SCHOOL LIBRARY MAKERSPACE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION IN A LARGE, MIDWESTERN SCHOOL DISTRICT: A DESIGN CASE DISSERTATION By SUSAN R. ANDERSON A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR TH E DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2017
2017 Susan R. Anderson
To my husband: the love of my life, my best friend, and my biggest supporter
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As I near the end of my doctoral journey, I think back on how close I came to abandoning it altogether and how much personal growth I would have missed out on had I done so. I would first then, like to thank the educational t echnology faculty, and Dr. Swapna Kumar espe cially, for giving me not just one but two opportunities to pursue my goal of earning a doctorate. growing each doctoral student into a scholar practitioner and guiding us into the fold of academia. I woul d next like to thank my committee ch air, Dr. Kara Dawson, for whom I have the utmost respect, for her support and encouragement along the way. Her encouragement and thoughtful feedback have helped me become a better scholar and writer than I ever believed myself to be. I am also grateful to the other members of my committee, Dr. Pasha Antonenko, Dr. Rose Pringle, and Dr. Michele Tennant. Their input and feedback throughout the process was invaluable, and my dissertation would not have turned out as well without their guidance and direction. I enjoyed working with them all, and I would like to thank them for all the time and hard work they put in that contributed to my success I did n ot go through this journey alone, but with my fellow members of C ohort 4 or the Co4ort, as we lovingly refer red to it. I am sure I would not have made it through this process without their friendship, camaraderie, and support along the way. In particula r, I would like to thank Sarah Brandt through the entire journey and whose private Facebook messages and friendship kept me focused on reaching the goal step by step by step
5 Saying thank you is not sufficient for the incred ible amount of love and support my h usband Greg Anderson, has given me not only through this dissertation process but throughout our entire marriage. When he married me, I had only earned a GED and he has supported me through a b m ast Ed ucation Doctor of Education He is an incredible and loving man, and none of my accomplishments would have any meaning without him by my side. I thank him and promise him that this is the last degree! I would also like to thank my children Chris, Ryan (and his wife, Mallory) Aaron, and Emily (and her husband, Corvette) who have cheered me on along the way and who have been so understanding throughout this process when I was not as available as I woul d have liked. I am so proud of them all. I also want to thank my three granddaughters, Maddie, Harper, and Hallie who have not been able to come to opportunities to swim, pl ay dollhouse, and create with Play doh now that this journey is nearly complete. I also look forward to spending more time with my p arents now that this process is nearly at its end, whose loving suppo rt throughout my entire life is the reason I am the per son I am today. I would like to thank them for the example they set for me of what a loving family looks like and for supporting me and believing in me through out this process. I hope I have made them proud. I would finally like to thank my in laws w ho have encouraged me and believed in me all along this journey. They also hosted many family dinners and birthday parties
6 when I was too busy writing to prepare to host them myself, and I would like to thank them for supporting me in this way, as well.
7 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 11 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 12 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 16 Histor y of Makerspaces and Their Implementation in School Libraries .................. 16 Development of Community Makerspaces ................................ ............................. 18 Maker Movement Gains National Attention ................................ ............................. 21 School Libraries as Makerspaces ................................ ................................ ........... 22 Potential Benefits of School Library Makerspaces ................................ .................. 23 Challenges of Bringing Makerspaces to Education ................................ ................. 25 Challenges of Bringing Makerspaces to School Libraries ................................ ....... 29 Researcher Background and Interest in Makerspaces ................................ ........... 30 Problem of Practice: School Library Makerspace Pro ject Overview ....................... 33 Purpose Statement ................................ ................................ ................................ 34 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ............................... 34 Significan ce of Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 35 Definition of Terms ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 36 Chapter Summary and Organization of Remaining Chapters ................................ 37 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 39 Makerspaces as Potential Megachange in Education ................................ ............ 39 Constructionism as the Theoretical Foundation of Educational Makerspaces ........ 42 Re search of Constructionist Learning Environments ................................ .............. 44 Leading Constructionist Researchers and Technologies Developed Related to Makerspaces ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 47 Research on Makerspaces ................................ ................................ ..................... 50 Makerspace Design Principles ................................ ................................ ................ 52 Considerations for Design of Makerspace Environment ................................ ... 53 Design of Makerspace Activities ................................ ................................ ....... 54 Role of Makerspace Facilitator ................................ ................................ ......... 56 Developing Student Makers ................................ ................................ .................... 56 Making as a Learning Process ................................ ................................ ................ 59 What Making Is Not ................................ ................................ .......................... 59 Elements o f Making as a Process ................................ ................................ .... 61 Making as a Discipline ................................ ................................ ...................... 65
8 Learning Practices of Maker Community ................................ .......................... 65 Processes Similar to Making ................................ ................................ ............ 67 Educational Making Process Model ................................ ................................ ........ 69 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 72 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 74 Restatement of Problem of Practice ................................ ................................ ....... 74 Purpose Statement ................................ ................................ ................................ 74 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ............................... 75 Conceptual Framework ................................ ................................ ........................... 75 Research Design ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 76 Design Case Framework ................................ ................................ ........................ 77 Data C ollection and Analysis ................................ ................................ .................. 84 Research Question One ................................ ................................ ................... 84 Data Collection and Analysis ................................ ................................ ............ 84 Biographical member data ................................ ................................ ......... 84 Document review ................................ ................................ ....................... 85 Research Questions Two and Three ................................ ................................ 87 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ 88 Sampling: Resulting makerspace implementation ................................ ..... 88 Observations of school library makerspace ................................ ............... 89 Interviews of students, librarian, and teacher ................................ ............. 93 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 98 Design Case Trustworthiness ................................ ................................ ............... 102 Ethical Considerations ................................ ................................ .......................... 106 Pote ntial Limitations to Design ................................ ................................ .............. 106 Subjectivity Statement ................................ ................................ .......................... 106 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ 108 4 SCHOOL LIBRARY MAKERSPACE DESIGN PROCESS ................................ ... 109 Professional Context ................................ ................................ ............................. 110 Student Demographics ................................ ................................ ................... 110 School Library Facilities ................................ ................................ .................. 110 School Library Makerspaces in District ................................ .......................... 111 District Librarians Starting Makerspaces ................................ ........................ 113 Why Makerspace Design Case Is of Interest to Readers ................................ ...... 113 School Library M akerspace Design Process ................................ ........................ 115 Members of Makerspace Design Committee ................................ .................. 116 Researcher Role ................................ ................................ ............................ 121 Charting a C ourse for Planning and Implementation (Logic Model) ............... 123 Developing Acceptable Overall Implementation Guidelines (ICM) ................. 130 Visits to Other Makerspaces ................................ ................................ ........... 142 Design Guidelines for Environment, Activities/Tools/Resources, and Facilitation ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 145 Guidelines Based on Educational Making Process Model ............................. 152
9 Mission and Vision S tatement ................................ ................................ ........ 158 Work Still to Be Done ................................ ................................ ..................... 163 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ 167 5 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 168 Research Question 2: What Is the Resulting School Library Makerspace Implementation? ................................ ................................ ................................ 1 68 Vignette: Description of Makerspace ................................ .............................. 169 Theme One: Intentionality of Makerspace Implementation ............................ 173 Areas of close alignment to guidelines ................................ ..................... 174 Areas not yet closely aligned ................................ ................................ ... 188 Theme Two: Makerspace Implementation Is Successful Overall ................... 192 Ways in which makerspace is considered a success ............................... 192 Improvements participants hope to see going forward ............................. 194 Research Question 3: In What Ways Do Students Experience Participation in the Resulting School Library Makerspace? ................................ ....................... 201 Vignette: Student Participation in Makerspace ................................ ............... 201 Theme One: Students Experience Adults as Facilitators of Making Pr ocess 204 Theme Two: Students Have Access to Makerspace at a Variety of Times .... 210 Theme Three: Students Participate in a Wide Variety of Self Directed Projects and Activities within the Limitations of Time, Resources, Safety Issues, and Mak erspace Rules ................................ ................................ ... 211 Low tech projects ................................ ................................ ..................... 212 High tech projects ................................ ................................ .................... 216 Project limitations ................................ ................................ ..................... 219 Theme Four: Majority of Students Are Purposefully Engaged in and Enjoy Participation in Makerspace ................................ ................................ ........ 224 Purposeful engagement ................................ ................................ ........... 224 Student feelings about makerspace ................................ ......................... 227 Theme Five: Student Making Experience Compared to Educational Making Process Mod el ................................ ................................ ............................ 228 Inspiration ................................ ................................ ................................ 229 Ideation ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 231 Making ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 233 Iteration ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 237 Sharing ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 239 Optional and flexible collaboration ................................ ........................... 241 Continuous feedback ................................ ................................ ............... 247 Documenting progress ................................ ................................ ............. 250 Reflection/formative self assessment ................................ ...................... 251 Theme Six: Students Benefit from Participation in Makerspace ..................... 252 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ 260 6 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS ................................ ................................ ..... 262 Research Question One: Design Process ................................ ............................ 263
10 Design Process Successes ................................ ................................ ............ 264 De sign Process Areas for Improvement ................................ ......................... 267 Design Process Recommendations to Others ................................ ................ 269 Research Question Two: Resulting Makerspace Implementation ......................... 273 Makerspace Implementation Successes ................................ ........................ 274 Makerspace Implementation Areas for Improvement ................................ ..... 282 Makerspace Implementation Recommendations to Others ............................ 285 Research Question Three: Student Participation in Makerspace .......................... 287 Student Participation Successes ................................ ................................ .... 288 Student Participation Areas for Improvement ................................ ................. 297 Student Participation Recommendations to Others ................................ ........ 299 Implic ations ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 300 ............................ 301 For Other Districts ................................ ................................ .......................... 302 For Field of School Library Science ................................ ................................ 303 For the Study of Makerspaces as Learning Environments ............................. 303 Future Research ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 304 Researcher Reflections ................................ ................................ ......................... 306 Concluding Remarks ................................ ................................ ............................. 309 APPENDIX A SCHOOL LIBRARY MAKERSPACE OBSERVATION PROTOCOL ..................... 311 B STUDENT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ................................ ................................ ... 314 C LIBRARIAN INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ................................ ................................ 316 D TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ................................ ................................ ... 318 E PARENT/GUARDIAN LETTER ................................ ................................ ............. 320 F CHILD ASSENT ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 321 G DESIGN TEAM INFORMED CONSENT FORM ................................ ................... 322 H TEACHER INFORMED CONSENT FORM ................................ ........................... 324 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 326 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 337
11 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 1 st century skills encouraged through making activities. ............ 25 2 1 High & low tech activities commonly found in makerspaces ............................... 55 3 1 ...... 83 3 2 Design process documents reviewed by researcher ................................ .......... 86 4 1 2016 building demographics per state Department of Education ..................... 112 5 1 Brief description of guidelines developed by makerspace design committee. .. 174 5 2 Summary of results of how makerspace implementation aligns to Makerspace Design Committee guidelines. ................................ ..................... 191 6 1 Summary of areas where makerspace implementation successes align to literature ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 275 6 2 Summary of areas where student participation experience successes align to literature ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 289
12 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Educational Making Process Model ................................ ................................ .... 70 3 1 Conceptual Framework for design case. ................................ ............................ 76 4 1 Makerspace Logic Model online collaborative document with committee member input ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 125 4 2 Rough draft of Makerspace Logic Model based on committee input. ............... 126 4 3 Revised Makerspace Logic Model with initial evaluation questions added. ...... 128 4 4 Current working version of Makerspace Logic Model, revised fall 2016. .......... 129 4 5 Researcher notes on two page ICM template from first committee meeting regarding ICM. ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 132 4 6 Typed results of first committee meeting regarding ICM with researcher notes from second meeting. ................................ ................................ ....................... 134 4 7 District makerspace implementation guidelines sent to media specialists. ....... 138 4 8 Design committee collaborative design guideline brainstorming activity. ......... 147 4 9 Final makerspace design guidelines for district based on design committee work. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 150 4 10 Design team collaborative design and facilitation guidelines for EMPM. .......... 153 4 11 Final design and facilitation guidelines for district based on EMPM. ................ 155 4 12 Design team brainstormed list of ideas for mission and vision statements. ...... 160 4 13 brainstormed list. ................................ ................................ .............................. 161 4 14 Final version of district mission and vision statements for school library makerspaces. ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 162 5 1 Views of school library makerspace in elementary s chool four. ........................ 17 8 5 2 Robots and other technology used in library during makerspace time ............. 179 5 3 Various storage units for materials and supplies in the makerspace ................ 180 5 4 A few pieces of dcor found in the school library makerspace ......................... 181
13 5 5 Lego rover low tech one and done project ................................ ....................... 213 5 6 tech ongoing cardboard dollhouse project ................................ 214 5 7 Students working on low tech ongoing zippere d pouch project ........................ 215 5 8 Additional low tech ongoing student makerspace projects ............................... 216 5 9 Potentially ongoing high tech student projects ................................ ................. 219 5 10 Students eager to get started in makerspace ................................ ................... 226 5 11 Students working individually in the makerspace ................................ ............. 242 5 12 Students working side by side on individual projects ................................ ....... 244 5 13 Group of girls working collaboratively on a shared projec t ............................... 246 5 14 Additional shared collaborative projects ................................ ........................... 247 5 15 B oys working together to get a series of ge ars to turn ................................ ...... 255
14 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education SCHOOL LIBRARY MAKERSPACE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION IN A LARGE, MIDWESTERN SCHOOL DISTRICT: A DESIGN CASE DISSERTATION By Susan R. Anderson December 2017 Chair: Kara Dawson Major: Curriculum and Instruction This design case study provides an account of the design process a committee of ten librarians utilized to implement library makerspaces in a large school district of nearly 20,000 students to preserve and share the precedent knowledge gained (C. D. Howard, 2011). It describes the design process, resulting makerspace, successes and areas for improvement, and ways students experienced participation. decisions were In what ways do students experience participation in the resulting school library makerspace? For research question one, I analyzed biographical data, meeting notes, and other documents. The resulting narrative includes committee member descriptions and presents processes and decisions involved in makerspace design organized around design compo nents. It includes three sets of implementation guidelines the team developed: A
15 focusing on makers pace environment, activities, an d facilitation; and Guidelines B ased on the Educational Making Process Model (EMPM) which provide suggestions for facilitating the phases of the EMPM I developed and presented in Chapter Two. For research questions two and t hree, I conducted observations of 5 th grade students participating in a resulting makerspace, and interviewed the librarian, teacher, and eight students. Results for research question two showed the librarian was intentional in implementation, the makersp ace aligned to many committee guidelines, and it was successful overall with areas for improvement. Results for research question three discuss adult facilitation of the space; student access, project participation and limitations, engagement in, and enjo yment of the space; alignment to EMPM, and student benefits. The study discusses successes, areas for improvement, recommendations to others, and how results align to literature I mplications for my local context other districts, the field of library sci ence, and the study of makerspaces as learning environments as well as future research ideas are included. Finally, I reflect on what I learned about myself and additional progress made since the study was completed.
16 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION History of Makerspaces a nd Their Implementation i n School Libraries In his closing keynote address at the World Conference on Computers and Education in Sydney, Australia in July 1990, Seymour Papert ( 1991b ) argued for the n curriculum, the structure of school organization, and the view of learning or of knowledge itself. This educational and epistemological perestroika, a phrase Papert borrowed from the rapid and seemingly impossible changes that occurred in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe during the 1980s due to erestroika centered, teacher driven for centered, developmental approaches to 1991 b, p. 15 ). Papert believed that the key to the type of megachange in education for which he argued was student participation in learning environments that w ere based on his theory of constructionism and that incorporated new technologies Constructionism stems from constructivist learning theory and holds to the belief that learning happens through the active construction of knowledge by the individual throu gh experiences. The defining difference between constructivism and constructionism is that constructivism views knowledge as the construction of mental models inside one's head, while constructionism posits that the construction of knowledge is improved wh en the learner (Papert, 1991a, p. 1) (Papert, 1993 a p. 142) as a representation of his evolving thinking and learning (Archwatemy,
17 Pitiwaniyut, & Tangdahnakanond, 2005; Blikstein, 2013; Papert, 1991a ; Papert, 1993 a ; Sheridan, Halverson, Litts, Brahms, Jacobs Priebe, & Owens, 2014 ). 1991b ) view, t he activities, teaching and learning occurring in such an environment ought to be nearly unrecognizable to a teacher of 100 years ago, and a teacher from the past who might time travel to the present would be hard pressed to take over the role of teacher in this ne w learning environment Papert ( 1991b ) described as follows for his conference audience what student learning would look like in su ch an environment. In the LEGO/Logo environment workshop we see glimmers of what a different kind of learning environment would be like. Here the children are engaged in constructing things rather than (as Friere would say) "banking knowledge." They are engaged in activity they experience as meaningful. And for this, they don't need to be directed by a technician policeman teacher but rather to be advised by an empathic, helpful consultant colleague teacher. They are learning a great deal with a great d eal of passion even though there is no technician to keep track of exactly what they are learning (p.19). While computers are certainly more prevalent in K 12 schools today than when Papert spoke to the audience at the World Conference on Computers and E ducation in Sydney, Australia in July 1990, learning environments wherein students utilize the available technology to construct things in ways that are meaningful as Papert described above are still uncommon. The megachange in education he envisioned and hoped for has not, by and large, occurred. The introduction of technology into K 12 classrooms in and of itself has not led to the educational and epistemological perestroika of which Papert spoke. The time traveling teacher from 100 years ago would in many classrooms, still readily be able to step into the place of a modern day teacher and conduct business as usual. However, a relatively new type of learning environment that has made its way into K 12 education, makerspaces, offers schools
18 the opportu nity to create a learning environment very much in line with what Papert ( 1991 b ) envisioned. Development of Community Makerspaces & Werner, 2013; Britton, 2012; Range & Schmidt, 2014). Within this definition, however, are several terms that require further clarification in order to get a true sense of the concept of a makerspace. Dale Dougherty released the first issue of MAKE maga zine in February 2005, a it Dougherty t the first Maker Faire, a gathering of makers and th eir creations, was held in 2006. Since that time, the maker mov ement has gained tremendous popularity (Colegrove, 2013; Gutwill, Hido, & Sindorf, 2015; Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Martin, 2015). The maker movement is a resurgence of interest in pments of and easy access to technologies such as 3D printers, laser cutters, and digital editing software. (Blikstein, 2013; Dougherty, 2013; Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Martin, 2015; Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013). True to the term Dougherty used to describe them, it is a movement wherein people become empowered to be more than just consumers of things: they become makers (Dougherty, 2013). his new do it yourself publication, MAKE m agazine, it was with the purposeful intention of being inclusive of a wide variety of people and their interests (McCracken, 2015). p. 11 ). The term
19 it 2013; Canino Fluit, 2014; Martin, 2015; Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013; Washor & Mojkowski, 2013). Though each of these terms has its own connotation, all of these sense helps when defining other terms associat ed with the maker movement. technology (McCracken, 2015). This same sense of empowerment is seen in Kalil's (2013) description of makers as people who design and make things on their own time because they find it intrinsically rewarding to make, tinker, problem solve, discover, and share what they have learned. t hey put things together, they take things apart, they put things together in a new and different way. Why? For the sheer pleasure of figuring out how things work and repurposing those things at will ( Kalil, 2013 p. 12 ). encompasses various activities ranging from crafting to building robots or from cooking to programming computer games (Abram, 2015; Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Kafai, Fields, & Searle, 2014). Some writers provide precise definitions of such terms as making, tinkering, and engineering (Gutwill, et al., 2015; Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013) is used often in the literature. Martin (2015) developed a working definitio n of making that reflects the melding together of the many activities that fall under the term. He defines making as
20 a class of activities focused on designing, building, modifying, and/or repurposing material objects for playful or useful ends, oriented tow ard sort that can be used, interacted with, or demonstrated. Making often involves traditional craft and hobby techniques (e.g., sewing, woodworking, etc.), and it often involves the use of digital technologies, either for man ufacture (e.g., l aser cutters, CNC machines, 3D printers) or within the design (e.g., microcontrollers, LEDs) constructionism provided earlier and his description of a learning environment based upon it. e they can learn to do ( Dougherty, 2013, p. 10). There are several elements of the maker mindset that have been identified in the literature as holding significance for education: its playful nature; its asset and growth orientation; its failure positive nature; and its emphasis on collaboration between makers (Martin, 2015). activities (Brahms & Werner, 2013; Britton, 2012; Range & Schmidt, 2014). As with several other more general term that describes several more specific types of spaces such as FabLabs, hackerspaces, and TechShops (Abram, 2015; Johnson, Adams, Estrada, & Freeman, 2015; Wong, 2013). Tho ugh each of these has its own unique characteristics (Cavalcanti, 2013), there are several underlying tenets that makerspaces of all kinds share. Makerspaces encourage play, personal interest, and exploration. They are communities of makers who share reso urces and support and learn from each other. They empower makers to be more than just consumers and users of technology: in fact,
21 many makers become entrepreneurs through their making activities. They invite makers to develop new skills or hone existing on es. They are failure positive, encouraging makers to take risks, try something new, and challenge themselves (Barrett, 2014; Britton, 2012; Moorefield Lang, 2015; Sheridan, et al., 2014). Though makerspaces were developed primarily outside of education as places for adult makers to come together, for a fee, to share resources and work collaboratively with like minded individuals (Brahms & Werner, 2013; Martin, 2015; Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013; Washor & Mojkowski, 2013), they soon found their way into K 12 ed ucation. Maker Movement Gains National Attention In June, 2009, President Obama (2009) announced the Educate to Innovate campaign to encourage innovative, hands on teaching of science and math to American students. Describing some activities associated wit h the campaign, Obama stated that have the chance to build and create -and maybe destroy just a little bit -(laughter) -to see the promise of being the makers of things, and not just the ious definitions of makers and making can easily be heard in the President's words. Dale Dougherty of MAKE magazine heard and heeded the President's call and a maker profit Maker Ed organization holds to the following values: making maker experiences accessible to all children; transforming education through maker e xperiences; creating a collaborative community of maker teachers; ensuring a variety of access points to making through a diversity of approaches; and developing deep and lasting engagement of students with learning through making
22 Champion of Change in 2011 ( A. Howard, 2011) for his work with MAKE magazine and Maker Faires, and a s recently as June 18, 2014, the White House hosted the first ever White House Maker Faire, with President Obama (2014) declaring the day a National Day of Making. School Libraries as Makerspaces School libraries are one place in K 12 education that makerspaces have become popular. Many trade journals in the field discuss school library makerspaces and provide advice about starting one (Canino Fluit, 2014; Loertscher, Preddy, & Derry, 2013; Range & Schmidt, 2014). At first glance, makerspaces may seem an odd addition to school libraries, but there is a good match between elements of makerspaces and those of a s chool library. Access to all. Just as the original makerspaces developed outside of education were intended to be a community resource accessible to all, the school library is one of few spaces in the school environment accessible to all students and st aff, often throughout the entire school day. Placing a makerspace in the school library, then, means that it would be available for use by all students, regardless of factors such as grade level, course schedule, or socio economic status. Though many high schools offer courses that may incorporate some of the principles found in a makerspace such as robotics or computer programming many students are unable or unwilling to enroll in them. Housing a makerspace in the school library allows these students to participate in making activities outside of their formal course schedule (Foote, 2013; Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Houston, 2013; Martinez & Stager, 2013; Wong, 2013).
