______________________________________Researchers:_____________________________________________________Date:_____________________________________LocationofFocusGroup:____________________________________Previouslyattainedbackgroundinformation

Researchquestion:Theoverarchingresearchquestionforthisstudyishowteachers,students,andadministratorsperceivetheimplementationoflibrarymakerspaces,andtheirimpactonstudentengagementand4C’sskillsdevelopmentofcreativity,collaboration,criticalthinkingandcommunication.

PartI:IntroductoryQuestionObjectives(5-7minutes),tobeginaftersignedinformedconsentiscollected

IntroductoryProtocol

Iwanttothankyouinadvanceforyourtimeandyourwillingnesstoparticipateinthisfocusgroup,IamadoctoralstudentatNortheasternUniversityandthisfocusgroupispartoftherequirementsformydoctoraldissertation.IhaveselectedyoutospeakwithmetodaybecauseIidentifiedyouassomeonewithavaluableperspectiveabouttheimplementationofmakerspacesinthedistrict.Myresearchprojectfocusesontheexperienceofadministrators,teachers,andstudentswithaparticularinterestinunderstandinghowthesegroupsdescribetheirperceptionsoftheimplementationoflibrarymakerspacesinourdistrictandtheirimpactonstudentengagementandstudentlearning.Throughthisstudy,Ihopetogainmoreinsightintoyourperceptionsofourlibrarymakerspaces,especiallyhowtheyrelateto4C’sskillsdevelopmentanddeeperlearningcompetencies.Ihopethatthiswillallowmetoidentifywaysinwhichwecanbettersupportteachers,studentsandadministratorsinvolvedinmakerspaceprograms.

BecauseyourresponsesareimportantandIwanttomakesuretocaptureeverythingyousay,Iwouldliketoaudiotapeourconversationtoday.DoIhaveyourpermissiontorecordthisdiscussion?ThankYou.Iamturningontherecordingnow.

175

Iwillalsobetakingwrittennotesduringthefocusgroup.IcanassureyouthatallresponseswillremainconfidentialandIwillonlyuseapseudonymwhenquotingfromthetranscripts.Assuch,itisimportantthatyounotsharetheresponsesfromothermembersoftoday’sfocusgroupwithpeopleoutsideofthisroom.Iwillbetheonlyonesprivytothetapes,whichIwilleventuallydestroyaftertheyaretranscribed.Tomeetourhumansubjects’requirementsattheuniversity,youmustsigntheformIhavewithme.Tosummarizewhatisinthisdocument,itstatesthat:(1)allinformationwillbeheldconfidential,(2)yourparticipationisvoluntaryandyoumaystopatanytimeifyoufeeluncomfortable,and(3)wedonotintendtoinflictanyharm.Doyouhaveanyquestionsaboutthefocusgroupprocessorthisform?Wehaveplannedthisfocusgrouptolastabout60-75minutes.Duringthistime,IhaveseveralquestionsthatIwouldliketocover.If,atanytime,youareuncomfortablewithaquestionorneedmetore-phrase,pleasefeelfreetoletmeknow.First,Iwillbeginaskingyouquestionsaboutyourroleattheschool.

1. Whatcourse(s)doyouteach?Whatgradeorgradesdoyouteach?2. Howlonghaveyoubeenteaching?3. Whydidyouchoosetoteachatthisparticularschool?4. Howlonghaveyoubeenteachingatthisschool?

Iwillnowaskyousomequestionsabouttheimplementationofmakerspaces,thestructureandsupportsinplace,thecommunicationaboutmakerspaces,theprofessionaldevelopmentopportunities,thetimeallottedforimplementationandtheroleofthedistrict’socialsystem.Iwouldliketohearaboutyourexperienceinyourownwords.Yourresponsesmayincludebothacademicandnon-academicelementsasappropriate.

12. Inyourownwords,canyoudescribethedistrict’smakerspaceinitiative?13. Whydoyouthinkthedistrictimplementedlibrarymakerspaces?Inotherwords,

whatwastheoverarchingpurpose?14. Canyoudescribetherolloutandimplementationofthelibrarymakerspacesand

yourthoughtsaboutitsinfluenceonstudentengagementandlearning?15. Whatdoesthelibrarymakerspaceinitiativemeanforteachers,library/mediaand

ITspecialists?16. What,ifanythinghaschangedinteachingandlearningbecauseofthemakerspace

initiative?17. Areyouwillingtosharesomestories,worksamples,and/ordocumentsthat

exemplifywhathasoccurredinteachingandlearningthroughthemakerspaceimplementation?

18. Doyouhaveanyadditionalquestionsorcommentsthatyouwouldliketoshare?

Duringthediscussion,theresearcherisinterestedinthebelowlook-fors:

176

• Descriptionofthedistrict’simplementationofmakerspacesincludingwhyandhowthemakerspaceswerecreatedineachlibrary.

• Thechannelsofcommunicationleadinguptoandduringthemakerspaceimplementation

• Theperceptionoftheparticipantssurroundingthemakerspaceprogramobjectives,andthedistrict’ssuccessinachievingthem.

• Thestructuresandsystemsofsupportinplacethathavehelpedwithmakerspaceintegration.

• Thebarriers,ifany,thatareinthewayoffullutilizationofthelibrarymakerspaces.

• Theroleofthesocialsystemsoftheschoolininfluencingthemakerspaceimplementation

• Thestructuresinplaceformakerspaceuseintheschoolandhowthestructureswereestablished

• Thefrequency,types,andeffectivenessofprofessionaldevelopmentopportunitiesthedistrictorschoolhasofferedrelatedtomakerspaces

• Perceivedbenefitsand/ordownsidesoflibrarymakerspaces• Howparticipantsfeelabouttheintegrationofmakerspacesinteachingand

learning• Roleofmakerspacesinfosteringandsupportingthedevelopmentof

students’4C’sskillsanddeeperlearning?• Examplesof

-Communication -Collaboration -CriticalThinking -Creativity -GlobalCitizenship -CognitiveFactors -CriticalThinking -ContentMastery -InterpersonalFactors -Collaboration -Communication -IntrapersonalFactors -AcademicMindsets -LearningHowtoLearn

Thankyouforyourparticipationtodayandforbeingwillingtoanswermyquestions.Iwillreviewourfocusgroupdiscussions.IfIhaveanyfollow-upquestionsorneedclarification,mayIreachouttoyou?Ifyouhaveanyfurtherquestions,pleasereachouttome.Ifyouhaveworksamplesorlessonsthatyouarewillingtoshare,pleasecompletethelessonplan/worksampleformandreturntome.Thankyouforyourparticipationinthisimportantstudy.Iamendingtherecordingnow.

177