23 Role as f acilitator facilita students in the pursuit of their own individual or group interests, and guiding and encouraging them through difficulties and frustrations they encounter along the way (Gutwill, et al., 2015; Houston, 2013; Martinez & Stager, 2013; Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013). School librarians have long served such a role wherein they provide resources to meet the needs of the entire school, encourage the growth of students' individual i nterests, and work with students and teachers to support and facilitate their research and learning needs (Foote, 2013; Houston, 2013; Smay & Walker, 2015). With some training specific to the process of making, f acilitating a ma kerspace in the school libra ry sh ould be a relatively easy transition for a school librarian. AASL s tandards For some time, school libraries have been working toward becoming places where students come to collaborate and create rather than simply to consume knowledge, which is quit e in keeping with the idea of a makerspace. In 2007, the American Association of School Librarians published the Standards for 21 st century Learners (2007), a set of standards for school libraries with a strong focus on inquiry learning, creative thinking, collaboration, sharing new knowledge with others, and using technology in meaningful ways. Makerspaces provide a context in which students would be able to develop and master many of these standards (Canino Fluit, 2014 ; Foote, 2013), another reason m akerspaces may be a great fit for school libraries. Potential Benefits of School Library Makerspaces STEM and other content knowledge. There are several potential benefits to students of participation in makerspaces that can be found in the literature. T here is broad agreement in the literature that makerspaces could have a potential positive
24 impact on student learning in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) as well as the arts (STEAM) (Britton, 2012; Houston, 2013; Peppler & Ben der, 2013; Quinn & Bell, 2013; Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014; Worsley & Blikstein, 2014) and that they support the Framework for K 12 Science Education (Martin, 2015; Petrich, Wilkinson, & Bevan, 2013; Quinn & Bell, 2013). Because making encompasses such a wide variety of interests and activities, makerspaces are interdisciplinary by nature (Blikstein, 2013; Sheridan, et al., 2014), and they can support learning across other content areas such as history and music (Blikstein, 2013). Student interest in STEM area s and STEM careers. There is also the potential that makerspaces help build student interest in STEM content areas and in STEM careers. While activities or projects that incorporate STE M are a n atural fit for makerspaces, they are primarily places of inv ention and creation, not primarily STEM labs (Blikstein, 2013). Students often encounter and learn STEM concepts through the making process while pursuing their own personal interests (Blikstein, 2013), but in a context that is immediately applicable to th e students' needs and is, therefore, more accessible to the student (Houston, 2013). For these reasons, it is believed that makerspaces provide an entry point for a wider variety of students to develop an interest in STEM and STEM related careers, includin g girls and minorities that are underrepresented in these areas (Blikstein, 2013; Britton, 2012; Houston, 2013; Kalil, 2013). 21 st century skills. Students are also purported to develop st c entury skills through participation in makerspa ces another potential benefit discussed in the literature. However, there is not a well defined list in the literature of these skills.
25 Rather, there is a broad listing of such skills across much of the literature. Table 1 1 shows a sampling of these ski lls discussed across the literature. Table 1 1. st century skills encouraged through making a ctivities Adaptability Collaboration Computational t hinking Creative thinking Critical thinking Curiosity Focus Growth m indset Ideation Imaginative t hinking Ind ependent l earning Initiative Innovation Intentionality Invention Learning from f ailure Open mindedness Persistence Playful l earning Problem s olving Reflective t hinking Self e xpression Social r esponsibility Teamwork Visual l iteracy Blikstein, 2013; Bowler, 2014; Gutwill, et al., 2015; Kalil, 2013; Makerspace Playbook, 2013; Martin, 2015; Petrich, et al., 2013; Pisarski, 2014; Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014; Washor & Mojkowski, 2013 Student engagement. Sustained student engagement is another purported benefit of makerspaces in schools consistently seen in the literature (Peppler & Bender, p. 35 ) when given the opportunity to partic ipate in making activities. In their study conducted of making activities in the Tinkering Studio, Gutwill, et al. (2015), identified Engagement as the first of the four dimensions of learning observed in those taking part in making activities. One indicat or of engagement they concept reiterated elsewhere in the literature which claims that making activities are ( Makerspace Playbook, 2013). Challenges of Bringing Maker spaces to Education Though the literature points to several potentia l benefits of makerspaces in schools, there are certainly challenges in doing so. Some challenges relate t o the makerspace itself, such as funding for the space and liability issues if certain potentially dangerous tools are included in the space (Houston, 2013; Plemmons, 2014). These
26 types of issues are to be expected when starting any new project in a school setting, but those wanting to start a make rspace are advised to get started regardless of these t ypes of obstacles (Kurti, Kurti, & Fleming 2014a ). Other challenges are more global in nature and deal with issues of school curriculum as well as issues of learning and assessment. These challenges may be more difficult to overcome, but it is important for anyone hoping to implement a school makerspace to be aware of them. Curriculum & organization i ssues. Washor and Mojkowski (2013) identify lack of room in the elementary and secondary curriculum for creativity and exploration as one of three major barriers standing in the way of bringing making activities into schools. They compare today's typical school curriculum to the modern day Mr. Potato Head, which, when i t in a multitude of ways to a variety of real vegetables. Today's Mr. Potato Head consists matchin g shapes on the body part and slots on the potato. Like the modern Mr. Potato Head, Washor and Mojkowski contend (2013), the school curriculum has become a tightly scripted exercise with the goal of ensuring students are proficient in reading and mathemati cs so they do well on high stakes tests. According to Washor and Mojkowsi (2013) this is not sufficiently preparing students to do the creative and inventive thinking required in the real world. In order for the maker movement to be implemented in schools, the curriculum needs to allow students room to explore, discover, and tinker with concepts as real scientists and mathematicians do (Washor & Mojkowski, 2013). In addition, schools need to adopt teaching methods that are student centered, allowing student s to work together to investigate and solve meaningful problems and to exhibit
27 their learning through a variety of authentic assessment methods rather than through paper and pencil tests (Quinn & Bell, 2013; Washor & Mojkowski, 2013). Lea rning & assessment i ssues. A major difference between makerspaces outside of schools and makerspaces in schools is that learning may occur in a makerspace out of school, but it is a primary goal of makerspaces in schools (Kurti, Kurti, & Fleming, 2014b ). As such, the issue of how to assess student learning in a makerspace environment is a challenge that needs to be addressed. Oftentimes when students are asked to create a project, as is the case in a makerspace, a rubric is used to assess the quality of the project. They a re intended as a guide for the student so he knows the expectations for the project and as an objective way for the teacher to grade the student's work. The use of a rubric in a makerspace environment, however, runs counter to many of the principles of mak ing, such as stymying a student's creativity, hampering his opportunity for learning through learning opportunity (Martinez & Stager, 2013). In his study of assessment in ill structured, complex problem solving contexts, Kim (2012) found that the use of a series of mental models or concept maps constructed by the student was a viable way to assess the learning progress of the student. This may be a way to assess student content learning in a makerspace environment without interfering with the principles of making. Student portfolios are another tool often used to assess student progress. An experimental school in Thailand that operates entirely according to a construction ist approach to learning implemented the use of student portfolios along with a rubric
28 (Archwatemy, et al., 2005). They utilized the portfolios to assess both content they hoped students would acquire (personal mastery, mental model, shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking). The study showed gains in both academic and soft skills, though gains were higher in the academic skills. If they are founded on constr uctionist principles, student portfolios may be an option to assess learning in makerspaces. In their efforts to define learning taking place in the Tinkering Studio of San Francisco's Expl oratorium, Gutwill, et al. (2015 ) examined audio and video recordi ngs of fifty visitors participating in making activities and developed the Learning Dimension Initiative and Intentionality; Social Scaffolding; and Development of Understanding It also provides indicators and descriptions of learners' interactions for each dimension to help observers recognize learning in a making activity. Though this framework was developed in a public museum makerspace, there is potential to utilize it as a basis for assessment in a school makerspace environment. Within the field of Library Science, David Loertscher has long championed student centered school libraries as places of collaboration and creation, and he has embraced the incorporation of makerspac es into school libraries. As a way to help teachers and others recognize behaviors in makerspaces that may be considered negative in a school environment but that are actually desirable in a makerspace (Loertscher, 2014), he and colleagues Bill Derry and L eslie Preddy developed the uTEC Maker Model (Loertscher et al., 2013). The uTEC Maker Model identifies four
29 developmental stages or levels of expertise of creativity that makers progress through as they become more proficient makers: Using, Tinkering, Exp erimenting, and Creating. The model provides an elaboration and examples for each stage. Additionally, the model identifies dispositions that develop in the budding maker in the categories o f imagine, design, collaborate), (e.g., organization, teamwork, persistence) (Loertscher, et al., 2013). Though not an assessment tool, per se, the uTEC Maker Model may be useful as a basis for the types of behaviors and dispositions a sch ool might anticipate resulting from incorporating a makerspace. Challenges of Bringing Maker spaces to School Libraries Space issues. T here are also several challenges specific to implementing makerspaces into school libraries. Carving out a space in the school library for a permanent makerspace is not possible in all school libraries. As a result, some school libraries utilize mobile makerspace carts to offer making experience s to students which may limit student choice in what they are able to make. Budget issues. Though some makerspace supplies such as cardboard or scrap material may be obtained through donations, other supplies and resources such as LED lightbulbs and 3D printers have an ongoing cost associated with them. Finding a consistent source of funding to support the school library makerspace is another challenge to implementation. Scheduling issues. Scheduling issues can also be a challenge faced by librarians who are attempting to bring meaningful making experiences to their students. Though the school library is open and accessible to all students, the time students may have to spend in the library, and, therefore, in the makerspace, is limited. In my distr ict,
30 elementary students attend library lessons bi weekly as part of the encore rotation of classes along with music, art, and PE. This time could be used to give students consistent time in the makerspace. At the middle and high school levels, however, students may have a consistent time during which they visit the library with their class to check out books, but there is not a consistent time they visit which could be used for time in the makerspace. Safety issues. There are also safety issues that must be considered as librarians implement makerspaces in their libraries. Not all librarians are aware, for instance, that certain electronics hold electricity in a capacitor within the component and which students deconstruct items. All of these challenges need to be addressed in order for school library makerspace implementation to be successful. Researcher Background and Interest in Makerspaces Multiple factors in my professional context have influ enced who I am as a professional and why I developed an interest in designing and implementing school library makerspaces in my school district Education My educational pursuits have been primarily in the areas of Library Science and Educational Technolo gy. These two fields overlap quite a bit, especially in their focus on the process of student learning rather than on students' learning a specific set content curriculum Professional i nfluences Early in my career, I had the opportunity to see two speakers at professional conferences who greatly impacted my thinking about student learning. One was Ian Jukes, who coined the term "infowhelm" (Jukes, Dosaj, & Macdonald, 2000), referring to the overwhelming amount of information available to us
31 via tec hnology. Jukes emphasizes the importance of students mastering information literacy skills to better navigate the extensive amount of information they will encounter. The person who influenced me most, however, was Jamie McKenzie. One of his catch p hrases is that students should make answers, not find them (McKenzie, 1998), meaning that research projects should be designed so that students have to make a choice, make a decision, or develop a solution rather than just finding and reporting back information. Another of his catch phrases is that "t oolishness is f oolishness" (McKenzie, 2001 cartoon at beginning ), meaning, in part, that if students do research wherein they find information and report it back, but they present it as a PowerPoint instead of a po ster, the technology did nothing to transform that student's learning and it was a foolish use of technology. McKenzie's words resonated with me, and, henceforth, I have designed research units with these ideas in mind. Professional e xperience I started my career as a school librarian in 1997, and I have focused primari ly on the teaching of information and technology literacy skills in the context of "make answers" research projects. The three sets of standards on which I base the skills I integrate into student research projects are the AASL Standards for the 21st Century Learner ( Standards for the 21 st century learner 2007), ISTE's Standards for S tudents ( 2016 ), and "21st century skills," such as creative or inv entive thinking, collab oration, and communication ( Framework for 21 st century learning 2009). In 2012, I became the Library Coordinator for my district. Though this position requires me to be more of a generalist, I still focus my efforts on the teaching of information, techn ology, and 21st century skills in context.
32 Professional c hallenges Ther e are many challenges librarian s in my district face which we are addressing through the development and implementation of a 5 year strateg ic plan. The plan consists of five goals whi ch address challenges in the areas of instruction, creating a culture of literacy, resources, facilities, and professional development. The two of most import to this discussion are the instruction goal and the facilities goal, as these two feed into our interest in school library makerspaces. Our goal for instruction is to find a way to ensure all students master the information, technology, and 21st century skills they need and to find a way to assess and track student mastery of these skills. Our faci lities goal is to transform our libraries from places where students consume information to places where students create and innovate. Recent d evelopments. A few recent developments have also impacted my interest in school library makerspaces. First, the re is the STEM movement in education, which my district has partially implemented through Project Lead the Way (PLTW) course offerings at the middle school and high school level. My district is looking for ways to encourage more girls into these course of ferings and, hopefully, into future STEM related careers. Second, there is the fact that school library makerspaces have become quite pop ular recently, and the topic has been prevalent for the past several years in school librarian trade journals, at school librarian conferences, and in webinars geared toward school libra rians. Many makerspaces include STEM activities such as computer programming, 3D modeling, engineering, electronic circuitry, etc. Currently, s everal media specialists in my district want to start or have recently started makerspaces and have the support of their principals to do so.
33 Interest in m akerspaces All of this has led me to my interest in designing and implementing school library makers paces in my district, as it seems they a re in sync (McKenzie, 1998). Too, it seems they would be a natural place to meaningfully incorporate many information, technology, and 21 st century skill s. I also feel they could help us reach our goal of transforming our libraries into spaces where students create and innovate. Finally, makerspaces might be a way to support my district's efforts to encourage more girls to discover an interest in STEM cour ses and STEM related careers. Problem of Practice: School Library Makerspace Project Overview Due to the various purported benefits of makerspaces, and because they seem a fit with school libraries, several school librarians in my district over the past s everal years began to incorporate makerspac es into their libraries. However, these makerspaces were being incorporated haphazardly based on what each individual librarian had read about makerspaces or had heard at conferences, on social media, through oth er librarians, or through other informal means. As library coordinator for the district, I recognized the need to ensure that we were purposeful in our design and implementation of these spaces so that they remained in keeping with the underlying principl es of constructionist learning theory and helped meet the goals of the district library program. To that end, I formed and led a committee of librarians in my district who were interested in makerspaces to serve as a design team to develop makerspace impl ementation guidelines for the district library program. In order to retain an understanding of knowledge gained and design decisions made during the process as a resource to be used for future work, there was a further need to formally document the
34 work o f the makerspace design team. Utilizing a design case approach for this study was well suited to meeting this need for documenting the process. Purpose Statement The purpose of this design case dissertation is to provide a detailed and thorough account of the design process the makerspace committee of librarians went through to bring makerspaces to the library program in my school district in order to preserve and share the precedent knowledge gained through the process (C. D. Howard, 2011). While this di ssertation represents only a snapshot of a n ongoing design process t his account will include detailed information both about the design process itself as well as the resulting implementation of makerspaces based on the design and will speak to both the su ccesses of the design as well as any areas of needed improvement. Research Questions According to C. D. Howard (2011), design cases have an overall singular focus in experience of the design to help readers better understand the design. In keeping with t hese foci, this design case dissertation seeks to answer similar questions. Research Question 1: What processes and decisions were involved in the design Research Question 2: What is the r esulting school library makerspace implementation? Research Question 3: In what ways do students experience participation in the resulting school library makerspace?
35 Signi ficance of Study This design case is significant to those attempting to implement m akerspaces in their school library facilities because it provides a detailed description of the process used, design decisions made, and the resulting impl ementation of makerspaces in my school district. This design case will discuss the work of the maker space design committee leading up to the initial implementation of school library makerspaces as well as additional design decisions made by the committee after the initial implementation and the changes that resulted. The guidelines for the design and im plementation of school library makerspaces could assist others in their own makerspace design and implementation Suc h guidelines could be used, then, in order to better support students as they work through the process of making in an educational setting so as to provide the best opportunity for students to realize the many potential benefits of participation in these learning environments. This is relevant to me in my professional practice and the librarians in my district who are beginning to implement school library makerspaces. It also has relevance to the field of library science, as makerspaces have become quite popular in the field. Many are implementing makerspaces in the hopes that they will have pos itive benefits to students, and the precedent knowledge documented through this design case could be helpful. The thorough description of the design process used to implement makerspaces in the school libraries in my district and the thorough description of the resulting makerspaces w ould also be hel pful to the field of study of makerspaces as learning environments
36 Definition of Terms Educational m akerspace A makerspace located in a K 12 school setting that is facilitated by educators who guide students as they learn what they need to learn to pursue their personal making interests. In addition to providing opportunities for students to pursue their own interests and creativity, educational makerspaces often have the additional goal of documenting student learning of conceptual knowledge and sk ills through participation in the makerspace. Educational Making Process Model A process model developed by the researcher based on a synthesis of the literature surrounding makerspaces and their underlying theories. The Educational Making Process Model graphically represents and verbally describes non linear and recursive processes involved in making in an educational making as a process and to serve as a tool for use i n the design and implementation of educational makerspaces. Maker Someone who has the desire, through personal need or inspiration, to make something and who works towards their making goal by learning what they need to learn along the way to make what t hey want to make. Makers believe they can learn new things in order to meet their making goals, and they willingly work through multiple unsuccessful attempts in order to find ultimate making success. Makerspace A physical location available to the public, sometimes for a minimum membership fee, that houses tools, technologies, and various resources that individuals can use for their personal or collaborativ e making projects. In addition to these physical resources, the knowledge and expertise of th e individuals who use the makerspace serves as another valuable resource to others using the space.
37 Making The process of determining the personal desire to make something either for playful or practical reasons, learning what one needs to know to make it, actually making the item, and, oftentimes, sharing the item itself and the knowledge developed through the making process with others. Making often involves an element of tinkering and exploration. Making is more than simply the assembling of parts t o put together a pre designed item. School library m akerspace An educational makerspace that is housed in a school library. Ideally, there would be dedicated space in the library for the makerspace, though a school library makerspace is sometimes housed on a series of mobile carts that are stored in a closet or workroom and brought out for making activities. Student m aker A K 12 student who, through participation in an educational makerspace, experiences the opportunity to pursue his own personal makin g projects. Through the educational making process, the student maker is developing conceptual knowledge and skills particular to his making pursuits as well as developing the learning practices and mindset of an expert maker. Chapter Summary and Organiza tion of Remaining Chapters This dissertation is divided into six chapters. Chapter One provides an introduction to and history of makerspaces, how and why they have made their way into school libraries, and the potential benefits and challenges of impleme nting makerspaces into school libraries as well as their potential benefits to students. It also discusses my background and my interest in school library makerspaces, and describes the makerspace design proje ct Chapter Two provides a review of the lite rature pertaining to makerspaces, including the literature specific to makerspaces as learning
38 environments. It also discusses the major theories underlying educational maker spaces and how these led to my development of the Educational Making Process Model Chapter Three of this dissertation will establish the design case framework that will be collection and analysis, provide information as to the trustworthiness of the study, and discuss ethical considerations and limitations. Chapter Four will speak to research question one and will present the professional context of the study and the proces ses used and decisions made during the school library makerspace de sign process in my district. Chapter Five will speak to research questions two and three, presenting and discussing the results of school library makerspace observations and interviews of students, a librarian, and a teacher I conducted as part of the study Finally, Chapter Six will discuss both successes of school library makerspace im plementation in my district as well as ar eas for improvement.
39 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Makerspaces as Potential Megachange in Education When Seymour Papert (1991 b ) spoke to the audience attending his closing keynote address at the World Conference on Computers and Education in Sydney, significant change that would affect the curriculum, the structure of school organization, and the view of learning or of knowledge itself, he envisioned this change would occur through student participation in constructionist learning environments that in tegrated technology in meaningful ways. He further described such learning environments as places where children are engaged in constructing things rather than (as Friere would They are engaged in activity they experience as me aningful. And for this, they don't need to be directed by a technician policeman teacher but rather to be advised by an empathic, helpful consultant colleague teacher. They are learning a great deal with a great deal of passion even though there is no te chnician to keep track of exactly what they are learning (Papert, 1991 b p.19). While there are certainly more computers and other technological devices in schools than when Papert delivered this speech and while it has become more acceptable in the realm of K 12 education to consider a more student centered approach to learning (Blikstein & Worsley, 2016) thanks to the work of Papert and other progressive educational researchers, the educational and epistemological perestroika for which Papert hoped has not come to fruition. Rather, there is a strong emphasis in education today on students learning and being tested on a specific set of standards evidenced in the wide sp read adoption by states of the Common Core State Standards and the standardized tests that accompany them.
40 T he state in which this study was conducted had originally adopted the Common Core State Standards, but has since moved away from them. The new st ate learning s tandards, however, are largely based on the Common Core Standards, and still prescribe what students are to learn in various subject areas in each grade level. Though the state no longer uses the specific standardized tests that accompanied the Common Core State Standards, students in the state are still held accountable to standardized state testing developed by the state itself Th is focus in sc hools on prescribed standa rds and standardized testing for which districts are held accountable through accreditation reviews by the state makes the implementation of constructionist learning environments such as the ones of which Papert discussed difficult as, but to invert the world of curriculum Makerspaces, however, and the student learning that takes place within them through the process of making, are noted by some as having the potential to disrupt current sc hool structures through their implementation into K 12 education. This is in part because the underlying philosophies and practices of making are not necessarily congruent with current school practices nor with the current state and federal accountability requirements to which school districts are held and because of the current widespread popularity and acceptance of educational making (Blikstein & Worsley 2016; Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Litts, 2015; Martin & Dixon, 2016; Peppler, et al. ; Sheridan, et al., 2014 ). Not all who want to bring making to education believe it need be disruptive to current school structures. In their article wherein they develop a framework to help K 12
41 teachers bring certain components of the maker movement to their classrooms, Cohen, further sta ure constructionism needs freedom and minimal restrictions (standardized regulations), which is difficult to come by in l structures to allow for educational making activities into current school structures. The authors (Cohen, et al., 2016) identify four principles of makification based on a review of the literature that they believe are essential to making in educational contexts: creation, iteration, sharing, and these core elements in order for the underlying principles of the maker movement to be upheld. While I appreciate the identification of several core elements that are considered essential to making in an educational context, adapting making to fit the current school structures of a rigid cu rriculu m and high stakes testing is un likely to lead to a change centered, teacher centered, b, p. 15 ) that makerspaces may have th e potential to bring about and for which many who study makerspaces as learning environments hope (Blikstein & Worsley, 2016; Dougherty, 2013; Martin & Dixon, 2016; Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013; Washor & Mojkowski, 2013). Rather, purposefully designing educa tional makerspaces based on an understanding of
42 their underlying theories, the principles of makerspaces and making in general, and relat ed research can better ensure students gain from the many benefits of educational makerspaces (B rahms, 2014; Litts, 201 5) and encourage megachange in education. The purpose of this design case dissertation is to provide a detailed and thorough account of the design process the makerspace design committee of librarians went through to bring makersp aces to the library prog ram in my school district so as to preserve and share the precedent knowledge gained through the process (C. D. Howard, 2011). According to C. D. Howard (2011), the review of relevant literature and theory in a design case serves the purpose of helping re aders understand the background influences that impacted the designers and, therefore, the specific perspective of the design case. In keeping with the de sign case approach used for this study, the following literature review aims to outline the theories principles, and research instrumental to my understanding of e ducational makerspaces and that were influential in the design decisions made for the implementation of s chool library makerspaces in my school district. Constructionism as the Theoretical Foundation of Educational Makerspaces Though the maker movement in education has gained m uch popularity recently and appear s to be a new phenomenon, the development of the learning theory underlying the maker movement, research of learning environments bas ed upon this learning theory, and the development of technologies based on this learning theory have been ongoing by leading educational researchers in this area for decades. Seymour Papert of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) began thinking abo ut ideas of learning that led to his theory of constructionism, the learning theory upon which the maker movement was built (Archwatemy, et al. 2005; Kurti, et al.,
43 2014b) as early as the late 1960s (Falbel, 1993). Papert worked closely with Jean Piaget f or several years in the late 1950s and early 1960s, and he was greatly happen s through the active construction of knowledge by the individual through experiences. The defining difference between constructivism and constructionism is that constructivism views knowledge as the construction of mental models inside one's head, while co nstructionism posits that the construction of knowledge happens better ( Papert, 1991a, p. 1) ( Papert, 1993a, p. 142) as a representation of his evolving thinking and learning (Archwate my, et al., 2005; Blikstein, 2013; Papert, 1991 a ; Papert, 1993 a ; Sheridan, et b ), 2004; Falbel, 1993; Litts, 2015). Papert (1993 a ) explained that the product created through constructionism can be (p. 142) alluding to a social aspect to constructionism. This social aspect of construc tionism is further exemplified in b ), wherein Papert provides a hypothetical conversation between two children as they work together and learn from each other while attempting to use LOGO to program their computer to draw flowers and flying birds on the screen He also draws similarities betwee n a LOGO learning environment and a Samba dance school on the basis of both being communities of learners wherein the members learn with and from each other rather than simply receiving instruction
44 from the teacher (Kafai & Resnick, 1996). Such references to a social and collaborati ve nature of constructionism have led some to argue that students also learn social skills in a constructionist learning environment (Archwatemy, et al., 2005). Papert further stressed the importance of developing learning environments that availability of technology and supportive adults ( Papert, 1991b ; Papert, 1993a; Papert, 1993 b ). According to Blikstein (2013), Papert argued for the use of technology in schools as a way to empower students to construct their own knowledge through the creation of physical or digital artifacts. It is then, easy to see the sim ilarities between constructionist learning environments and makerspaces and to understand why Papert p. 17). Research of Constructionist Learning Environments Research in the area of constructionist lear ning environments is plentiful. This section will discuss research that illustrates that learning does indeed happen in these student centered, technology ric h environments, that students learn conceptual or content knowled ge as well as various other skills, such as technological skills associat ed with the overarching project, and that collaboration between and among learners seems to be a natural and frequent occurrence in these learning environments. In an article based on her dissertation, Idit Harel (Harel & Papert, 1991) describes a constructionist learning environment wherein students were given the umbrella task of designing a piece of instructional software that explained something about fractions to an intended audie nce. The students kept a design notebook in which they wrote at the beginning and end of each session, and there were short, focused
45 lessons during some of the sessions led by the researcher on various aspects of instructional design and the use of Logo s oftware. The 15 week Instructional Software (Harel & Papert, 1991, p. 79). Harel att ributes these results to multiple factors. The physical space itself afforded movement around th e room and around the computers. T he situatedness of the learnin g was also a contributing factor, as students were learning the concept of fractions within the context of their development of instructional design software about fractions Finally, t he afforda nces of the Logo software allowed students to see representations of fractions, become personally engaged with knowledge of fractions, and to share that kn owledge with other students (Harel & Papert, 1991) In a related article focusing on the social aspects of the Instructional Software Design Project discussed above, Kafai & Harel (1991) describe the interaction and collaboration between learners that take s place in a constructionist learning environment in order to better define this aspect of the theory of constructionism. They identified the following several collaboration styles wit hin this project. Optional collaboration is defined by Kafai & Harel a s students having the choice to work on their own software design project or to work with others on a shared project Flexible partnerships is defined by the researchers as students moving in and out of collaborative partnerships during the project, decid ing with whom, when, and for what purposes they collaborate with others Collaboration through the air is defined as the concept of a student coming to a new idea he believes to be his own but that was
46 influenced by the talk in and across the learning environment, the work of other students that is visible on the computer screens, an d various other ideas that are floating in the air in this type of learning environment. These various styles of collaboration were found to be an important aspect to stude nt idea generation in the project, especially as incubation phase (p. 87) of the project. Resnick and Ocko (1991) discovered in their research of LEGO/Logo learning environments that students developed a deeper understandin g of various concepts such as the mathematical concept of even and odd numbers and the scientific concept of friction. In addition, students learned about the process of design through the act of designing. The researchers stress the importance of organi zing the LEGO/Logo activities around student freedom to create something personally meaningful rather than students being provided based (p. 144) approach to building in order to reap the benefits of such dee per learning. Resnick and Ocko (1991) also list three guiding principles of the design of such learning environments for children summarized as follows : 1) Put children in control students determine their own projects, designs, and experiments; 2) Offer multiple paths to learning students are allowed to start their design project from the direction or perspective of their choosing, be it mechanics, programming, or aesthetics; 3) Encourage a sense of community students are encouraged to share their de signs and ideas and to provide feedback to each other. Another study was conducted at an experimental school in Thailand that operates entirely according to a constructionist approach to learning (Archwatemy, et al., 2005). S tudent portfolios were impleme nted as a way to assess both con tent
4 7 knowledge objectives of a unit of learning (math skills and Thai langua ge skills) and hoped students would acquire (personal mastery, mental model, shared vision, team learning, and system s thinking). The study showed gains in both academic and soft skills, though gains were higher in the academic skills. Kafai, Peppler, and Chapman (2009) discuss Computer Clubhouses wherein youth engage with technology in ways that allow them to design and create a variety of projects. Reported benefits of youth participation in these afterschool constructionist learning environments include gains in content knowledge, technological skills, and soft skills such as collaboration and problem solving These Computer Clubhouses are specifically designed based on four guiding principles: 1) Support learning through design experiences; 2) Help members build on their own interests; 3) Cultivate an emergent community of learners; and 4) Create an env ironment of r espect and trust (Rusk, Resnick, & Cooke, 2009). Leading Constructionist Researchers and Technologies Developed Related to Makerspaces As early as 1968, Papert and some colleagues at MIT developed the Logo programming language (Martinez & Stager, 2013), a computer programming language designed for children to make things on c omputers In 1985, Papert and others at MIT birthplace of many of the ideas and materials embraced by t he modern maker Mitchel Resnick, a researcher at the Lifelong Kindergarten research group at the MIT Media Lab, was instrumental in developing the Scratch programming language for children and, in collaboration with the LEGO group, the Lego Mindstorm and WeDo
48 robotics kits for children (Blikstein, 2013; Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013). Both Scratch and the Lego robotics kits are staples of many school library makerspaces today (Abram, 2013 ; Dillon & Laughlin, 2014; Parrott, 2015). According to Resnick, Scratch and other technologies developed based on constructionist learning philosophy are intentionally designed so that users can tinker with them (Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013), allowing user s to play and experiment and try new things with the technology rather than the technology prescribing or limiting the describes as the intentional design of construct ionist learning environments wherein may be designed around a particular concept, in such experiences, there is not a specific or imposed set of learning expectations for all students, and students do not all learn the same things at the same time. Rather, each student learns what, when, and how he needs to within the designed learning environment. Yasmin Kafai is another researcher who, along with Mitchel Resnick, was instru mental in developing the Scratch programming language. Kafai was, and still is, instrumental in conducting research that looks at gender issues in constructionist learning environments. Her recent research on e mak ing activity (Kafai, et al. 2014) show s that they may serve to allow an entry po int into computer programming for students, especially young women, who may otherwise be hesitant to participate due to gender notions towards computer programming. Another c oncept that came out of MIT is the idea of digital fabricatio n labs (FabLab), developed by Neil Gershenfeld (Martinez & Stager, 2013). Gershenfeld
49 to technology that would enable them to make the tools and inventions they created on p. 24 of the equipment and tec hnology needed, and began to market them around the world (Blikstein & Krannich, 2013). In 2008, Paulo Blikstein of Stanford University began the FabLab@School project with the goal of bringing FabLabs to K 12 schools (Blikstein, 2013; Martinez & Stager, 2013). In 2011, he hosted the first ever FabLearn conference at Stanford for education, the 'makers' culture, and hands M artinez & Stager, 2013). To keep in perspective what was happening in the maker movement outside of education at this time, it is worth repeating that it was in 2009 that Obama announced the Educate to Innovate campaign (Obama, 2009) and 2012 when Doughe rty started the Maker Education Initiative to bring the maker movement to schools ( A more recent development to come from the Lifelong Kindergarten research group and to be widely incorporated into educational makerspac es is the MaKey MaKey kit, which allows one to use any object that conducts electricity, including such things as fruit or human beings, to create an interface with a computer (Martinez & Stager, 2013; Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013).
50 The Lilypad Arduino kit (Buechley & Eisenberg, 2008) was developed by Leah Media L ab. This e textile kit allows those with no computer programming experience an entry point to sew and with the previously mentioned technologies, the Lilypad Arduino has become a popular item in school library makerspaces. AnnMarie Thomas, a professor at the University of St. Thomas and founder of its led a group of students in the development of another popular school library makerspace item, Squishy Circuits. This hands on kit engages students in the building of electronic circuits using conductive dough and LED lightbulbs. Pilot testing using a p re and post test design showed that students with little to no prior knowledge of circuits or electricity show an increase in such knowledge by interacting with Squishy Circuits (Johnson & Thomas, 2010). Research on Makerspaces Makerspaces are places wher e individuals with the shared interest of making come together as a community to share tools, technologies, and knowledge. It is this sense of community that is often identified in the literature as a foundational or core component of a makerspace and whi ch is considered to be very important to the process of making (Brahms, 2014; Litts, 2015). In fact, Litts (2015, p. 53) points out that community element that transcends the system Practice framework as a lens with which to view the interactions of those individuals within a makerspace (Brahms, 2014: Sheridan, et al., 2014), as makerspaces are
51 centered around the shared use of space, tools, and materials as well as on the collaboration between and support of members of various levels of expertise during the process and practices of making (Washor & Mojkowski, 20 13). A member of a makerspace can take advantage of knowledge that can be found not only within themselves, but also in the variety of other resources available in the makerspace community including print and digital resources (Brahms & Crowley, 2016) as well as the knowledge and skills of other individuals within the space showing that knowledge and learning in a makerspace is distributed in nature (Brahms, 2014; Cohen, et al., 2016; Litts, 2015; Oxman Ryan, Clapp, Ross, & Tishman, 2016). This hearkens back to the theory of distributed cognition ( Perkins, 1993 ; Salomon, 1993 ) which contends that knowledge is distributed among the people and artifacts in an environment and that knowledge is socially constructed through collaboration between the persons a nd artifacts in that environment. It is not just this sense of community that is essential to a makerspace, but the context within which the making takes place (Litts, 2015). M akerspaces provide an authentic workshop style context wherein various tools, m aterials, and resources are available and where members learn the skills they need while working on personally meaningful projects This is r skills in the context wherein they would be used and of b eing a co participant in the processes of and often wi th the guidance of an expert. Also in keeping with the idea of situated learning, members of the makerspace can work side by side with more knowledgeable members to learn new skills through collaborati on and co participation ( Bevan, Gutwill, Petrich, & Wilkinson 2015;
52 Gabrielson, 2013; Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Litts, 2015; Martin, 2015; Vossoughi & of social constru ctivism and the Zone of Proximal Development (Berland, 2016; Bevan, et al., 2015 ; Martin, 2015; Vossoughi & Bevan 2014) wherein a student can achieve a higher level of problem solving with assistance from an adult or more experienced peer than his develop mental level might otherwise allow (Vygotsky, 1978). It is important to note that, while makerspaces can and do support an interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary approach to creation and problem solving that aligns with the STEM movement (Brahms & Crowley, 2016; Oxman Ryan, et al. 2016 ), makerspaces are not equivalent to STEM labs. Rather, makerspaces are primarily places of individual creation, whether that be in the fields of science and technology, arts and crafts, cooking, music, or any other area of interest to the individual maker. When considering makerspaces, it is important to be inclusive of a wide variety of interests rather than to focus primarily on STEM areas (Blikstein & Worsley, 2016; Peppler & Hall, 2016). Makerspace Design Principles Whe n considering the design of a school makerspace, it is undesirable to develop a prescribed list of what should be included, as each makerspace should be a reflection of the needs and interests of the individual school community, and, therefore, unique (Can ino Fluit, 2014; Kurti, et al. 2014a; Range & Schmidt, 2014). However, through an examination of the literature, a set of general considerations has emerged for the design of school library makerspaces. These general considerations have been organized ar ound the three aspects of makerspace design that Petrich et al. (2013) recommend taking into account when designing a makerspace to ensure that learning
53 happens: environment, activities, and facilitation. The list is not exhaustive; rather it reflects desi gn principles that were discussed in the literature with some frequency. They apply to a school makerspace that is a permanent space rather than a m obile makerspace or makerspace events that are set up and taken down as needed. Considerations for Design of Makerspace Environment Space/s torage. A school library makerspace should be designed with enough space for individuals and groups to simultaneously work on self directed projects with room to walk around th e space Consideration should be made regarding storage of various resources and materials the makerspace will house as well as storage of on going projects. Other space design considerations include ensuring adequate lighting and ample electrical outlets to accommodate a wide variety of projects (Houst on, 2013; Martinez & Stager, 2013; Petrich, et al. 2013; Range & Schmidt, 2014). Flexible u se. Makerspaces are spaces where makers share resources, learn from each other, and collaborate on projects of shared interests. Therefore, school makerspaces shoul d be designed so that collaboration can happen easily and naturally. Furniture in the makerspace should be flexible, mobile, and encourage collaboration. At the same time, however, the makerspace should readily accommodate those who desire or need to work on a project independently. The needs of both individuals working alone and groups working collaboratively should be met through the flexible use design of the space (Gutwill, et al ., 2015; Houston, 2013; Kurti, et al., 2014b; Petrich, et al., 2013; Resnic k & Rosenbaum, 2013). Decor/feel of m akerspace. When choosing the de cor for a school makerspace,
54 space (Blikstein, 2013; Martinez & Stager, 2013). The dcor should be purposefully chosen to inspire creativity, playfulness, and a sense of wonder as well as make clear that taking risks is encouraged and that failure is a learning opportunity (Kurti, et al., 2014a; Martinez & Stager, 2013). Some believ e that one way to inspire creativity is to display a variety of levels of projects previously completed in the makerspace (Petrich, et al., 2013; Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013). Martinez and Stager (2013), however, caution against providing completed projects as examples to students as this may stymie rather than inspire students' creativity and innovation. Safety. Given that a school makerspace may include a variety of tools and technologies for student use, safety must be a consideration in the design and ong oing use of the space. Depending on the tools and technologies included, each makerspace should develop a list of safety rules of which students are aware ( Makerspace Playbook 2013; Martinez & Stager, 2013). According to Martinez and Stager (2013), it is important to have safety rules and to teach students to safely use the tools they need to create in the makerspace. However, this should be balanced with the need for creativity in the space. They further argue that one must be careful that the safe use of Design of Makerspace Activities The range of possible makerspace activities is endless, but there are guidelines that should be adhered to when designing an activity for a school makerspace. School makerspace activities should be based on student interests (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Ku rti, et al., 2014b; Range & Schmidt, 2014), and should be designed as both focus ing on the process involved in making rather than the end product (Quinn & Bell, 2013; Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013; Sheridan, et al., 2014).
55 Activities should have multiple entry points and pathways to participation so students of varying knowledge levels can be challenged and successful and so students have freedom to explore within the theme of the project (Blikstein, 2013; Petrich, et al., 2013; Resni ck & Rosenbaum, 2013; Sheridan, et al., 2014). Take, for example, a makerspace that provides resources for students to explore the area of electronics. The makerspace might include Squishy Circuits so that students with no knowledge of electronics could have quick success in lighting up an LED bulb. It might also include eTextile resources, allowing students to encounter electronics through the pathway of sewing material using conductive thread rather than through the use of traditional circuits and wire s. Also included in the makerspace might be various electronic components students could use as their knowledge and skill level increases to build and power their own inventions. High tech and low tech a ctivities. Table 2 1 shows high tech and low tech a ctivities that are commonly found in makerspaces and could be included in school library makerspaces. The list is not exhaustive; it is a sampling of common makerspace activities as seen in the literature. Table 2 1. High & low tech activities commonly fo und in m akerspaces High tech a ctivities Low Tech Activities 3D modeling/3D p rinting Blender SketchUp TinkerCAD Computer c oding Codeacademy Github Scratch Interactive t extiles Robotic/e lectronics/ computing p rojects Lego Mindstorms Little Bits Arduino Makey Makey Raspberry Pi Squishy Circuits NetLogo Cooking Origami Duct tape origami Jewelry making Legos Take apart stations Sewing crafts Paper crafts Cardboard craft (Abram, 2013; Blikstein, 2013; Dixon & Ward, 2014; Fredrick, 2015; Kurti et al., 2014a; Martinez & Stager, 2013; Range & Schmidt, 2014; Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013; Thomas, 2013 )
56 Role of Makerspace Facilitator students in a makerspace environment might have ongoing any number of projects involving a wide variety of content areas and concepts, it would be difficult for the teacher to be an expert on them all. In a makerspace, the teacher does not need to be an ex pert on all potential making projects rather he assumes the role of facilitator of student learning. Makerspace facilitators who are experts and share their expertise can actually hamper student makers from becoming experts (Kurti, et al., 2014b). Facilit ators of makerspaces should create a welcoming, supportive, and safe environment and design activities to spark interest in student makers (Gutwill, et al., 2015; Petrich, et al, 2013). They should allow students to struggle and even fail, but should be wa tchful of when students are losing interest or giving up and offer assistance in order to sustain student interest in the project (Gutwill, et al., 2015; Martinez & Stager, 2013). The assistance they provide might be in the form of pro viding resources for makers to self instruct and learn what is needed to continue or in the form of asking questions rather than providing answers to help the maker see in what direction they might go to solve their current frustration (Houston, 2013; Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013 ). Facilitators should recognize when a student maker is ready to increase the complexity of his project and deepen his understanding of the underlying concepts and assist the student in doing so (Gutwill, et al., 2015). Developing Student Makers A primary goal of educational makerspaces is to provide students with making and tinkering experiences that will help them develop a sense of identity as one who has a measure of control over the man made designed aspects of his world (Oxman
57 Ryan, et al., 2016), on e who can fix things when they are broken, tweak items to meet their individual purposes, or invent new items to meet their creative wants or needs. Through such experiences over time, the goal is for students to come to be self directed learners who seek out the information they need to know in order to pursue their own interests to create and innovate (Barron & Martin, 2016; Oxman Ryan, et al., 2016). The goal is for students, over time, to develop an interest in making, to develop a maker mindset, and to develop an identity as a maker (Litts, 2015). The development of a maker mindset and the set of skills and abilities that go along with such a mindset such as creativity, problem solving, collaboration, and self expression, rather than the development of particular content knowledge or the development of an interest in STEM careers such as engineering or computer science, is seen by some as the primary goal of an educational makerspace (Blikstein & Worsley, 2016; Dougherty, 2013 ; Kalil, 2013; Oxman Rya n, et al., 2016) and an end unto itself. This is not to say that gaining content knowledge, especially in STEM areas, is not an outcome of student participation in makerspaces (Oxman Ryan, et al., 2016). In fact, educational makerspaces are oft en discussed as places that can readily support the learning of STEM content and the building of interest in STEM fields However, focusing on learning specific STEM or other content area skills as the primary outcome (p. 35) of the potential of p. 35 practices, strategies of designing, creatin Aadahl, & Dougherty, 2016 p. 236 ) and to encourage all students, regardless of their future career
58 p. 200 ). A narrow focus on STEM in makerspaces also ignores the interests of many students to participate in making projects involving such areas as arts and crafts, cooking, fashion, and digital media (Peppler & Hall, 2016). A maker mindset has been described by Dougherty (2013) as a growth mindset based on the w (p. 10). There are several elements of the maker mindset that have been identified in the literature as holding significance for education: its playful nature; its asset and growth orientation; its failure positive nature; and its emphasis on collaboration between makers (Martin, 2015). Lisa Regalla (2016) of Maker Ed outlines the characteristics of a maker mindset as follows: 1) A sense of curiosity; 2) An interdiscipli nary approach to challenges; 3) Social emotional competence through play; 4) A disposition to share and collaborate; 5) A growth mindset; and 6) Resilience in the face of frustration. Though there have been many trade journal articles published about maker spaces in the field of library science, there has been a lack of research studies conducted with a focus on library makerspaces, and school library makerspaces in particular (Moorefield Lang, 2015). David Loertscher et al. (2013), however, have developed the uTEC Maker M odel depicting the evolution of a student into a maker tha t could potentially be used to gauge the development of a maker mindset in students through participation in a school library makerspace environment. Th is model describes the develo pmental stages a student passes through in the use of a makerspace from lowest to highest level as Using, Tinkering, Experimenting, and Creating. It further
59 identifies dispositions that students purportedly develop as they move to higher levels of makersp ace use which include various roles ( e.g., presenter, mentor, etc.), actions ( e.g., imagine, design, collaborate, etc.), and strategies ( e.g., teamwork, persistence, problem solving, etc.). Making as a Learning Process Throughout the literature on makers paces, making is referred to as a process (Brahms, 2014; Litts, 2015; Sheridan, et al., 2014; Tseng, 2016; Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014) rather than as an event. However, though parts and pieces of the process of making are discussed in the literature, there i s not agreement in the field as to how the process of making ought to be defined (Brahms, 2014). Nor is there available to those wanting to design and implement an educational makerspace wherein students get the opportunity to experience making as a learn ing process a concise description of what the process of making, and, in particular, the process of making as a learning process in an educational makerspace, entails. What Making I s Not One can begin to form an understanding of making as a process by look ing at what the literature says that making is not. Making is not simply assembling pre formed pieces according to a set of instructions into a finished product, be it a birdhouse, a robot, or a dollhouse (Resnick, et al., 2016; Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013) Nor is making developing a solution to a prescribed design or engineering challenge with specific requirements for the design, such as designing a bridge that can support a certain number of pounds (Gutwill, et al., 2015; Peppler, et al., 2016; Petrich, et al., 2013; Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013). Rather, making is a process that involves elements of playfulness, experimentation, and exploration that is more akin to tinkering
60 than to intentional design (Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013). Resnick and Rosenbaum (2 013) caution that making is often being incorporated into schools in ways that are out of line with the nature of making as described above, limiting the learning students Though the process of making may appear similar in the way it looks, making is also not equivalent with constructing an end project as part of a project based learning unit or other inquiry based learning unit (Dougherty, 2013; Gutwill, et al., 2015). While it is true that many who study makerspaces as learni ng environments tout project based learning as a preferred teaching approach when incorporating making in schools (Blikstein & Worsley, 2016; Martinez & Stager, 2013 ; Wardrip & Brahms, 2016; Washor & Mojkowski, 2013 ), there are differences between the teac hing method of project based learning and the process of making (Wardrip & Brahms, 2016). One such difference is that within project based learning, student projects are tied to a teacher prescribed curriculum topic and are intended to solve a problem, an swer an overarching question, or show evidence of student learning about the content, whereas an important aspect of making is the autonomy of the maker to be self directed in his choice of what to make based on personal needs, desires, or interests (Dough erty, 2013; Peppler, et al., 2016; Petrich, et al., 2013; Regalla, 2016). So, while some projects students create as part of a project based learning unit may involve making as a self directed, playful, exploratory, tinkering process as described by Resni ck and Rosenbaum (2013), many other projects that result as part of such a unit would not. Making is a process that can support certain student projects that result from a project based learning unit, but it is
61 not equivalent to project based learning, in part because it is focused more on the process than on the end product. Elements of Making as a Process Though the literature on making as a learning process does not provide a concise description of what the process of making, and, in particular, the pro cess of making as a learning process in an educational makerspace, entails, one can begin to put together a picture of this process from the various elements of making that are repeatedly mentioned in the literature. One critical aspect of making, perhaps the aspect that differentiates it from other inquiry based forms of learning, is that it is driven by the interests and/or needs of the individuals who are involved in the making (Litts, 2015; Peppler & Bender, 2013; Peppler, et al., 2016; Vossough i & Bevan, 2014; Wilkinson, Anzivino, & Petrich, 2016). The autonomy of each individual to create projects of their choosing is paramount to the process of making. As such, in a single makerspace, multiple various projects are typically ongoing simultane ously. Making is often referred to as a self directed process, and the development of self directed learners is seen as a goal of educational makerspaces (Resnick, et al., 2016). Closely associated with the interest driven nature of making is the idea tha t making is not tied to tightly scripted, specific curricular goals (Blikstein & Worsley, 2016; Regalla, 2016; Resnick, et al., 2016) as is the case in other forms of inquiry based learning, such as project based learning. Rather, making is more closely a kin to the idea of an emergent curriculum or emergent learning wherein each individual involved in the making process learns whatever it is he needs to learn in order to make whatever he has determined to make (Blikstein & Worsley, 2016; Brahms, 2014; Mart in, 2015;
62 Sheridan, et al., 2014). The literature often points to the approach to preschool and primary education taken in the city of Reggio Emilia in Italy as a similar example to how making addresses curriculum and learning (Galloway, 2015; Martinez & Stager, 2013 ). In Reggio Emilia, teachers determine curricular goals based on interests expressed by students, and these interests lead the focus and development of the curriculum. Making takes this a step further in that each individual within the maker space may be pursuing a different project and, therefore, be pursuing a different learning path and mastering a different set of content (Blikstein & Worsley, 2016), offering a truly personalized learning experience for each individual. Exploration is an other important aspect of the process of making, and this is often referred to in the literature as tinkering. This is a playful activity wherein the individual messes around or experiments with various materials and tools without any particular goal in m ind (Regalla, 2016). This is considered a valuable part of the making process, and some recommend focusing less on projects and more on tinkering in educational makerspaces as inspiration for personally meaningful projects often results from tinkering (Pe ppler & Bender, 2013). Once a personally meaningful project is identified, the individual may begin to jot down or draw out ideas of what the project will entail or how it will look in the end or possibly create a quick prototype of what they envision. Ma king is a process that is based on the interests and/or needs of individuals, and, as such, it is oftentimes an individualized activity. However, several individuals can share the same interest or need, and making can then become a collaborative effort be tween multiple individuals. Even in cases where the making project is being taken on
63 by a single individual, the nature of makerspaces is for members to assist each other when needed or wanted (Litts, 2015; Regalla, 2016; Sheridan & Konopasky, 2016), so e ven within an individual project there can be times during which there is collaboration with others. Collaboration may also come before a project begins through however, in the pursuit of an individual project. Moving in and out of these collaborative relationships as needed or wanted is another part of the making process (Gabrielson, 2013; Martinez & Stager, 2013 ; Peppler, et al., 2016). Inherent in the process of makin g is continual feedback (Regalla, 2016; Resnick, et al., 2016). This feedback comes from a variety of sources and in a variety of ways. Individuals may ask for advice and receive feedback from adults or peers within the making community on a project that is not working as hoped. Or, they may receive kudos from others about a project that turned out well (Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013; Tseng, 2016). Within the making process, feedback also comes from the created artifact itself in the form of whether or not it works or behaves as intended (Martin, 2015; Resnick, et al., 2016; Wilkinson, et al., 2016). This continual feedback from the artifact successfully complete the project is at the heart of the constructionist philosophy that underlies making (Litts, 2015; Peppler & Hall, 2016). MAKE magazine is a magazine for makers which highlights making projects. Maker Faires are gatherings of makers where they show others their creations and talk about how they made them. The popularity of Make magazine and the prevelance of Maker Faires evidences that sharing the products that result from as well as the
64 learning involved in the process is an important aspect of making (Peppler & Bender, 2013; Peppler, et al., 2016; Sheridan, et al., 2014). Sharing completed projects as well as knowledge gained through those projects is a fundamental tenet of the development of makerspaces, and is another important aspect of the process of making (Doughe rty, 2013; Regalla, 2016; Rusk, 2016). As some making projects can span a fair amount of time and as makers often learn what works and what does not through trial and error or through intentional research along the way, it is common for makers to document what they have tried and learned throughout the process ( Martinez & Stager, 2013 ; Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013). Not only does this documenting of progress help the individual maker keep track of what has already been done or tried throughout a long term maki ng project, it allows the project and the process to be more readily shared with others once the project is complete (Resnick, et al., 2016). Often, this progress is captured in a project notebook or journal (Qi, Dick, & Cole, 2016; Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2 013), though it can also be captured with pictures, video, and text ( Martinez & Stager, 2013 ) Some online sites allow individuals to post pictures of a completed project along with steps one can follow to complete it (Peppler & Bender, 2013). Other site s, such as the Build in Progress site developed by Tiffany Tseng (2016) allow student makers to document and show the actual process they followed throughout the making of the project. Making is not a process wherein one can always create an initial product and then be done. Rather, making is often an iterative process (Dougherty, 2013; Regalla, 2016) wherein one makes a project through a series of starts and stops, going back to the be ginning to learn additional information before being able to move forward again
65 (Tseng, 2016; Wilkinson, et al., 2016). Once the project is complete, one often then needs to make changes because it did not work as expected or because improvements are desi rable. It is this iterative nature of the making process that is believed to encourage persistence in student makers in an educational makerspace setting (Wilkinson et al., 2016). Making as a Discipline The process of making seems to share similar practic es or processes with other disciplines. For instance, Brahms (2014) points out that the process of making involves asking questions and defining problems, practices also found in the disciplines of science and engineering, respectively. Litts (2015), in her study of makerspaces as learning environments, shows that the process of making shares the practices of brainstorming, iterating, and communicating with the design processes of such disciplines as engineering, art, and architecture. However, these and other researchers believe that while making shares some processes with other disciplines, it ought to be understood as its own domain with its own disciplinary practices rather than simply as an interdisciplinary process in support of other content areas (Brahms, 2014; Litts, 2015; Peppler, et al., 2016). Recent research helps bring into view the practices that may be particular to the process of making. Learning Practices of Maker Community To further understanding in the area of making as a learning pro cess and the practices that are inherent to the process of making Lisa Brahms (2014) used the theoretical framework of Communities of Practice to examine the making community through an analysis of four volumes of Make magazine. She identified the follow ing
66 seven core learning practices as evident in the making community of practice which are also helpful in thinking of making as a learning process in an educational makerspace : 1. Explore and question: Interrogation of the material properties of the contex t in order to find inspiration or to determine intention for a process or project. 2. Tinker, test, and iterate: Purposeful play, experimentation, evaluation, and refinement of the context. 3. Hack and repurpose: Harnessing and salvaging component parts of the m ade world to modify, enhance, or create a product or process. 4. Combine and complexify: Developing skilled fluency with diverse tools and materials in order to reconfigure existing pieces and processes and make new meaning. 5. Seek out resources: Identifying an d pursuing the distributed expertise of others, knowing and desire to learn. 6. Customize: Tailoring the features and functions of a technology to better suit 7. Share: Makin g information, methods and modes of participation accessible and usable by members of the community (pp. 20 21). Brahms further used these core learning practices as a framework to observe two children participating in a museum maker environment for evid ence of learning. She focused primarily on the core learning practice of seeking (social) resources and found that both children, one in conjunction with the learning practice of explore and question and the other in conjunction with tinker, test, and ite rate, exhibited evidence of adopting this core learning practice of the making community. Through interviews of thirteen expert makers in Vacouver, Canada, researchers (Milne, Riecke, & Antle, 2014) identified various habits, attitudes, and skills called on by these makers as part of their making process. Among these are the continuous search for project inspiration, a curiosity and desire for deep knowledge and understanding, confidence in solving problems, an attitude of failure as a way to learn, knowi ng how to
67 research to learn what one needs to know for a making project, and motivation that comes from choosing enjoyable projects. The overlap in the findings of these two studies of practices of adult makers begins to illuminate a common process of mak ing that may be helpful in the design and implementation of educational makerspaces. Processes Similar to Making When thinking of making as a process, it is also helpful to look at process models that have been developed for similar processes, such as the creative design spiral developed by Mitchel Resnick (2007) based on his observations of the natural learning processes of kindergarten students. This model was later used by Resnick and others (Rusk, et al., 2009) as a way to view the design process of yo uth participating in design projects in the afterschool club known as the Computer Clubhouse. The steps of this iterative cycle of creativity are imagine, create, experiment, share, reflect, and imagine again. A student who had participated in a creative design process using the creative design spiral as a model of design and creativity was asked to give tips to other students who would be participating in the activity in the future (Resnick, 2007). The tips he pr f you hav e no clu eep your ideas in a sketch book (p. 5). These and other of his tips echo some of the elements of the process of making discussed previously. Martinez and Stager (2013) discuss m ultiple process models used in the field of design as well as various process models for design used in schools, including the creative design spiral developed by Mitchel Resnick. Due to a concern that students who are introduced to a design process diagr am will view it as a prescriptive set of steps they must follow, they suggest a simple, three step process for classroom making
68 and design which they refer to by the acronym TMI (Think, Make, Improve). For each of the three steps or stages of their TMI pr ocess, various examples are provided of activities students may do during this stage rather than a checklist of activities they brainstorm, predict, decide to work alone o r with another, research, or plan among other deconstruct, document progress, or ask questions. Examples of processes students clude such things as conduct research, discuss the issue with others, ask an expert, change one thing at a time, or use different materials for the project. The many examples of activities students may utilize during the various stages of this TMI process build on the emerging picture of what a common making process may involve. Mike McGalliard (2016) developed another process model specific to the Global Cardboard Challenge of which he was a part. The Global Cardboard Challenge, developed by the Imaginat ion Foundation, is an annual fall event that involves children around the world building things from cardboard. The Global Cardboard Challenge was started based on the large and positive response of teachers and children to the story of which a young boy, Caine, built an arcade from cardboard boxes in phenomena and the cardboard challenge has become a popular event in many schools and communities. McGallia rd and his team observed children participating in the cardboard challenge and developed a framework or model to describe the creative
69 ral, the Creative Play Spiral includes the following steps: inspire, imagine, build, play, and share (McGalliard, 2016). Though the creative play spiral exemplifies a process specific to the global cardboard challenge, it helps one further understand what a common process of making might include. Educational Making Process Model In an effort to form a concise description and understanding of the process of making in an educational setting based on how the process of making is discussed in the literature, I developed the Educational Making Process Model (EMPM) shown below in Figure 2 1. The EMPM provides both a visual of what making as a learning process may look like based on the various elements of such found in the literature as well as a brief descrip tion of each part of the process. The intent of the EMPM is not to approach student making in a prescriptive, step by step manner or as a prescriptive, step by step activity. Rather, my immediate goal in developing the EMPM is to assist the makerspace te am of librarians in my school district who desire to design and implement a school library makerspace to better understand making as a learning process so as to design, implement, and facilitate their school library makerspaces in such a way to best afford students the opportunity to experience making as a learning process. A further goal in developing the EMPM is for it to serve as the basis of conversation and negotiation among those who study makerspaces as learning environments as to a possible common language or common definition of educational making as a learning process.
70 Educational Making Process Model This process model is not intended to be followed in a step by step order. Rather, as represented by the gear like design, all parts of the process interplay such that they work together toward a successful making process. Students may not take part in every part of the process for every making project. Inspiration What do you want to make? Student determines something he wants to make (based on student interest rather than teacher directed or curriculum driven) Student inspiration may come from Exploration in makerspace Playfulness Personal need/interest Sample projects Project idea resources (books, websites, etc.) Collaboration with others Optional Design Challenges or Project Based Learning projects Ideation What do you imagine it to be like? Student envisions the thing he wants to make Student ideation may consist of Student imagining finished artifact Student drawing ideas for artifact Student writing out ideas for artifact Student creating quick prototype of artifact Fig ure 2 1. Educational Making Process Model
71 Figure 2 1. Continued Making How will you go about making it? Student brings his ideas to reality Student making may involve Tinkering, Exploring, Attempting, Experimenting, Prototyping Planning o What materials/resources are needed (including human resources)? o What do you need to learn to make what you want to make? Gathering o Obtain the materials/resou rces you need o Learn what you need to learn to make what you want to make Building (Physical or digital) o May not be successful the first time o Problem solve o Try again, and again, if necessary o Iteration How can you make it better or different? Student makes changes to original item to improve it or modify it Student iteration may involve Creating updated or improved version of an item student m ade Combining multiple items (existing or student made) for a new purpose or improved function Student may choose to iterate based on Feedback from others ( e.g., improvements needed to make item saleable) Artistic license ( unique or creative way to repurpose an item(s)) Sharing How can you show/tell others what you made & learned? Student demonstrates to others what they made and what they learned in the making Student sharing may involve Displaying/presenting project in school or community venue, such as maker faire Posting project details & learnings in online making forum Optional & Flexible Collaboration Students work wi th others as and when needed/wanted on making projects to both get and give help Continuous Feedback Students naturally receive continuous feedback from their making attempts (does it work or not) as well as from peers in the makerspace Documenting Progres s Student documents what he has already done and what still needs to be done to help with organization of project and time Reflection & Formative Self Assessment Student tracks what he tried, what ideas for what to try next, as well as what he has learned
72 Chapter Summary In order to better ensure students gain from the many benefits of educational makerspaces and to en courage megachange in education, it is important that such spaces are purposefully designed (Brahms, 2014; Litts, 2015) based on an understanding of their underlying theories, the principles of makerspaces and making in general, and other relat ed research. This literature review outline d the theories principles, and other research instrumental to my understanding of e ducational makerspaces and that were influential in the design decisions made for the implementation of s chool library makerspaces in my school district Add itionally, this literature review built a case for making as a process and presented the Educational Making Process Model I developed that provides both a visual of what making as a learning process may look like based on the various elements of such found in the literature as well as a brief description of each part of the process. My goal in developing the EMPM was to assist the make rspace team of librarians in my school district to better understand making as a learning process so as to design, implemen t, and facilitate their school library makerspaces in such a way to best afford students the opportunity to experience making as a learning process. Chapter Three of this dissertation will establish the design case framework that will be used for this st data collection and analysis, provide information as to the trustworthiness of the study, and discuss ethical co nsiderations and limitations. Chapter Four will speak to research question one and will present the professional context of the study and the processes used and decisions made during the school library makerspace design process in my
73 district. Chapter Fiv e will speak to research questions two and three, presenting and discussing the results of school library makerspace observations and interviews of students, a librarian, and a teacher I conducted as part of the study Finally, Chapter Six will discuss bo th successes of school library makerspace implementation in my district as well as areas of possible improvement.
74 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Restatement of Problem of Practice Due to the various purported benefits of makerspaces, and because they seem a fit with school libraries, several school librarians in my district over the past several years began to incorporate makerspaces into their libraries. However, these makerspaces were being incorporated haphazardly based on what each individual librarian had read about makerspaces or had heard at conferences, on social media, through other librarians, or through other informal means. As library coordinator for the district, I recognized the need to ensure that we were purposeful in our design and implemen tation of these spaces so that they remained in keeping with the underlying principles of constructionist learning theory and helped meet the goals of the district library program. To that end, I formed and led a committee of librarians in my district who were interested in makerspaces to serve as a design team to develop makerspace implementation guidelines for the district library program. In order to retain an understanding of knowledge gained and design decisions made during the process as a resource to be used for future work, there was a further need to formally document the work of the makerspace design team. Utilizing a design case approach for this study was well suited to meeting this need for documenting the process. Purpose Statement The purpo se of this design case dissertation is to provide a detailed and thorough account of the design process the makerspace committee of librarians went through to bring makerspaces to the library program in my school district in order to preserve and share the precedent knowledge gained through the process (C. D.
75 Howard, 2011). While this dissertation represents only a snapshot of an ongoing design process, this account will include detailed information both about the design process itself as well as the resul ting implementation of makerspaces based on the design and will speak to both the successes of the desig n as well as any areas for improvement. Research Questions A ccording to C. D. Howard (2011), design cases have an ov erall singular focus in asking t he experience of the design to help readers better understand the design. In keeping with these foci, this design case dissertation seeks to answer similar questions. Research Question 1: What processes and decisions were involved in the design of school library maker Research Question 2: What is the resulting school library makerspace implementation? Research Question 3: In what ways do students experience participation in the resulting school library makerspace? Conceptual Framework As this dissertation is written using a design case perspective, the conceptual framework for this study (Figure 3 1) outlines the reason or purpose for the initial determination to implement school library makerspaces in my school dis trict as well as the scholarly literature, formal theories, and experiential knowledge that influenced the design process and the ultimate implementation of school library makerspaces. I developed the Educational Making Process Model based upon literature and theories related to makerspaces, and this process model then became part of the prior
76 experiential knowledge that, along with the other items shown in the conceptual framework, influenced the design process. Also reflected in the conceptual framework are the resulting makerspace implementation and user experience that will be described as part of the design case as well as the discussion that will be included of successes and areas of needed improvement. Figure 3 1. Conceptual Framework for desig n case. Research Design The primary purpose of this dissertation is to serve as a design case for the design and implementation of school library makerspaces in my school district. fact or ers to this as precedent, the unique knowledge that is gained by those involved in a specific design
77 process. The purpose of a design case is to preserve and pass on to others this precedent. Using a variety of data sources such as meeting notes, pertine nt documents, qualitative observations, interviews, and pictures, I will provide a thorough description of the design process, the resulting makerspace implementation, and the ways in which students experience participation in the school library makerspace s designed and implemented in my school district. Design Case Framework case in the form of an optional structure for organizing such a case which includes five categories. He emphasizes that this is only a possible useful framework for writing a design case rather than a structure being dictated for all design cases. Below is a description of each of the five categories suggested by Howard along with commentary as to how I incorporated each of these categories into this design case dissertation. A summary table is then presented (Table 3 located in this design case dissertation. Situating the design. The first category suggested by Howard to include in a design case is that of situating the design. He recommends including in this category a thorough description of the context of the design as we ll as aspects of or changes in the context that motivated the design. I included in Chapter One of this dissertation information about school library makerspaces and what led to my professional interest in school library makerspaces. This serves to build the broader context of what motivated the design and imple mentation of these spaces in my school district.
78 Additional information about the specific context for this design is included in Chapter Four which describes the processes and decisions involved in the design. and training Descriptions of the members of the makerspace design committee are include d in Chapter Four of this dissertation. These brief descriptions provide information as to their overall experience in the field of education as well as their knowledge of makerspaces upon joining the design team. In addition to the description of my pro fessional background and initial interest in school library makerspaces found in Chapter One, there is also information regarding my role in the design team in Chapter Four. Chapter Two, the literature review, serves as the discussion of readings and theo retical perspectives that influenced my thinking about makerspaces and to allow readers to understand the persp ective from which I and the design team approached the design and implementation of school library makerspaces. The final component Howard sugge sts including in the category of situating the design is a statement of why the author believes the design case is worth reading and why readers might find this design case interesting. My statement of why I believe other s would find this design case abou t school library makerspaces of particular interest is included in Chapter Four.
79 Describing the design. The next category Howard presents as part of his optional framework for design cases is that of describing the design. He recommends presenting the n arrative of the development of the design organized around the separate discussion of the components of the design rather than as a chronological account of the design process. According to Smith (2010), this narrative should address such things as the ke y decisions made, who was involved in making them, and what changes were made during the process. Another component Howard suggests as part of the category of describing the design is presenting a concrete illustration of the completed design. In additio n to rich, thick textual narrative, Howard recommends using images, video, and audio, as appropriate to help describe the design. My development narrative of the design process of s chool library makerspaces in my district makes up the majority of Chapter Four which addresses research question suggestion, the narrative is presented as separate discussions of the components of the des ign, though they are presented in roughly chronological order. My description of the completed design, the school library makerspace at Elementary School Four, is presented as part of the Results chapter, which is Chapter Five of this dissertation. C. D. Howard (2011) states that the results of a design case is the design itself, so the Results chapter seems the most appropriate place for this description. I inclu ded rich, thick description to help readers better understand the design. Thick description is description whose level of specificity allows the reader to see and feel the setting and actions within the setting from the perspective of those in it ( Creswell, 2014; Patton, 2002 ; Schutt, 2012). For instance, rather than stating
80 enter the dinosaur exhibit, they were chattering nervously about what they were about to see and several of them were waving their hands to animate their thoughts. Others were standing o n tip toe, attempting to see over the heads of their classmates to get a presented in written form in research reports, but in a design case, it may also include multiple pictures, representations of various stages of the design process, documents, and other non text artifacts ( Boling & Smith, 2009 ; Smith, 2010). Depicting the experience of the design. C.D. Howard (2011) stresses the importance of providing readers of a design case with a description of how users experience the design. He explains that this description can be used to show readers that in a design case, the results are n ot performance measures. Rather, the results of a design case are the design itself and the description of how users experience it. concern is to convey the designed art ifact and/or experience in a coherent way so that My makerspace is included in Chapter Five, Results, after the des cription of the makerspace itself. This description includes discussion of specific design elements Transparency in the analysis. A design case will, certainly, include a discussion of ways in which the design was successful. However, according to C. D.
81 Howard (2011), a design case that discusses only the successes is little more than an advertisement for the design. As such, Howar d suggests including a discussion of such things as any unexpected experiences that resulted from the design and areas where the design process or the resulting design itself might be improved. Howard contends that these design failures, as he refers to t hem, may be of the most help to readers who are dealing with similar issues or constraints in their own design context. I included a discussion of design failures and a reflection of ways in which the design could be improved in Chapter Six of this disser tation, Discussion and Implications Items often removed from design cases. C. D. Howard (2011) suggests that several items normally found in scientific studies are not appropriate for a design case worked into a different studies. Howard states that rather than the research methods in a scientific study, a design case consists instead of a development narrative describing the processes and decisions made toward the finished design. However, t o better fit the format of a dissertation, I included a more traditional Methods chapter in this design case, Chapter Three, that includes a discussion of the format of a de sign case, the data collection and analysis methods I used and ways I ensured the trustworthiness of the design case. Research questions are another element of a scientific study that are typically excluded from a design case. All design cases essentia lly try to answer the same question of how the particular design highlighted in the case came to be (C. D. Howard, 2011). This makes the inclusion of research questions in a design case awkward, according to Howard. Instead, design cases often include a problem statement or a
82 design process. However, in order to more closely adhere to a dissertation format and to help guide the development of the design case within it, I did include research questions in this dissertation which can be found both in Chapter One and in Chapter Three. The research questions are in keeping with the goals of a design case to determine how the design came to be and to provide a detailed descri ption of the The final items Howard lists as often removed from or reworked in a design case are such things as design guidelines, lessons learned, and design principles. The author of the design case shou ld not attempt to prescribe specific guidelines or principles for readers to follow in their own design process, nor would any lessons learned in one design case necessarily apply to another. Rather, the design case should provide a detailed enough descri ption of the design process, design, and user experience to allow the reader to take from it the precedent knowledge of most value to him. While I do include the makerspace design guidelines developed by the design team as part of the description of the makerspace design process in my district, I do not prescribe that others who are designing school library makerspaces adhere to these exact guidelines. Too, while I discuss how the design of makerspaces in my district might be improved upon, this discussi on is not intended to be lessons learned that are as the purposes and goals of makerspaces may be slightly different in different contexts In the table below, the items
83 in this category that I did includ e in this dissertation are listed under the heading of Table 3 Dissertation c hapter Ho ncluded Chapter o ne: Introduction Situating the d esign Broader context (history of makerspaces and information about school library makerspaces) aspects that motivated the design Included to fit dissertation f ormat Research questions included to fit dissertation format based on goals of design cases Chapter t wo: Literature r eview Situating the d esign Discussion of previous reading s and of theoretical p erspectives that influence the my thinking regarding the design of school library makerspaces Chapter t hree: Methodology Included to fit dissertation f ormat Research methods discussion of design case format, data collection and analysis methods, design case trustworthiness Research q uestions included to fit dissertation format based on goals of design cases Chapter f our: School l ibrary makerspace d esign p rocess Situating the d esign Specific context of design interesting Descriptions of members of makerspace design team Describing the d esign Detailed description of processes and decisions involved in the makerspace design process Included to fit dissertation f ormat Makerspace design guidelines are included that were developed as part of THIS design case, but these are not intended as prescribed design guidelines for others Chapter f ive: Results Describing the d esign Rich, thick description of completed design, a school library makerspace in action Depicting the experience of the d esign Chapter s ix: Discussion and Implications Transparency in the a nalysis Discussion and reflection of design failures, unexpected results, areas of possible design improvement Included to fit dissertation f ormat Lessons learned from design process and makerspace implemen tation, but
84 Data Collection and Analysis A primary goal of a design case is to provide a rich, thick description of the design, providing, such, multiple sources of data were collected and analyzed to help create this description. Below is a brief discussion of the data sources collected and analyzed to answer the research questions of this study. Research Question One Research Question 1 : What processes and decisions were involved in the design of Data Collection and Analysis Research question one is answered through a detailed narrative account found in Chapter Four which describes the members of the makerspace design committee and pr esents the processes and decisions involved in the design of school library makerspaces organized around a separate discussion of the components of the design. Biographical member d ata Biographical data was collected from the nine members of the makerspace design committee (excluding myself ) to assist with the descriptions of them. I first learn about makerspaces and how they came to try implementing one in their libraries. They were asked to differentiate between their knowledge of and experience with makerspaces prior to and after joining the makerspace design committee I used the
85 information in these surveys to type a rough draft of a description of each des ign team member. Upon typing up these rough drafts, I realized additional information regarding the of library science, would also be informative. As such, I sen t an email to each member asking how many years they had been in education, how many years they had been a library media specialist, how many years they had worked for their current school district (context of this study), and how many years they had been in their particular building/library. This additional information was incorporated into the rough draft descriptions of the design team members. Where I felt there were gaps in the information, I included questions within the text that I highlighted usin g the word processing highlight function to differentiate them from the description and to call attention to them. Each member of the design committee was then asked to review my description of her and to provide feedback. Memb ers provided additional info rmation, corrections, or clarifications that I used to revise the descriptions. These descriptions were then included in Chapter Four to help situate the design (C.D. Howard, 2011). Document r eview As a member of the design team, I had first hand knowledg e of all processes and decisions involved in the design of s chool library makerspaces in my school district. As library coordinator for the school district who was leading the design team, I also had ready access to a wide variety of documents pertaining to the process. These included documents regarding the planning of the design committee meeting s documents and resources that were used for activities during the meetings, and various versions of
86 documents showing the work that resulted from the meetings Table 3 2 shows the variety of documents I reviewed to assist with the description of the processes and decisions involved in the design of school library makerspaces, though not all of them were utilized in the final description. Table 3 2. Design pro cess documents reviewed by researcher Meeting planning d ocuments Document s and resources used during m eetings Results of committee w ork Makerspace meeting agendas from Fall 2016 meetings Email communications between researcher and design committee members to determine best dates for meetings Screen shot of list of appointments showing dates of meetings and makerspace visit Online collaborative document for initial logic m odel creation (prior to first meeting) agendas from f all 2016 meetings Logic m odel draft with collaborative work at meetings Innovation configuration m ap notes from collaborative work at meetings Online collaborative document used to develop makerspace Online collaborative document and various resources used to develop guidelines for environment, activities, a nd facilitation collaborative document used to develop additional guidelines based on EMPM Hand written brainstormed list of concepts for mission and vision statements Online collaborative document for revi sing mission and vision statements Student reflections of participation in school library makerspace collected by one design team member District grant guidelines and instructions District K 3 science instructional alignment guides regarding makerspace connections to K 3 science instructional alignment guides Multiple versions of logic m odel showing revisions Multiple versions of i nnovation c onfiguration map showing revisions Working vers ion of makerspace document Multiple versions of guidelines for environment, activities, and facilitation showing revisions Multiple versions of guidelines based on EMPM showing revisions Multiple versions of m ission and vision statements showing revisions Google drive folders used as a resource repository for librarians wanting to implement makerspaces
87 I reviewed the documents to determine which components of the design and of the design process to include in the development narrative and to ensure accuracy of events and timelines of the process. Many of these documents were used to write a rough draft o f the narrative, and images of those documents were included in Chapter Four along with the textual description to provide the reader with a clearer picture of the processes used and the work that resulted from them. Once I had a rough draft of the devel opment narrative of the design process in hand, it was presented to the members of the design committee to review. The design committee was asked to provide feedback in the form of additional information about any processes that I had overlooked or correc tions to my recollections of specific events. Though I am the library coordinator for the school district and assists building principals with the evaluation proc ess for district librarians, I do not have direct evaluative authority over the librarians. Plus, the collaborative development and revision of various documents was a standard practice of the makerspace design committee Therefore, I believe that the members of the design committee wer e comfortable providing honest feedback regarding the processes and events involved in the design of school library makerspaces. This feedback was then used to revise the development narrative. Research Questions Two and Three R esearch Q uestion 2: What is the resulting school library makerspace implementation? R esearch Q uestion 3: In what ways do students experience participation in the resulting school library makerspace?
88 Data Collection Data collection pertaining to research questions two and three con sisted of qualitative observations of the makerspace and student participation in the makerspace, interviews with the school library media specialist overseeing the makerspace as well as with the classroom teacher who accompanied her students to the makers pace, and interviews with eight of the students who participated in it. In addition, I took pictures of the makerspace, students participating in the makerspace, and student projects. The paragraphs below provide more detailed information regarding the c ollection and analysis of this data. Sampling: Resulting makerspace i mplementation At the time of this study, there were twelve school libraries in my district with some level of makerspace implementation. Purposive sampling was used to select the library makerspace in Elementary School Four as the makerspace to be described in detail in Chapter Five as the result of the design process. The selection was determined based on the following criteria: the librarian was a member of the design committee; there w as a dedicated space for the makerspace; participation in the makerspace was primarily student self directed rather than based on a project based learning unit or a design challenge; student makerspace participation took place during the regular school day ; the building principal was supportive of the library makerspace and of participation in this study; and there was consistency in the group of students participating in the makerspace such that parental and student consent could be reasonably obtained. Elementary School Four had a student enrollment of 506 with a free and reduced lunch percentage of 67.4 during the 2015 2016 school year. The student body
89 consisted of approximately 19.2% Black students, 15.8% Hispanic students, 6.9% Multi racial students and 50.8% White students. The principal in this building is very makerspaces prompted the librarian to explore them and ultimately incorporate one in her library. Too the principal dedicated the use of a former computer lab to the development of a school library makerspace, even having a section of concrete block wall removed so that a connecting doorway between the library and the makerspace could be installed. 5 th grade class, a class of 23 students consisting of 15 boys and 8 girls. This class was purposively selected on the recommendation of the school librarian as they had particip ated in the makerspace multiple times prior to the study and because the Too, as they were 5 th grade, the librarian and I believed they would be more comfortable in an in tervi ew situation Observations of school library m akerspace For this study, I observed t he library makerspace in Elementary School Four three times regularly scheduled bi weekly 30 minute visits to the makerspace I conducted qualitative observations of students in the makerspace primarily as a participant observer taking the role of a complete observer (Schutt, 2012). which the researcher does not participate in group activities and is publicly defined as a observe and interact with students while they are participating within the context of the
90 makerspace, but she is not participating in the activities with the students and her researcher status is known. In order for students to become accustomed to my presence and, therefore, not act differently than normal during the observations (Schutt, 201 2), I visited the makerspace twice prior to the actual observations. I also took pictures of the makerspace itself, students participating in the makerspace, and student projects. Prior to the observations, I developed the School Library Mak erspace Observ ation Protocol during the observations. Th e rough draft of th is protocol underwent review by my dissertation committee, and an additional section was added to record general observations duri b ased on the advice of the committ ee. I piloted the revised observation protocol twice prior to the to practice using it to record observations One pilot w with another 5 th grade class in the same elementary school. During the first pilot, I arrived thirty minutes before students were expected in order to observe the makersp ace itself. While students were working in the makerspace I constantly roamed around attempting to catch snippets of student behaviors and conversations. At the end of the makerspace visit, however, I did not feel that I had gathered much useful data. During the s econd pilot while students were working I stayed in one area for five to seven minutes, focusing on the behaviors and conversations of the student or students in that area before moving to another area of the makerspace to repeat the process. I felt I collected more useful data using this m ethod, so this is the method I
91 used for the three observations that were part of this study. The observation data collected during both pilots regarding the makerspace itself as well as student behaviors that were c data analysis for this study. The first section of the protocol allowed me to note such information as the school where the observation took place, the date and time of the obser vation, and the number of students present during the observation. It also provided space for me to record the physical attributes of the makerspace based on the design and facilitation guidelines developed by the makerspace design team. Individual areas in this section of the observation protocol align to guidelines developed by the design team regarding the aspects of the makerspace environment, activities, and facilitation. Additional individual areas in this section of the observation protocol align to additional guidelines developed by the team based on the EMPM. There is also an individual area in this section of the observation protocol for me to record additional attributes of the physical environment that may not fit into the other areas. I arr ived at the school thirty minutes prior to the time students were scheduled to use the makerspace to take pictures of the space and to observe the space itself absent of students using this first section of the protocol Once students arrived to the spac e, I used the second section of the protocol to record student, librarian, and teacher actions, behaviors, and comments. The protocol included a section to record general observations during the first ten minutes of the time in the makerspace an d column s designated for observations of students the librarian, and the teacher Observations of the librarian and the teacher were
92 recorded in a single column, and I in the column. While I did utilize this column a bit, the vast majority of data collected fell into the student behaviors column. For the first ten minutes of each observation of student participation in the makerspace, I positioned my self in an area of t he makerspace where I could observe the entire space and take note of what was happening. After the first ten minutes, I selected an area within the space where students were working o n a project of interest, and stationed my self there for five to seven m inutes to record student behaviors and conversations. After five to seven minutes, I would re locate to another area of the makerspace to observe other students. During each observation, I was able to observe two to three different areas of the makerspace using this method. When I saw something o f particular interest, I approach ed the students involved in the interesting act and question ed them to learn more. I had done this in my visits to the makerspace prior to the actual observations, so students were accustomed to this practice. A third column on the School Library Makerspace Observation Protocol was dedicated to obse rver comments. The intent of this column was for me to re cord my thoughts or feelings during the observation though I only used this column a few times during the study I used a laptop to record observations on the protocol during each observation. In addition to these typed observations, I took pictures of students participating in the makerspace as well as of student projects. The third and final section of the protocol had a space at the top to record information such as the school name, the date, and the time of the observation. The rest of the section w as blank except for a heading indicating the blank space was to be
93 used for observer reflections and a summary of the observation. In the 30 minutes immediately following each live observation, I used this section of the protocol to write more detailed an d highly descri ptive field notes (Merrian, 2009 ; Patton, 2002) from the Interviews of students, librarian, and t eacher ings we in school library makerspaces, I conducted standardized ope n ended interviews (Patton, 2002 ) of eight students who had participated in the observed makerspace. I planned to select students for interviews according to the following criteria: both males and females represented in the interviews; students participating in a variety of making activities, at a variety of phases in the making process, and at a variety of levels of engagement during their time in the makerspace visit so that a variety of perspectives would be represented ; students who the librarian believes woul d be comfortable being interviewed; and students whose parents had signed consent for them to be interviewed. As it turned out, only eight students were eligible to be interviewed based on parental consent and child assent, so I opted to interview all eig ht students. The eight students interviewed consisted of two females and six males who were at a variety of phases in their making process during the study. All eight students were at a comparable level of engagement during the observations, however, so this selection criteria was not met. All eight seemed comfortable being interviewed and all eight had appropriate permissions to be interviewed.
94 I developed t he student interv iew questions with the primary goal of collecting additional data regarding stud C.D. Howard (2011) recommends including in the framework of a design case, and it is on this category that rese arch question three of this dissertation is based. Questions one through three of the student interview protocol are general questions about the use their participation in the space. Questions four through twenty are aligned to the various parts of the EMPM I developed and on which several design and facilitation guidelines developed by the makerspace design committee were based. These questions are intended to help deter mine how successful the design of these spaces was based on the extent to which students experience making as a process within them. These questions are also intended to make clear which of the design and facilitation guidelines developed by the design te makerspace implementation and which are not. Question twenty one is intended to identify areas of needed improvement in the design of school library makerspaces from the perspective of students. Th categories, transparency in the analysis, wherein he recommends discussing both the successes of and areas of needed improvement in the design. The final student interview question is very open ended and allows the student to tell me anything else about participation in the school library makerspace that he wants to share. The intent of this question is to capture additional aspects of the student experience of participation in the makerspace that may not fall into the areas of focus of the other
95 questions. The student interview protocol including the interview questions can be found in Appendix B. After completing a rough draft of the student interview questions, on the advice of my committee chair, I reviewed existing literature regarding interview techniques wit h children to ensure they were appropriate for the grade level to be interviewed (Docherty & Sandelowski, 1999; Hatch, 1990; Irwin & Johnson, 2005; Kortesluoma, Hentinen, & Nikkonen, 2003; Kr henbhl & Blades, 2006 ). However, I felt the questions were in line with recommendations in the literature for 5 th grade students, so no changes were made to the questions. Also on the advice of my committee chair, I conducted a pilot interview with a 5 t h grade student in a different class at Elementary School Four to ensure the interview questions would be easily understood and that no adjustments to the questions needed to be made prior to the actual student interviews that would be part of this study. Again, as the interview went well and I felt the student readily understood all question s, no changes were made, and th e original questions were used to conduct the student interviews. In addition to student interviews, I conducted a standardized op en end ed interview (Patton, 2002 ) with the media specialist who oversees the makerspace in Elementary School Four and with the classroom teacher who accompanied her students in the makerspace. My purpose for these interviews was two fold: to capture the librari I developed t he librarian interview questions with the main goal of determining which d esign and facilitation guidelines developed by the design team were evident in
96 the resulting makerspace implementation by the librarian. Question one of the interview protocol (and any follow up questions) aligns to design guidelines developed by the desi gn team regarding the makerspace environment and activities. Question two is aligned to the Innovation Configuration Map developed by the design team which established acceptable parameters for makerspace implementation. Questions three through fifteen a re aligned to the various parts of the EMPM I developed and on which several design and facilitation guidelines developed by the makerspace design committee were based. These questions are intended to help describe the resulting makerspace implementation based on the design guidelines and to determine how successful the design of these spaces was based on the extent to which the librarian facilitates student making as a process within them. The next section of the protocol, questions sixteen through ninet een, are intended to help identify areas of needed perspective. This data will help address the recommendation of C.D. Howard (2011) to include in a design case not only the succ esses of a design but also design failures or areas of needed improvement. The final question on the librarian interview protocol is very open ended and provides an opportunity for the librarian to tell me anything else on in the school library makerspace that she wishes to share. The intent of this question is to capture other aspects of student participation in areas of focus of t he other questions. The librarian interview protocol including the interview questions can be found in Appendix C.
97 I developed t he teacher interview questions with the primary goal of capturing an ation in the school library makerspace. This data helped address the category of depicting the experience of the design, one of the categories recommended by C.D. Howard (2011) for inclusion in a design case. Another goal of the teacher interview questio ns was to determine an additional perspective regarding which design and facilitation guidelines were evident in the resulting makerspace implementation and, therefore, part of the student experience of participation in the space. Questions one and two of the teacher interview address determine how they align with the acceptable guidelines for makerspace implementation developed by the design team and defined on the Innovation Configuration Map Questions three through fourteen are aligned to the various parts of the EMPM I developed and on which several design and facilitation guidelines developed by the makerspace design committee were based. These questions are intended to help describe the resulting makerspace implementation based on the design guidelines and to determine how successful the design of these spaces was based on the extent to which students experience making as a process within them. Questions fifteen through seventeen speak to areas of success and areas of needed improvement in the recommendation to include both in a design case. The final question on the teacher interview protoc ol, question eighteen, is very open ended and provides an opportunity for the teacher to tell me school library makerspace that she wishes to share. The intent of this question is to
98 capture other aspects of student participation in the school library makerspace from the The teacher interview protocol including the interview questions can be found in Appendix D Student, librarian, and teacher interviews were audio recorded using my laptop computer as the recording device. Once all interviews had been conducted, they were transcribed by a professional transcription service. I then listened to the audio recordi ngs of the interviews while read ing through the transcripts, making corrections where needed. The audio recordings of the interviews were then deleted from my computer Data A nalysis I used thematic a nalysis (Braun and Clark, 2006) to analyze the data ac ross both the observations and the interviews. The first step of thematic a nalysis is to become familiar with the data. As I am the one who conducted both the observations and th e interviews for this study, I already had some fam iliarity with the data. I became more familiar with the interview data through the process of reading through each transcript while listening to the audio of the interview and making corrections as needed Additionally, I read through each transcript another time and read throug h all observation data twice Once I was sufficiently familiar with the data, I began two separate rounds of data analysis for research questions two and three. I used a deductive or theoretical approach to thematic analysis to code for elements of the de sign that were found in the resulting makerspace. This deductive approac h was based on the work of the makerspace design committee includin g the Innovation Configuration Map and the various design and implementation guidelines
99 developed by the team. I c reated an a priori list of codes based on the ICM and the design and implementation guidelines. Observation and interview data were uploaded into NVivo, software used to code data. I then began step two of the thematic a nalysis process, generating initia l codes. I read through all interview transcripts and observation data in NVivo, applying to it the codes from the a priori list I previously created. When all data had been coded, I started searching for them es, which is the third step of thematic a nalysis. Unfortunately, my inexperience with the NVivo program made this step more difficult than it might otherwise have been. Because I uploaded the observation protocols into NVivo in table format, I was unable to run a n easy to read report of all da ta coded with the same a priori code When attempting to do so, the report included not just a listing of each similarly coded data extract, but the complete table of data in which each extract originally appeared. This was not conducive to searching for themes, so I devised a different method for this step. I set up an Excel spreadsheet which included a separate sheet fo r each of the a priori codes I had developed. I copied and pasted the coded data from NVivo for each of these code s o nto the appr opri ate sheet and added a column on each sheet where I sorted and resorted the data on each sheet until it all fit into one (or sometimes mult iple) us ed a third column on each sheet to record the file names of any pictures that supported or exemplified the various potential themes. Once this was completed for each a priori code, I nto a single new sh eet within the spreadsheet. I then printed out the combined
100 cut them into individual strips which I then organized and reorganized into piles based on similarities between them. I applied a potential name to each resulting pile which I then continued to synthesize based on connections between them. Finally, I added another new sheet to the spreadsheet listing these potential themes and included pertinent data extracts along with each one. Step four of thematic a nalysis involves reviewi ng the potential themes, and I next moved on to this step. I read through the themes developed for research question two as well as the data extracts supporti ng each, adding a few subthemes, tweaking the placement of some data extracts and combining repe ated data extracts. I also read back through all interview and observation data and added a few additional data extracts which support ed the potential themes and subthemes. Once this step was comple te, I added a final new sheet to the spreadsheet where in I named and defined the two themes for research question two, which is the fifth step of thematic a nalysis. Rather than continuing to step six, writing the report, I next started the second round of data analysis for research question three. For research question three I used an inductive approach to thematic a nalysis in order to As I was alr eady familiar with the data, I moved directly to step two, generating initial codes. To avoid the difficult y experience d with the data analysis for research question two, I first copied and pasted all information from each cell of the observation protocols into NVivo as text rather th an as part of a table. I then read through all of the data and applied codes based on the data itself rather than on an a priori list as was done for research
101 question two. Seventy unique codes were developed and applied to the data during this step. I next began to se arch for themes, step three of thematic a nalysis. I printed out the list of all seventy codes from NVivo, and used a color coding system with different colored highlighters to sort the codes based on similarities between them. I then beg an to develop potential themes into which each group of similarly highlighted codes would fit. After several drafts of potential themes, I developed a lis t of seven potential themes for research question three. For step four of the thematic a nalysis pro cess reviewing potential themes, I read back through all d ata extracts now associated with each theme as well as the entire data set, slightly tweaking which data extracts were associated with which themes. I also eliminated one theme as it was not well supported by the data leaving six themes for research question three. I then set up cases in NVivo for each theme and associated each node of coded data falling within that theme with the case. I was then able to print out all data associated with each case, or theme, to use while writing the report for each theme. Finally, I set up an Excel spreadsheet for research question three wherein I named and defined each of the six remaining themes for t his question. Now that data analysis for both research question two and research question three was complete, I moved o n to step six of t hematic a nalysis, producing the report. The outcome of this step was Chapter Five of this dissertation, the Results chapter. During the writing of this chapter, I made additional adjustments to the names of the themes and subthemes and some of the specific data extracts associated with them as the organizational structure of the chapter evolved, though the themes and s ubthemes
102 identified through the data analysis process remained largely intact. Upon completing the rough draft of Chapter Five, I asked the librarian involved in the study to review it to ensure it rang true based on her experience working with students i n the makerspace. A few minor changes were made based on the feedback of the librarian, such as a correction to the list of robots available to students in the makerspace and specific grants the librarian applied for to get funding for the makerspace. Design Case Trustworthiness Following is a list of elements of trustworthiness recommended by Kennon Smith trustworthiness in a design case. For each element, there is a discu ssion of what I did for each element to ensure the trustworthiness of this design case dissertation. Prolonged engagement with phenomenon under investigation. As the library coordinator for my school district, I was directly involved in the design and i mplementation process of school library makerspaces in my district from the beginning. Along with other librarians in the district, I attended various conference sessions on school library makerspaces, read trade journal articles about them, and considere d how they might fit into the school library program well before the makerspace committee of librarians interested in developing implementatio n guidelines was developed. I also led a summer session for district librarians interested in learning more about makerspaces, led a professional development session on makerspaces with all librarians during the school year, formed the makerspace committee of librarians, and led the meetings of the makerspace committee. Additionally, as a doctoral student of the Uni versity of I spent the two years prior to this study reading literature pertaining to and learning about school library makerspaces.
103 n in a school library makerspace resulting from the work of the design team, I observed the same group of students participating in one of the makerspace s three times. These observations occurred after I spent two previous sessions in the makerspace with this same group of students to ensur e they were comfortable with my presence. Persistent observation of salient elements. As library coordinator for my school district and as a member of and leader of the makerspace design team, I had first hand knowledge of the prominent processes used and decisions made during the design of school library makerspaces. It is this knowledge that allowed me to determine which elements to highlight in the descrip tion of the design process. I also used this knowledge, along with observations of students participating in the space and interviews of students, the librarian, and the classroom teacher, to determine which elements to highlight in the description of the resulting school library makerspace. Triangulation of data. In order to establish trustworthiness of my description of the process used to design schoo l library makerspaces in my district as well as to describe the resulting implementation of those makerspaces, I used a variety of sources of data. Sources of data used include biographical information about members of the design team, documents pertaining to the design process, observations of students participating in the resulting makerspace, and interviews with students, the librarian, and the classroom teacher. Negative case analyses. As part of the description of the design of school library makers paces in my district in Chapter Four of this dissertation, I increased trustworthiness by presenting multiple ver sions of documents such as the Logic Model,
104 the Innovation Configuration Map the mission and vision statement, and the design guidelines developed by the design team to show the changes that were made to the documents along the way to the final version. I also discussed bo th successes and areas for improvement in the resulting school library makerspace. Member checks. To ensure accuracy in the description of the process used to design and implement school library makerspaces in my district, I utilized me mbers of the design committee to re view and provide feedback on my rough draft. Though I am the library coordinator for the school district and assists building principals with the evaluation proc ess for district librarians, I do not have direct evaluativ e authority over the librarians. Plus, the collaborative development and revision of various documents was a standard practice of the makerspace design committee Therefore, I believe that the members of the design committee were comfortable providing ho nest feedback regarding the processes and events involved in the design of school library makerspaces. Revisions to the rough draft were made based on this feedback. Additionally, a fter I sc hool library makerspace and the ways in which students experience participation in it for Chapter Five, the librarian who oversees and fa cilitat es this school library makerspace reviewed the chapter to ensure the themes and descriptions rang true based on her experience of working with students in the space. A few slight corrections were made to the chapter based on her feedback, such as the list of specific robots available to students in the space. Thick description. To ensure the reader develops a deep understanding of the school library makerspace design process used, I included in the description such
105 things as the decisions made, who was involved, and changes that were made during the process. I also used thick description to ensure the reader gains a thorough experience of participation in it. Thick description is description whose level of specificity allows the reader to see and feel the setting and actions within the setting from the perspec tive of those in it (Creswell, 2014; Patton, 2002; Schutt, 2012). For students were standing in line to enter the dinosaur exhibit, they were chattering nervously about what they were about to see and several of them were waving their hands to animate their thoughts. Others were standing on tip toe, attempting to see over the heads of their classmat es to get a sneak peek into the room they were about to in a design case, it may also include multiple pictures, representations of various stages of the design pr ocess, documents, and other non text artifacts (Boling & Smith, 2009; Smith, 2010). Audit trails. I kept an audit trail in the form of a folder holding the documents used during the document review. Documents held as part of the audit trail include ori ginal items such as hand written notes regarding planning meeting times, hand written meeting notes, and initial hand written collaborative work. Also part of the audit trail are multiple versions of documents such as the Logic Model, the Innovation Confi guration Map the mission and vision statement, and the guidelines developed by the design team. Biographical information submitted by members of the design committee were also included as part of the audit trail. In addition, I developed an audit
106 trail as part of the thematic analysis of observations and interviews which traces how the raw data were analyzed and how the resulting themes were identified. Ethical C onsiderations Prior to the start of the study, all IRB requirements were met, including part icipant consent agreements. The nature of the study was explained to participating students, librarians, and teachers so that they were aware of the questions the study hoped to answer. All data collected was kept confidential, and pseudonyms were used i n place of student, librarian, and teacher names to protect participant privacy. Potential Limitations to D esign As a design case, a limitation of the design is that no causal connections can result. Rather, the design case is intended to provide a rich d escription of the design and implementation process of bringing school library makerspaces to my school participation in the makerspace. The purpose of such is to record an d preserve the precedent knowledge of the design team. The results of this study might lead to new research directions or assist others in future design processes rather than providing specific answers. Subjectivity Statement I have worked in the school d istrict that was the location of this study for fourteen years. For most of those years, I served as a library media specialist at both the elementary and middle school levels. During this study, however, I was serving in my fifth year as Library Coordin ator for the district. Though I do not have direct evaluative authority over the district librarians, I do assist principals with the evaluation cycle by conducting a management observation of librarians. My position is also considered a
107 leadership posit ion in which I oversee the district libraries. While this afforded me a unique perspective of the design and implementation of school library makerspaces in my district, this relationship with the library media specialists also has the potential to have i nfluenced this study. I first learned about school library makerspaces through workshops sessions at a state library conference. I continued to learn more about them through various conference sessions, trade journal articles, conversations with other lib rarians, and a visit to a library makerspace in a neighboring school district. As a doctoral student, I focused on school library makerspaces as my area of specialization. As such, I had spent approximately one and a half years reading extensively about makerspaces prior to the formation of the makerspace design committee. I continued to read extensively about them after the committee began its work. There is the potential that my background in and knowledge of makerspaces impacted the design and implem entation process described in this dissertation. As library coordinator for my district, I was approached by a group of district librarians in the summer of 2015 who wanted to learn more about makerspaces, so I held a three hour workshop in July of 2015 wh erein attendees learned about makerspaces. In the fall of 2015, several media specialists expressed an interest in starting a makerspace in their library, so I formed and led a makerspace design committee in its work to develop guidelines for the design a nd implementation of library makerspaces in the district. The fact that I was both the researcher of this study as well as the library coordinator of the district who was leading the makerspace design committee may have influenced the study.
108 I made an o ngoing effort throughout this study and throughout the data collection and analysis process to remain as objective as possible to combat the above limitations. I also used rich, thick descriptions of the design process, the resulting makerspace implementa member checks of the resulting descriptions to further overcome the above limitations. Chapter Summary This chapter established the design case framework that will be used for thi s framework, discussed the methods used for data collection and analysis, provided info rmation as to the trustworthiness of the study, and discussed ethical considerations and limitations. Chapter Four will speak to research question one and will present the professional context of the study and the processes used and decisions made during t he school library makerspace design process in my district. Chapter Five will speak to research questions two and three, presenting and discussing the results of school library makerspace observations and interviews of students, a librarian, and a teacher I conducted as part of the study Finally, Chapter Six will discuss both successes of school library makerspace implementation in my district as well as areas for improvement.
109 CHAPTER 4 SCHOOL LIBRARY MAKERSPACE DESIGN PROCESS The purpose of this design case dissertation is to provide a detailed and thorough account of the design process the makerspace committee of librarians went through to bring makerspaces to the library program in my school district in order to preserve and share the precedent knowledge gained through the process (C. D. Howard, 2011). This account will include detailed information both about the design process itself as well as the resulting implementation of makerspaces based on the design and will speak to both the successes of the design as well as any areas of needed improvement. school district? I will first situate the design by describing the specific professional contex t of the design, stating why I believe this design case will be of interest to others, describing the members of th e design team, and detailing my role in the design process and as a member of the design team. Next, I will describe in detail the most pertinent components of the design process based on my knowledge of the process as a member of the design team and on my review of pertinent documents pertaining to the d esign process. The description of these components will include decisions and changes that were made during the process. In addition to a textual description of the most pertinent components of the process, images of various documents relating to the des ign process will be provided, including the design and implementation guidelines developed by the design team for use by the district library program.
110 Professional Context The following section of this chapter serves to situate the design of school library makerspaces in the context of my local district, one of the categories of a design case suggested by C.D. Howard (2011). This design case was developed in a large suburban school district in northwest Missouri. With nearly 20,000 students, it is one of the largest school districts in the state. The district currently consists of 21 elementary schools, 5 middle schools, and 4 high schools and plans to build two additional elementary buildings and to turn a current elementary school and a current middle s chool into sixth grade centers. Student Demographics As evident in the following data pulled from the state department of education website regarding student demographics for the 2015 his district is somewhat diverse, consisting of the following ethnicities: White (61.5%), Hispanic (13.4%), Black (12.8%), and Multi and Pacific Islander ethnicities but the percentage of these student groups is 48.6%, slightly below the state average of 51.7%. School Library Facilities The elementary libraries in this school dist rict have brief, scheduled check out times with each grade level on a weekly basis. During these scheduled check out times, students are accompanied to the library by their teacher, and they have a set amount of time (usually 15 30 minutes) to find books and/or other materials to borrow from the library for the week. Students can also come to the library outside of their
111 scheduled check out time to borrow books and/or other materials as needed. Elementary librarians have recently been added to the rotati classes, teaching 30 minute bi weekly library lessons to provide common plan time for classroom teachers. Middle school and high school libraries in this district operate on a more flexible schedule. The middle school librar ies have regularly scheduled check outs every few weeks, typically through the English Language Arts classes, while high school libraries out schedule. Rather than regularly scheduled library lessons, both middle school and high school librarians are available to collaborate with classroom teachers on an as needed basis for student research projects. School Library Makerspaces in District Of the thirty library facilities in this school district, twelve of them plan to have a makerspace of some sort in the library during the 2016 2017 school year. The implementation of these makerspaces is primarily based on an Innovation Configuration Map which outlines acceptable implementation parameters for these spaces. The Innovation Configuration Map was developed by a committee of librarians in the district who have begun to develop makerspace implementation guidelines for the district libraries. This design case will discuss the work of the makerspace design committee leading up t o the initial implementation of these twelve school library makerspaces as well as additional design decisions made by the committee after the initial implementation. Seven of the libraries that will have a makerspace this year are at the elementary leve l, though two of these facilities are run by the same librarian who is half time at each of the two buildings. At the middle school level, four of the five library facilities plan to
112 have a makerspace during the 2016 2017 school year, but these will only be available to students after school as part of extended day activities. At the high school level, one of the four libraries plans to have a makerspace during the 2016 2017 school year. As shown in Table 4 1, the schools wherein the above listed school library makerspaces are located are quite diverse from each other regarding student enrollment numbers, ethnic diversity, and free and reduced lunch percentages. Together, they represent well the various demographics of the schools within the district. T he library facilities are diverse regarding how the library makerspaces are currently being implemented, some devoting a permanent space to the makerspace and others utilizing mobile carts due to the lack of a permanent space. Though there is much overlap in the activities and/or resources available in each makerspace, each library has the latitude to include specific activities and/or resources in the makerspace based on the needs and interests of its students. Together, these represent the current varie Table 4 1. 2016 building demographics per state Department of Education School Enrollment Free & r educed (%) Asian (%) Black (%) Hispanic (%) Indian (%) Multi r ace (%) Pacific i slander (%) White (%) Elementary 1 627 30.9 9.70 10.70 * 71.30 Elementary 2 498 79.9 11.20 22.10 14.10 7.20 40.00 Elementary 3 742 68.3 15.00 13.60 7.50 60.20 Elementary 4 506 67.4 19.20 15.80 6.90 50.80 Elementary 5 372 22.7 * 7.50 * 82.80 Elementary 6 332 52.6 * 14.20 9.60 68.70 Elementary 7 370 54.3 9.20 18.10 * 62.40 Middle School 1 924 44.7 8.10 13.20 7.5 66.00 Middle School 2 838 64.5 18.00 16.00 * 56.00 Middle School 3 1164 21.0 7.40 8.90 * 75.70 Middle School 4 812 61.6 16.60 15.00 * 55.40 High School 1439 43.9 11.00 14.50 8.80 61.50 *Percent suppressed due to potential small sample size
113 District Librarians Starting Makerspaces Many of the librarians who plan to have a school library makerspace during the 2016 makerspace design committee Therefore, they have some background knowledge of the philosophy behind makerspaces, have helped create initial makerspace implementation guidelines these guidelines. Several of the librarians who plan to have a school library maker space during the 2016 2017 school year, however, have either not been part of the makerspace committee or started implementing their makerspace prior to the formation of the design committee. As such, they were initially implementing the makerspace based on what they had seen at conferences, read in professional journals or online, or heard from other librarians who had started a makerspace. Moving from this haphazard approach to makerspace implementation to a more purposeful approach was the purpose behi nd the development of the makerspace design committee and the development of an Innovation Configuration Map outlining initial acceptable implementation parameters. Why Makerspace Design Case I s of Interest to Readers Another part of situating the design (C.D. Howard, 2011) is stating why the design case is of interest to readers. This design case is of particular interest to those attempting to implement makerspaces in their school libraries due to its use of the Educational Making Process Model I devel oped as the basis of a set of guidelines regarding the design and facilitation of makerspaces. Several librarians in the district started makerspaces based on what they had seen at conferences, read in professional journals or online, or learned through t he release of initial implementation guidelines
114 developed by the makerspace design committee T he Educational Making Process Model (EMPM) was used by the design committee as the basis of additional design and ool library makerspaces. This design case will discuss the work of the makerspace design committee leading up to the initial implementation of school library makerspaces as well as additional design decisions made by the committee after the initial impleme ntation, including those based on the EMPM. The record of the processes used and decisions made in the design of school library makerspaces in my district as well as the guidelines for makerspace implementation developed by the design team could assist ot hers in different contexts with their own makerspace design and implementation. The guidelines developed by the design team in my district should not, however, be considered a prescription for others to follow Too, the EMPM could be used by others to support students in the process of making in an educational setting in order to provide the best opportunity for students to realize the many potential benefits of participation in these learning environments. The design process described in th is design ca se is relevant to me in my professional prac tice and to the librarians in my district a s it has enabled us to be purposeful in ou r design and facilitation of school library makerspaces. It also has significance to the field of library science, as makerspa ces have become quite popular in the field and many school librarians are implementing makerspaces in the hopes that they will have positive benefits to students. The design process described herein could assist any librarian in the field wanting to be pu rposeful about the design and
115 implementation of school library makerspaces in her context. The thorough description of the design process used to implement makerspaces in the school libraries in my district, and especially the use of the Educational Makin g Process Model within that design, also has relevance to the field of study of makerspaces as learning environments as the EMPM could contribute to the understanding of making as a learning process. School Library Makerspace Design Process In order to b e purposeful regarding the design and implementation of school library makerspaces in my district, I formed a committee of school librarians to develop makerspace design and implementation guidelines to be used by district librarians when starting a librar y makerspace. All twenty part of the committee, and those who were interested in serving on the committee five librarians (excluding myself ), nine signed up to be part of the committee: five elementary librarians, three middle school librarians, and one high school librarian. The committee began meeting during the spring semester of the 2015 2016 school year. Based on the work schedules of both myself and the librarians who volunteered for the committee, Friday was the day that worked best for the committee to meet during the school day. Meeting dates were set based on Friday dates and times (morning or afternoon) that allowed the highest attendance of co mmittee members with spring semester of 2016, when a substitute was needed, it was paid for from my development budget
116 began to cover the cost of substitutes when needed for committee members to attend meetings. The first meeting of the makerspace design committee was Friday, March 11, 2016. The committee met five times during the spring semester of 2016, and all five meetings were from 9:00am to noon. During the fall semester of 2016, the makerspace design committee met five times, three times in the morning from 8:00am to 11:00am and two times in the afternoon from noon to 3:00pm. The committee me t an additional four times during the spring semester of 2017. These meetings were all held in the morning from 8:00am to 11:00am. Though not all committee members were able to attend the meetings due to obligations in their buildings, a majority of memb ers was in attendance at each meeting. Members of Makerspace Design Committee The makerspace design committee media specialists and myself Each member of the committee, as is evident below, brought with her a d ifferent level of experience in the field of education, in the field of library science, and with the concept of makerspaces. The unifying factor of all members was the desire to learn more about the underlying principles of makerspaces and to bring the o pportunity to create and innovate to students through the implementation of a makerspace in the school library. Members of the design team are described in the paragraphs below, as suggested by C.D. Howard (2011) as part of a design case. Mrs. Morris is t he library media specialist of Elementary School Two. She has been in the field of education for 31 years, the past 27 of which has been in her current school district which is the context of this study She has been a library media
117 specialist for the p ast 12 years, and is in her 8th year as the library media specialist at Elementary School Two. Her interest in makerspaces began a few years prior to the formation of the committee by reading about makerspaces online. She later had the opportunity to vis it a library makerspace at a neighboring school district and became very excited about the opportunities it presented for her students. She took many notes and pictures of the makerspace and went to her principal to discuss the idea of starting one in her library. After convincing her building principal to go visit the neighboring Mrs. Morris wrote a nd to joining the makerspace committee. The first librarian in the district to begin to incorporate a makerspace into her library was Mrs. Aviary, the library media specialist at Elementary School Three. Mrs. Aviary has been an educator in her current school district the context of this study, for 31 years, 10 of which have been as a library media specialist at Elementary School Three. Prior to the formation of the makerspace design committee Mrs. Aviary had read extensively about school library makerspaces in books and in scholarly articles, participated in makerspace webinar sessions, and attended various workshop sessions about makerspaces at the state conference for school librarians. She also visited with librarians in other school districts who had al ready implemented makerspaces as well as a few of the students who had been participating in the makerspace and their parents. Mrs. Aviary also served on a long range planning team for her building, wherein she worked with a team of teachers to research, plan for and begin to implement a school library makerspace in her library. This extensive prior knowledge of
118 and experience implementing a school library makerspace was quite valuable to the makerspace design team. Mrs. Sprague has been in the field of education for seven years, the past six years as the library media specialist in her current district the context of this study, at Elementary School Four. Prior to the formation of the makerspace design committee Mrs. Sprague had already established a solid understanding of school library makerspaces. Though she had heard of them for some time, it was her building STEM conference and her subsequent support that s parked Mrs. Sprague to move forward, learn more, and begin working toward establishing a makerspace in her own library. She began to follow various leaders in the field on social media and to read books about makerspaces written by these leaders. She als o discussed various aspects of makerspaces with other library media specialists both locally and around the country through email, regional librarian workshops, and social media. This knowledge helped Mrs. Sprague begin to plan for and implement a makersp ace in her school library, knowledge that Mrs. Sprague lent to the makerspace design committee upon its inception. Mrs. Roberts is the library media specialist at both Elementary School Five and Elementary School Six, working half time in each building. S he has been in the field of education for 19 years, fifteen of which have been in her current school district. She has been a library media specialist for the past two years. Her first introduction to school library makerspaces was at a district meeting of elementary library media specialists where the idea was briefly mentioned and some ideas for possible
119 makerspace activities were explored. At a later professional development meeting of district library media specialists, she had the opportunity to rot ate through various makerspace activities along with her colleagues. Though Mrs. Roberts joined the makerspace design committee with minimal k nowledge of the pedagogy behind makerspaces and what it might look like in a school library, she was eager to bri ng the experience of making to her students and was devoted to learning more and helping Mrs. Ralston is an elementary library media specialist who splits her time between two buildings, i ncluding Elementary School Seven, working half time in each. She has 17 years of experience in education, eleven of which have been as a library media specialist. Mrs. Ralston has been in her current school district for nine years. Prior to the formatio n of the makerspace design committee Mrs. Ralston had limited knowledge of school library makerspaces through a few articles she had read on the topic and conversations she had with a few school librarians who had started one. Though her knowledge of mak erspaces was somewhat limited, she brought with her not only a desire to bring making to her students, but years of involvement in school librarian professional organizations at both the regional and state level where she has served in a variety of leaders hip roles. The library media specialist of Middle School One, Mrs. Michaels, has been in the field of education for 19 years, all of which have been spent in her current school district the context for this study She has been a library media specialis t for seventeen years and has served as the library media specialist at her current middle school for the past six years. She became interested in makerspaces when colleagues in her building
120 began talking about wanting to start a place for students to be able to collaborate and Mrs. Michaels was curious and wanted to understand what they were and how she could be part of this space in her school. She joined the makerspace design committee to learn more about makerspaces and how she could create s uch a space for her students. Mrs. Green, library media specialist at Middle School Two, is in her third year in the field of education, all of which have been as a library media specialist in her current school district and at her current middle school building. She first learned about school library makerspaces in her recent graduate classes in Library Science. She has done quite a bit of reading and research on makerspaces for various projects and papers in her graduate classes. Before joining the s chool district as a library media specialist, Mrs. Green worked for the local public library for three years where she assisted with research for a new public library branch wanting to begin a makerspace She also incorporated maker activities into her programming as the Teen Librarian for the public library. Mrs. Green brings a wealth of knowledge about makerspaces to the makerspace design committee and currently offers an afterschool makerspace in her building. Mrs. Tracy is the library media spe cialist of Middle School Four. She has been in the field of education for eleven years, all of which has been spent in her current school district. Her first year was spent as a library para professional middle schools, and she ha s been the library media specialist in her current middle school for the past ten years. She came to the makerspace design committee having done a lot of previous personal research on school library makerspaces. By reading
121 various books and articles, fol lowing leaders in the field of libraries and makerspaces on social media, attending various conference sessions about makerspaces at a conference on educational technology, and even taking an online continuing education class about makerspaces through a we ll known university, Mrs. Tracy gained an in depth understanding of makerspaces. This was beneficial to the makerspace design committee in its work as she was able to offer ideas and suggestions to the group during the design process. The only library m edia specialist starting a makerspace at the high school level who is part of the makerspace design committee is Mrs. Foster. She has been in the field of education for 18 years and has been a library media specialist for the past eight years. She has se rved as the library media specialist for her current district in her current high school building for the past three years. Mrs. Foster first learned about makerspaces at a regional library conference where a public librarian spoke about a newly formed ma kerspace in the public library. Since that time, Mrs. Foster wanted to bring this opportunity to her students and began to consider how she might do so. Unfortunately, in the school district where Mrs. Foster worked at the time, there was little administ rative or financial support for the id ea of school library makerspaces Mrs. Foster brought to the committee a desire to start a makerspace as well as the perspective of the importance of administrative and financial support to the success of implementati on. Researcher Role The researcher of this study is the library coordinator for the district whe re the study was conducted. I serve half time in the capacity of District Library Coordinator and half media centers. I have
122 worked in the district since 2003, serving as a librarian for four years at one of its elementary schools and five years at one of its middle schools. I have held the position of District Library Coordinator in the district since 2 012. I first learned about school library makerspaces through workshops sessions at a state li brary conference, and, while I found them an interesting concept, I was not yet convinced of their value to schoo l libraries or to students. I continued to lear n more about them through various conference sessions, trade journal articles, conversations with other librarians, and a visit to a library makerspace in a neighboring school distr ict. As a doctoral student, I chose to focus on s chool library makerspaces as my area of specialization. As such, I had spent approximately one and a half years reading extensively about makerspaces prior to the formation of the makerspace design committee I have continued to read extensively about them since the committee be gan its work. As library coordinator for my district, I was approached by a group of district librarians in the summer of 2015 who wanted to learn more abou t makerspaces. In response, I held a three hour wor kshop in July of 2015 during my school distric summer professional development week wherein attendees read various articles about makerspaces I pre selected and filled out a graphic organizer of what was learned about makerspaces. The top half of the graphic organizer had sections labeled Tech, & 21 st graphic organizer categ ories, the attendees and I parti cipated in open discussion about school library makerspaces wherein concerns were expressed and questions were
123 asked. Attendees were then given time to explore together a variety of additional print resources and websites to learn about various activities that may be found in a school library makerspace as well as challenges involved in implementing a school libra ry makerspace. The bottom half of the graphic organizers had sections available for attendees to record the results of their exploration of both activities and challenges. Finally, one of the district librarians who had begun to bring makerspace activiti es into her library shared various print resources with the group as well as several makerspace activities she had already used with students. In the f all of 2015, several media specialists expressed an interest in starting a makerspace in their library, s o I formed a design committee in order to be purposeful in the design and implementation of these spaces. I have led the makerspace design committee in its work to develop guidelines for the design and implementation of library makerspaces in the district The work of the committee is described below. Charting a Course for Planning and Implementation (Logic Model) Prior to the first meeting of the makerspace design committee the group began work on its first task, the development of a logic model to guid e its work toward the implementation of school library makerspaces. A logic model defines the purpose or objective of the project at hand, the resources available or needed for the project, the activities to be accomplished for the project to be successfu l, the deliverables that will be developed from the activities, and the short mid and long term outcomes anticipated through successful implementation of the project. A logic model also includes potential evaluation questions to help assess the implem entation process as well as the project outcomes. The logic model is the first component of the design to be discussed as part of describing the design (C.D. Howard, 2011).
124 During the spring of 2016, I was enrolled in a doctoral course through the Univers ity of Florida and was required to create a logic model. As a scholar practitioner I connected this assignment to the real need to set the direction for the implementation of school library makerspaces in my district. Therefore, in February 2016, I crea ted an online collabora tive document, shown in Figure 4 1, for the makerspace design committee to use to begin to develop a logic model. Over the next week and a half, committee members added activities to the document they felt the team would need to acc omplish as well as anticipated and desired outcomes of the implementation of library makerspaces in our school district. I then developed the first draft of the district Makerspace Logic M odel, utilizing the input of the members of the committee to devel op activities and outcomes. Figure 4 2 shows the initia l rough draft I developed which did not include potential evaluation questions. The rough draft of the Makerspace Logic Model was presented to the makerspace c ommittee at its first meeting. I explai ned the purpose of a logic model and invited the committee to provide feedback and suggestions for additions or revisions. The committee suggested several revisions to the original logic model that I incorporated into future versions of the Logic Model. These included adding the development of a mission and vision statement to the list of activities; expanding the database of makerspace activities to include safety tips, recommended resources, and recommended technology; and emphasizing that the PR campai gn to be developed would be educational in nature.
125 Figure 4 1. Makerspace Logic Model online collaborative document with committee member input
126 Figure 4 2. Rough draft of Makerspace Logi c Model based on committee i nput.
127 Other committee suggestions were no t incorporated such as adding the activity of tying makerspace activities to curriculum standards and moving the desired outcome of increased project based learning opportunities for all district students from a long term to a mid term outcome. I opted not to add the activity of tying makerspace activities to curriculum standards because, as library coordinator for the district, this was not in keeping with the philosophy of stude nt directed personalized learning I wanted to change in school districts can happen was behind my decision to not change the increase of district wide project based lear ning opportunities to a mid term outcome. I made additional revisions to the Makerspace Logic Model over the next several weeks, adding and revising potential evaluation questions and tweaking the wording of several outcomes to be more measurable until a working draft was complete. The makerspace committee has referred to the logic model several times during its meetings to check its progress, to determine next steps, and to make adjustments to the model based on current circumstances and understandings. Figures 4 3 and 4 4 show revisions of the M akerspace Logic Model based on suggestions from the committee as well as the additions and revisions I made Including the multiple versions of this collaboratively developed document showing the changes that were made to the document based on the input o suggestion that a design case should describe decisions made and changed throughout the design process. It also adds to the rich, thick description of the design, as suggested by Boling and Smith ( 2009 ).
128 Figure 4 3. Revised Makerspace Logic Model with initial evaluation questions added.
129 Figure 4 4 Current working version of M akerspace Logic Model, revised f all 2016.
130 Developing Acceptable Overal l Implementation Guidelines (IC M) With a project plan in place in the form of the Makerspace Logic Model, the makerspace design committee began work on the various activities necessary to the project. The first activity the design committee undertook was the development of an Innovatio n Configuration Map to establish guidelines for acceptable implementation of This is the second component of the design to be discussed as part of describing the design (C.D. Howard, 2011). An Innovation Co nfiguration Map is a component of the Concerns Based Adoption Model originally developed in the 1970s. The purpose of an Innovation Configuration Map is to establish clear descriptions of various components of a new program or practice by describing ideal, acceptable, and unacceptable implementation of each component. These descriptions can then be shared across an organization so that everyone involved in the implementati on of the new program or practice has a common understanding of implementation expectations. An Innovation Configuration Map is meant to be a living document that can be revised as the implementation of the new program or practice changes. I developed an Innovation Configuration Map template for the design committee to use which included components of makerspaces that I felt were important as well as space for the design committee to add additional components. The template included columns for each compon these were to be used by the committee to define and describe implementation guidelines for each makerspace component. The committee spent two three hour meetings developing the map.
131 Though si x hours may seem like a lot to spend on this one activity, the time was spent by the committee engaged in deep discussions surrounding each component of makerspaces included on the Innovation Configuration Map and describing what each level of implementati on should look like fo r the school district. Figure 4 5 shows the first draft of the Makerspace Innovation Configuration Map with my notes from the first meeting. Figure 4 6 shows the typed results of the first meeting regarding the Makerspace Innovation Configuration Map and my notes from the second meeting As the level of knowledge of makerspaces and the learning theory of constructionism varied by committee member, the discussions also served as an opportunity for committee members to share their und erstanding of these concepts with each other, to ask questions, and for me as library coordinator of the district, to clarify my vision of school library makerspaces in the district. The result of this activity was two fold: a concrete set of initial makerspace implementation guidelines was developed and shared with all district librarians to use if starting a makerspace (Figure 4 7 ), and the makerspace design committee now had a common understanding of how implementation of school library makerspaces in the future work. As with the Makerspace Logic Model, the design committee referred to the Makerspace Innovation Configuration Map throughout the design process. As th e committee discussed such things as design elements, funding issues, makerspace scheduling, or safety concerns for makerspaces, invariably, one of the committee members would steer the conversation back the Makerspace Innovation Configuration Map for clar ification.
132 F igure 4 5. Researcher notes on two page IC M template from first committee meeting regarding ICM
133 Figure 4 5. Continued.
134 Figure 4 6. T yped results of first co mmittee meeting regarding ICM with researcher notes from second meet ing.
135 Figure 4 6. Continued.
136 Figure 4 6. Continued.
137 Figure 4 6. Continued.
138 Figure 4 7 District makerspace implementation guidelines sent to media specialists.
139 Figure 4 7. Continued.
140 Figure 4 7 Continued.
141 Figure 4 7 Continued.
142 As an Innovation Configuration Map is intended to be revised as project implementation changes and grows, the makerspace design committee revisited its original Makerspace Innovation Configuration Map when it met for its first meeting of th e new school year in Fall 2016 and determined to make a few changes to one component. In the original map, optimal and acceptable levels of implementation for the component of Activities/Workshops placed an emphasis on STREAM (science, technology, reading engineering, arts, math) activities. While the intent of emphasizing STREAM was to be inclusive of reading and arts in addition to STEM activities, the committee now believes that even this may be too narrowly focused. The Makerspace Innovation Configu ration Map was revised by adding a phrase to reflect that the student innovation and creativity within all content areas. In addition, the committee retained the STREAM acro nym, as it still felt it was important to emphasize activities that are interdisciplinary in nature, but a plus sign was added at the end of the acronym (STREAM+) to note the inclusion of other content areas not represented by the acronym. As with the mul tiple versions of the logic model, including the multiple version of the ICM and describing the process used to develop it meets the suggestions of Smith (2010) and C.D. Howard (2011) for writing a rigorous design case and Boling and 2009 ) guideli nes for using rich, thick description in design cases Visits to Other Makerspaces Several of the design committee members had not yet seen a school library makerspace in operation, so there was interest by the committee to visit some nearby school library makerspaces to assist with our design and planning work. During Spring 2016, five members of the design committee and I visited a middle school library
143 makerspace in one nearby district and an elementary school library makerspace in another nearby distri ct. The group saw two very different makerspace implementations in these spaces. This was another important component of the design process that helps describe the design (C.D. Howard, 2011). The middle school library had four rooms devoted to its makers pace. Two of these were large, re purposed computer labs and two of these were smaller rooms that may once have been small group collaboration rooms. One of the larger rooms was an old computer lab with counters around the perimeter of the room. Signs w ere hung over sections of the counters to show what types of activities or resources were available in om was a large open area where students could build and test out marble runs, Lego roller coasters, or a painted two by fours to keep students from casually walking through it as well as to contain such items as a Sphero programmable robot ball. The second large room was attached to the first and was used for hosting guest makers to share their knowledge with students or to teach students a particular skill such as bicycle r epair. One of the smaller rooms was devoted to making music, and it housed an acoustic guitar and a few software, installed for student use. Students could come to the makerspace for self directed making activities before school, after school, or during a study skills period during the school day and a few teachers brought class es for exploratory project s
144 The elementary school library did not have a dedicated room for its makerspace. Rather, it had an area behind some bookshelves and below a set of stairs with some worktables and storage shelves for materials and resources with various sizes and shapes of containers labeled with the type of item it held. Students, how ever, depending on the project, were able to use the entire library for making activities. On the day of our visit, rather than self directed making activities, students were assembling their culminating artifact of a project based research unit tied to g rade level curriculum that the librarian had facilitated. Every student was assembling the same artifact, and At its next meeting, committee members who visited the two neighbori ng makerspaces shared with the others what they saw. Several had taken pictures of signage, storage solutions, and makerspace dcor on their cell phones, and they showed these p ictures to those who were unable to visit the neighboring makerspaces. The committee discussed the differences in the two implementations and compared them with the guidelines that had been established through the Makerspace Innovation Configuration Map The committee f elt that the implementation at the middle school, because of the self directed nature of student making, was closer to what the committee hoped to establish in our library makerspaces. However, the makerspace could also support individual student projects that stem from project based learning units. To learn more about various makerspace implementations, five members of the design committee and I visited an in district maker space housed in our new center for is makerspace is not in a library but is a space with two dedicated classrooms that are connected by a workshop between them
145 that houses a table saw, drill press, jig saw, 3D printer, laser engraver, and other hand and p ower tools. This makerspace operat es as a year long course of study for students who sign up for it at the beginning of the year. Students are taught explicit lessons on the use of various makerspace tools, such as 3D design and printing, including how to troubleshoot the 3D printer. Stu dents are given design challenges they work on in teams. On the day of our visit, student teams were working on a design challenge for a local small company that involved the creation of a promotional campaign along with a character to use in the campaign Student s were designing characters using the free 3D design software, Ti nkercad, to be printed out later using the 3D printer. This is quite a different implementation than what the design team has in mind for our school libraries. However, as the di stri one day a week at the gifted center and the rest of the week in our regular eleme ntary schools, we realized these students could library makerspaces and help others with their 3D making projects. We also learned that we can pull from the knowledge of the makerspace teacher at this facility who is willing to conduct training sessions for librarians on 3D printing, laser engraving, and other tools in their makerspace. Too, while our school library mak erspaces are intended to provide self directed making experiences, we also planned to offer optional design challenges. Seeing these students so deeply engaged in the promotional campaign design challenge reinforced our desire to offer these optional chal lenges in our school library makerspaces. Design Guidelines for Environment, Activities/Tools/Resources, and Facilitation Though the design committee already had the ICM in place to describe levels of optimal, acceptable, and unacceptable implementation of various components of school library makerspaces in our district, the team saw a need to develop a more detailed list
146 of design guidelines, as well. These guidelines would not only assist the design team as they continued their implementation of maker spa ces but would become part of the training materials for other district librarians interested in starting a makerspace and are another component included to provide a thorough description of the design (C.D. Howard, 2011) As with the other work the commi ttee had undertaken thus far, the creation of these design guidelines was a collaborative effort of the group. In preparation for this work, I created an online collaborative document based on my prior reading of the need to consider the aspects of environ ment, activities, and facilitation when designing a makerspace (Petrich, et al., 2013). The document also three areas. I then printed out various articles about makers pace design and marked several books about makerspaces with post it notes to indicate sections dealing with their design. At a makerspace design committee meeting, these resources, along with pens and highlighters, were placed in the center of the table a round which the committee sat. Each member opened the collaborative document on her computer and selected several of the print resources to review as well as the writing utensils of her choice. Though there were multiple copies of some of the articles, t here were not enough copies for all design committee members to have the same resources to review. As each member found a design element in the literature that fit into one of the categories, she added it to the appropriate spot on the collaborative docum ent. Some members of the committee also added to the document design ideas they had heard or seen at conferences or in their own reading about makerspaces. The collaborative list of guidelines developed during t his activity is seen in Figure 4 8
147 Figur e 4 8. Design committee collaborative design guideline brainstorming activity.
148 Figure 4 8. Continued.
149 Throughout this activity, which lasted approximately 30 45 minutes, there was much discussion over the different design guidelines that various members found in the resources they were reviewing. Some guidelines found in the literature were surprising to several of the members, such as the suggestion that materials and resources be both visible and accessible within the makerspace. Many of the committe e members used storage cabinets for materials and resources that have solid front doors, thereby keeping these items from being visible within the makerspace. This design guideline shifted the thinking of some of the committee members as to how to better make materials and resources visible in their makerspace. I used the brainstormed list of guidelines as the basis of a formal makerspace design guidelines document for use by all district librarians. I combined commonalities or repetitions in design guide lines listed on the collaborative document. Some items listed on the collaborative document were not actually design guidelines, so I excluded them from the formal document. For instance, the tip about keeping an eye out for materials that others were go ing to throw away was not included as a design guideline. Other items were moved to a different category when it seemed to be a b etter fit. I added a few gu idelines that were not in the original collaborative document, such as the need to ensure there ar e ample electrical outlets in the makerspace. I presented the rough draft of the formal d ocument to the committee, and the group spent approximately 30 minutes collaboratively revising the document. The final design guidelin es are shown in Figure 4 9 I ncluding v arious versions of t he guidelines suggest ion that rigorous design cases include artifacts or records from the design process as well as suggestions for using rich, thick description ( Boling & Smith, 2009 )
1 50 Figure 4 9 Fina l m akerspace design guidelines for district based on design committee work.
151 Figure 4 9 Continued As stated in the brief introductory remarks to these guidelines, the expectation is that these guidelines be followed to the greatest extent possible. The design team realized not every library would be abl e to fully implement these guidelines due to constraints present in that facili ty. For instance, many libraries do not have a separate
152 space that can be dedicated to a makerspace and will need to use mobile carts to provide a makerspace within the library. The team wanted to assure librarians who wanted to start a makerspace that they did not have to fully meet every aspect of the guidelines to offer this opportunity to students. At the same time, t he design team wanted to stress that the librarian should continue to strive to meet the guidelines. Guidelines Based on Educational Making Process Model In addition to design guidelines for environment, activities, and facilitation, the committee develop ed guidelines to facilitat e making as a process per the EMPM I created At a previous meeting, I presented the EMPM to the committee and explained the purpose of the EMPM is not to require students to follow a s tep by step process for making projects. Ra ther, the intent is to help librarians understand the process of making in order to facilitate this process with students. The process used to develop these is discussed below to help describe the design (C.D. Howard, 2011). Again, I set up a collaborativ e document this time based on the EMPM, and the group worked together for approximately an hour discussing each area of the EMPM and adding potential design and facilitation guidelines to the document for e ach area of the EMPM (Figure 4 10 ). I used the c ollaboratively developed guidelines as the basis of a formal EMPM design and facilitation guidelines document. This was presented to the design committee and collaboratively revised. As only minimal changes were made to the rough draft during the collabo rative revision process, only the final design and facilitation guidelines document based on the EMPM is shown in Figure 4 11 I have since made slight revisions to the EMPM. The most rece nt version with the lat est revisions was presented in Chapter T wo of this dissertation.
153 Figure 4 10. Design team collaborative design and facilitation guidelines for EMPM.
154 Figure 4 10. Continued.
155 Figure 4 11 Final design and facilitation g uidelines for district based on EMPM.
156 Figure 4 11 Continued
157 Figure 4 11 Continued
158 Figure 4 11 Continued Mission and Vision Statement The development of a mission and vision statement was a suggestion of members of the makerspace design committee that was added to the Makerspace Logic Model as a n activity to be accomplished. As with the other activities that have
159 been described thus far, the crafting of the mission and vision statement was a collaborative effort of the team. It is the final component included to describe the design (C.D. Howard 2011). Though it was not on the meeting agenda for the day, several members of the committee mentioned the need for these statements at a design meeting, so I facilitated an impromptu brainstorming activi ty of ideas members thought should be included in such statements. As this was not a planned activity, I simply wrote ive document as seen in Figure 4 12 The check marks next to each item signifies its inclusion in the rough d raft of the m ission and vision statements, seen in Figure 4 13. I presented the rough draft of the mission and vision statements to the makerspace design committee in the form of an online collaborative document, and the document went through two rounds of collaborative revisions before a final version was developed with which all members of the committee were satisfied. The first roun d of revisions used a process involving each committee member adding comments to the document during a meeting and the researcher later making revisions based on those comments. The second round of revisions comprised of the committee discussing final changes while viewing the collabo rative document during a meeting and the researcher making the final changes on the spot. The final mission and visio n statement is shown in Figure 4 14 Including the multiple versions of the mission and vision statement increase the rigor of this desig n case by showing decisions made by the design team as well as changes to those decisions made by the team throughout the design process as suggested by Smith (2010) and add to the rich, thick description of the design case ( Boling & Smith, 2009 )
160 Figur e 4 1 2 Design team brainstormed list of ideas for mission and vision statements.
161 Figure 4 13 Rough draft of mission and vision statements based on design
162 Figure 4 14 Final version of district mission and vision statements for school library makerspaces.
163 Work Still to B e Done The makerspace design committee has completed much work toward the implementation of school library makerspaces in our district, such that any librarian wanting to start a makerspace in the d istrict would have guidance for doing so. However, there are several additional activities yet to be completed by the team. Where below. Training plan. Many of the de liverables already developed by the design committee will ultimately be incorporated into the training plan for other district librarians. Each summer, the district holds a week long event consisting of a wide variety of professional development opportuni ties for which employees of the district can sign up and receive hourly compensation. The makerspace design committee hopes to complete its work during the Spring 2017 semester and offer its first makerspace training session for district librarians during the Summer 2017 professional development week. Resource repository. The design committee has discussed what might be the best format to use to create a shared resource repository for district librarians regarding makerspaces. The team decided to creat e a shared Google Drive folder with several levels of subfolders within it that would be accessible to all district librarians. I have created t his folder a s well as multiple subfolders and the makerspace design committee has provided initial feedback as to the subfolders included. The folder is currently only shared with the design committee, and at a future meeting, the committee will make final revisions to the subfolders. Some of the materials already created by the committee, such as the mission an d vision statement and the design guidelines, have
164 been added to the appropriate folder. In addition, committee members are adding materials to the folders such as posters they created for their own makerspaces or tips and tricks they have learned through makerspace implementation. The contents of the repository are intended to evolve and change as more district librarians add to the subfolders over time. Interest survey. As each school library makerspace should include materials and activities of intere st to its students and staff, the design committee planned to develop a survey to determine those interests. However, the committee members have found in their initial implementation of makerspaces that the process of making is so new to students that the y do not really know what making options might be available to them. Rather than a formal survey, the design committee has determined that, at this point, simply visiting with students while they are participating in the makerspace may be a better way to gauge their interest. When a survey is developed, based on committee input, it will list various activities and ask students to mark which ones they might want to participate in rather than asking students an open ended question about their interests. Th is survey will be available for librarians to use, but it will not be mandatory to makerspace implementation. Funding. The makerspace design committee has two distinct goals regarding funding of school library makerspaces. One is to secure a consistent s ource of district funding for makerspaces, and the other is to pursue donations, grants, and business partnership s. A s library coordinator for the district, I currently set aside a small amount of my annual budget for the purchase of makerspace items for those who are part of the design committee. As the receipt of these funds was tied to their willingness to serve on
165 the committee and implement makerspaces rather than to this study, e ach member of the committee including the librarian involved in the st udy, received the same amount to put towards the purchase of makerspace items As library coordinator, I have similarly provided funding to other librarians in the district wanting to implement other new programs or initiative s For example, I have provi ded funding to librarians wanting to integrate Breakout boxes into their library instruction, a sort of problem solving, scavenger hunt activity that requires a number of lockable boxes and a wide variety of types of locks. I have also spoken with the cen tral office administrator to whom I report about the possibility of adding a specific line to my budget for makerspaces, though it is yet unknown if this additional money will be added. The design committee has also done some work toward the pursuit of d onations, grants, and business partnerships. Several committee members have successfully pursued various online crowd funding opportunities, and they have shared the process with the other committee members. I visited with the central office administrato r who oversees grants and was provided written guidelines and instructions for pursing grants. The next step is for the design committee to begin to develop a list of possible grants to pursue. Finally, the committee reached out to the central office adm inistrator who members were provided the name of the business partnership coordinator in their building through whom they can work to reach out to business partners regarding don ations of time or materials. Once several committee members have worked through this process, the committee will create written instructions that other district librarians can use in the future.
166 Promotional campaign. While the design committee has discus sed different possibilities for promoting school library makerspaces within our district, it has not completed any tangible work in this area yet. The design committee believed it was important to first develop our mission and vision statement as well as the design guidelines prior to developing any promotional materials. The committee plans such our mission and vision, inviting central office administrators to visit our makerspaces, arranging for student makers to present their projects to our Board of Education, and creating promotional videos regarding the benefits of school library makerspaces. Documenting student learning. Though not one of the activities listed on t he Makerspace Logic Model, as the design committee has worked toward other goals, the importance of documenting student learning through makerspace participation has highli individual making experiences rather than to assess students on a particular set of objectives or expectations. The makerspace design committee has initially discussed some options to document student learning such as the use of an online ePortfolio or the development of digital badges that students could earn, but no decisions have yet thinki ng has evolved regarding the importance of documenting student learning rather than assessing student learning in the makerspace, the assessment component of the Innovation Configuration Map will likely be revised by the committee at a future meeting.
167 Chap ter Summary school district? I situated the design by describing the specific professional context of the design, stating why she believes this design case will be of interest to others, describing the members of the design team, and detailing her role in the design process and as a me mber of the design team. Next, I described in detail the most pertinent components of the design process based on her knowledge of the process as a member of the design team and on her review of pertinent documents pertaining to the design process. The d escription of these components included decisions and changes that were made during the process. In addition to a textual description of the most pertinent components of the process, images of various documents relating to the design process were provided including the design and implementation guidelines developed by the design team for use by the district library program. Chapter Five will speak to research questions two and three, presenting and discussing the results of school library makerspace obse rvations and interviews of students, a librarian, and a teacher I conducted as part of the study Finally, Chapter Six will discuss both successes of school library makerspace implementation in my district as well as areas for improvement.
168 CHAPTER 5 RES ULTS The purpose of this design case dissertation is to provide a detailed and thorough account of the design process the makerspace committee of librarians went through to bring makerspaces to the library program in my school district in order to preserve and share the precedent knowledge gained through the process (C. D. Howard, 2011). The previous chapter addressed research question one of this study, What processes and decisions were involved in the design of school library makerspaces in the research about the design process itself. This chapter presents the results of research questions two and three of this study regarding the actual implementation of makerspaces and the ways in which student s experience pa rticipation in them. Thematic a nalysis (Braun and Clark, 2006) was utilized to analyze the data resulting from observations and interviews and to determine the main themes related to research questions two and three. Each of these research questions and the themes associated with it will be discussed individually below. For each research question, a vignette will be provided to help the reader visualize the implementation of the makerspace (research question two) and n in it (research question three). Photographs I took during observations will also be provided as appropriate. Research Question 2 : What Is the Resulting School Library Makerspace I mplementation? The two main themes surrounding this question that resul ted from thematic analysis are as follows: Intentionality in Makerspace Implementation which describes ways in which the resulting makerspace closely aligns with the various gu idelines developed by the design committee as well as areas where it does not, and
169 Makerspace Implementation is Successful O verall which highlights ways in which the makerspace is viewed as a success while acknowledging changes and improvements the librarian hopes to make going forward. Vignette: Description of M akerspace There ar e two entrances to the school library makerspace at Elementary School Four. One is the original classroom door entrance leading from the main hallway into enter the makerspace through this entrance, it is primarily used by teachers who are popping into the room to use the staff copy machine that is housed in the makerspace. The second entrance to the makerspace is within the library itself and is through a classroom door the p rincipal had cut out of the cinderblock wall that used to separate the library from the computer lab. This was done to provide the librarian with a dedicated space for a makerspace. This is the entrance classes typically use for their regularly scheduled visits to the makerspace. amount of dedicated space for a makerspace in a time when enrollment is growing district wide and space is hard to come by. When walking into the make rspace, it is former purpose are still in place. The walls are painted a sterile bright white, their aseptic feel accentuated by the fluorescent lighting in the room. Sev eral windows facing the main hallway, however, provide some additional lighting which tempers the sterility of the fluorescents. The floor is covered with commercial grade blue carpet tiles with specks of reds and whites mixed in, and the two long walls o f the space are lined with mauve counters where a classroom set of desktop computers used to sit. These
170 counters now serve as storage space for makerspace tools, resources, and materials as well as work space for students while in the makerspace. They al so hold a few ongoing student projects. All along the mauve counters there are blue plastic school chairs with round metal legs for student use and electrical outlets where the many desktop computers used to be plugged in. These outlets now allow student s many options of where to work on a makerspace project that requires electricity. Another remnant of its time as a computer lab, there are two large mauve storage cabinets at the end of one row of countertops that once held computer equipment. One of th ese cabinets now holds materials and supplies that students are free to use for makerspace projects while the other is still used for technology storage. Three rectangular school tables with round metal legs and wood laminate tops are spaced lengthwise do wn the center of the makerspace with more blue plastic school chairs around them to provide additional work space for students. Each table is large enough to seat approximately 6 8 students, and they are spaced so that there is walking room between them. While the space itself is a repurposed computer lab and elements such as paint color and furniture style give it a typical and non inspiring school classroom feel, it quickly becomes obvious as one looks a bit closer that this room is very different from a typical school classroom. It is, rather, a Makerspace, as declared by the large sign made up of individual letters that spell out the word. Each letter is made of different to For newcomers to the space or those who are not familiar with the term, there is a oster
171 be creative, challenge oneself, build things, and learn something new. announcing th e types of makerspace activities and/or materials that may be found on that section of the counter. There are six such signs around the room as follows: Computers (Coding); Computers (Makey Makey); Science & Engineering; Building; Arts, Crafts, & Design; and Problem solving. On the counter below each sign are tools, resources, and materials appropriate to its name. The two computer areas have several desktop computers for student use and the Makey Makey area additionally has several Makey Makey kits avai lable. The Science & Engineering area has resources for tinkering with circuits and simple machines as well as some simple robot kits. Included build with), as well as bui lding materials for younger students such as Goobis and IO blocks. The Arts, Crafts, & Design area has two sewing machines available for student use along with a large selection of material. Also included in this section is a variety of arts and crafts ma terials such as cardboard, pom poms, glue, popsicle sticks, googly eyes, and much more. The Problem solving area includes optional design challenges students can choose to take on as well as items they can take apart to see how they work. The specific it ems available depend on what has been recently donated, such as a musical greeting card or a broken robotic jack o lantern Halloween decoration. These items are stored on the counters either in the boxes in which they came or in a variety of clear plastic tubs or storage containers with multiple clear front drawers. Some items, such as a box of donated fabric for the sewing area, are stored on the floor below the
172 counter. Additional materials are available to students in the mauve storage cabinet at the end of one of the counters and in a few free standing, rolling storage carts with multiple clear front drawers. Each of these six areas also has information available to students they may need while working in the area. For example, the Makey Makey compu ter area has starter instructions for using Makey Makey while the Arts, Crafts, and Design area has instructions to thread the two sewing machines housed in this area as well as information on how to use the sewing machines and practice sewing sheets. Som e areas also provide nonfiction books for students to consult to learn more about magnets. Additionally, there is a mobile cart that houses a variety of robot s which students can program during their time in the makerspace. There are additional posters and dcor on the walls that further help give one a sense of the makerspace. A clock designed to look like it is made from multiple gears serves a functional pur pose while indicating that this is an active space where such things may be encountered. There are several posters encouraging students to develop a growth mindset. A few posters simply define the acronym, STREAM (science, technology, reading and writing engineering, arts, and math). Other posters overall behavior plan. One poster outlines for students a design process they may choose to use. Another poster provid es steps for students to take who need help in the bulletin board paper hung on t he wall which is labeled as the expert wall and is where
173 expert wall to consult for as sistance. Theme One: Intentionality of Makerspace Implementation The makerspace described above did not come about by accident or at random. Rather, the librarian, Mrs. Sprague, was quite intentional in her design of various aspects of the makerspace and in her facilitation of student participation in it. As a member of the makerspace design committee she used the guidelines developed by this team as the basis for the design and facilitation of her school library makerspace. The result of her intentiona lity is a makerspace that, in its implementation, is closely aligned to many of these guidelines. These three sets of guidelines ( Innovation Configuration Map Library Program Makerspace Design and Facilitation Guidelines, and the Design and Facilitation Guidelines based on the Educational Making Process Model) were discussed in Chapter Four, and the final documents were also included. Though the makerspace design committee developed these at different times during the design process as three separate set s of guidelines, they are related, and there is some overlap between them. Table 5 1 provides a brief description of these three sets of guidelines. The paragraphs below describe areas where the resulting makerspace closely aligns with the various guidel ines developed by this group as well as areas where it does not. Table 5 2 at the end of the section provides a summary of makerspace areas of alignment and areas not yet aligned to the guidelines.
174 Areas of close alignment to g uidelines Underlying pedagogy/purpose. When asked in an interview about her goals for students in the school library makerspace, the librarian, Mrs. Sprague, quickly and problem solve through issues She further stated her desire to develop a growth mindset in her students and to provide a student driven, self directed envi ronment Table 5 1. Brief description of guidelines developed b y makerspace design committee Name of g uidelines Acronym Description of g uidelines Innovation Configuration Map ICM The Innovation Configuration Map is the first set of makerspace guidelines developed by the makerspace design committee very early in the makerspace components of scheduling, purpose/pedagogy, safety, activities/workshops, budget, s pace/storage/display, assessment, community involvement/guest makers, and role of librarian. The ICM was used as the basis of initial implementation of school library makerspaces in my district. Library Program Makerspace Design and Facilitation Guidelines MDFG The Library Program Makerspace Design and Facilitation Guidelines were developed by the makerspace design committee several months into the design process based on a review of existing literature regarding the design of ma kerspaces. This set of guidelines centers around three aspects of makerspace design seen in the literature: environment (including space, flexibility, and dcor), activities, and facilitation. Committee members began incorporating the MDFG into their mak erspaces in addition to the guidelines found in the ICM. Design and Facilitation Guidelines based on the Educational Making Process Model DFG EMPM The third and final set of guidelines developed by the makerspace design committee w ere the Design and Facilitation Guidelines based on the Educational Making Process Model. This set of guidelines provides suggestions for how the librarian can facilitate the various parts of the Educational Making Process Model as part of the overall stu dent making process. The DFG EMPM was not finalized until January 2017, halfway through the first year of implementation of the library makerspace in Elementary School Four and just a few months prior to the start of this study. However, Mrs. Sprague had begun implementing many of its guidelines upon its completion.
175 explaining why she strives to reach these goals through the makerspace, Mrs. Sprague stated, Our kids are so used to learning being, not prescribed, but, you know, like way that totally self can do those things at home, but some do them at home. And so, especially being in a Title One [low socio them a little support, and maybe a little push, to achieve those things. Mrs. Sprague also stated that she attempts to build student leadership and a sense of community in the makerspace by encouraging students to ask each other questions and The purposes and goals Mrs. Sprague listed regarding her sch ool library makerspace are closely aligned with the guidelines for such developed by the makerspace design committee found in the Innovation Configuration Map (ICM) the team developed which is provided in Chapter Four of this dissertation. This close alignment of the underlying purpose and pedagogy of the makerspace to the guidelines is intentional on the part of Mrs. Sprague, who, when asked about the work of the closely aligned with the philosophy of what we have discussed in our makerspace Schedule. While the makerspace at Elementary School Four does not have a listed on the ICM developed by the makerspace design committee Mrs. Sprague has thoughtfully worked out a schedule that allows all students access to the makerspace.
176 The younger students in her building, kindergarten and first grade, were able to participate in makerspace activities during their bi weekly library lesson time during the 4 th quarter of the school year. For the older students, Mrs. Sprague made changes to her library check out schedule to allow them consistent time in the makerspace. Previously, these students had a regularly scheduled 30 minute check out time in the library every week. Mrs. Sprague increased the number of library materials they were allowed to have checked out at any given time and utilized one of the 30 minute check out times on a bi weekly basis for student makerspace time. So, students would check out library materials one week during their regularly scheduled library visit and pa rticipate in the library makerspace the next week. Additionally, some students were allowed to work in the makerspace during their recess time, and some students could prog ram. Mrs. Sprague also provided open access to the makerspace on Friday mornings. She stated, Friday mornings is my open time that I get a lot of my clerical, weeding, cataloging kind of stuff done, and planning, and so I always give them that time. So a lot of kids come down for 45 minutes or an hour, and then they have a lot more time, and individualized time with me to get bigger on the ICM. Budg et. While there is not adequate and consistent district level funding for school library makerspaces, Mrs. Sprague has received some inconsistent district level funding for the makerspace which I provided as the Library Coordinator for the district. She received this funding as a member of the makerspace design committee rather than due to her involvement in this study. All members of the makerspace design
177 committee received the same level of funding from my budget as did Mrs. Sprague. Mrs. Sprague has donations of materials from teachers and parents. Additionally, Mrs. Sprague set up a makerspace in this wa y as well. Mrs. Sprague was also chosen to be one of a select group of teachers in the district to receive a set of 8 iPads to use with students, which she made available to students in the makerspace. As with the schedule, this is closely aligned to the Makerspace environment. The Library Program Makerspace Design and Facilitation Guidelines (MDFG) developed by the makerspace design committee include specific guidelines for three aspect s of the makerspace environment: space/storage, furnishings/flexibility, and dcor/feel of makerspace. In addition, both the ICM and the Design and Facilitation Guidelines based on the Educational Making Process Model (DFG EMPM) include a few guidelines r elated to the makerspace environment. The paragraphs below will be organized by the three main aspects of the makerspace environment as outlined in the MDFG. The additional makerspace environment guidelines from the other two documents will be mentioned within these three main aspects of the makerspace environment where applicable. Due in large part to the support of the building principal, the school library makerspace at Elementary School Four is housed in a designated space: a prior computer lab that was adjacent to the library. Over the summer of 2016, the principal had a doorway cut through the cinder block wall of the computer lab so that there was direct access to the space from the library. While the makerspace is in a repurposed
178 computer lab ra ther than a space specifically designed as a makerspace, it is large enough to accommodate an entire class of students, and, in these ways, meets the guidelines for space established in the ICM. Figure 5 1 below shows an overall view of the makerspace. A B Figure 5 1. Photos courtesy of author. Views of school library makerspace in elementary school f our. A) Taken from inside door on library side, B) Taken from inside door on hallway side. While the space can fit an entire class of students, it does not necessarily allow students room enough to spread out to do the type of work that often takes place in a makerspace. When speaking of the space, Mrs. Sprague commented, The space is really n ice, but when you have 30 fifth graders in here, it gets really crowded. And then I feel it kind of limits what the kids are able to do bow to elbow with someone else. To combat this, and to provide more sp ace for individuals and groups to work simultaneously on different projects per the guidelines, Mrs. Sprague extends the space by housing many of the robotics activities (Ollie, Ozobots, Dot & Dash) on a mobile cart in the library itself (Figure 5 2). Stu dents who want to work with robots during makerspace time do so in the library as seen in F igure 5 2 below, which allows more space in the makerspace itself for students working on other projects.
179 A B Figure 5 2. Photos courtesy of author. Robots and other technology used in library during makerspace time. A) Mobile cart in library housing robots, iPads, and other technology, B) Student working with the Dash robot in the library during makerspace tim e. already adequate lighting in place as well as ample electrical outlets. The room also has a large double door storage cabinet that is used to store some makerspace supplies. While the doors do not allow the materials to be visible to students, the cabinet is unlocked and students freely get whatever materials they need from the cabinet. Other storage units in the room consist of a variety of plastic storage containers, both indivi dual storage tubs and free standing, multi drawer storage cabinets on wheels. Mrs. Sprague intentionally purchased these in clear plastic so that the materials and resources stored in them would be both visible and accessible to students in keeping with t he guidelines. The storage cabinets and other storage units are shown in Figure 5 3. As a former computer lab, there are existing mauve laminate counters lining the two long walls of the room with approximately a dozen blue plastic chairs scooted under the m. These counters serve both as storage space for makerspace resources and as workspace for students. There are also three laminate top rectangular tables in the
180 center of the room with chairs around them that provide additional work space for students. While these tables and chairs do not have casters on them, they are lightweight, so they can be easily moved as needed to accommodate various projects or student collaboration. Again, this furniture was purposefully selected by Mrs. Sprague with the need s of students in mind as is evident in her comments below when asked about the furniture in the makerspace. We have three tables sort of along the center that are all very light weight, easy to move. The chairs are all very light weight. . This one [t able] and the far one are brand new that were bought with building funds to put in here. I asked for things to be lightweight, easy to move, so that we could be a little bit more flexible with how we used the space, how we organized it. I wanted places f or kids to be able to collaborate, and with the rectangle shape of the room, the long rectangular tables seemed to be the best solution. The furniture selected for the makerspace, while not mobile, is lightweight yet durable enough to meet the guidelines e stablished for furniture in MDFG and the DFG EMPM regarding flexibility and the ability to arrange it to encourage collaboration. A B Figure 5 3. Photos courtesy of author. Various storage units for materials and supplies in the makerspace. A) Large mauve storage cabinets with doors and rolling clear front, multi drawer units, B) Various storage tubs and clear front, multi draw units on counters. The colors of the walls, carpet, counters, and chairs in the makersp ace were
181 ability of the librarian to change. However, Mrs. Sprague added several elements to the makerspace that helped it meet the guidelines that the dcor should inspir e playfulness, creativity, and wonder, and that the space should communicate the philosophy of a maker mindset. One of the most obvious is the large Makerspace sign made up of of approximately eight feet of wall space. Mrs. Sprague explained the sign and her purpose for creating it as follows. I wanted to set kind of the tone for this space to be a creative space no matter how low or high tech. So, I came up with this idea . instead of just like printing out a poster that says makerspace." . Each letter of the makerspace, of the word "makerspace" is slightly different, um, to kind of give th e kids an idea of what kind of things they might want to do in here, or what kind of materials they might want to use, and just reflect the creative spirit of this space. An other piece of dcor I noticed during makerspace observations that inspires a sense of playfulness and wond er is the wall clock that look s like it is made from several gears. T he makerspace sign and the gear clock are seen in Figure 5 4. A B Figure 5 4. Photos courtesy of author. A few pieces of dcor found in the school library makerspace. A) Makerspace sign with each letter made from different materials, B) Gear clock.
182 Mrs. Sprague also intentionally included several gender neutral posters as part of the makerspace dcor to encourage students to develop a growth mindset or a maker mindset. These posters not only define a growth mindset, but they guide students on behaviors they can practice to develop such a mindset. Encouraging a growth mindset or maker mindset in students is a guideline tha t shows up in all three sets of guidelines developed by the makerspace design committee Another guideline related to the dcor of the makerspace specific to the DFG EMPM is to include items that provide students with information regarding where to go for makerspace which encourages students to do such things as ask a neighbor, read the she explain ed it as follows. I've tried to make it [the makerspace] as user friendly as possible, where kids can find things and access things on their own. And I encourage them to ask each other questions and no t just immediately come to me s o that they are building leadership roles within their own classes and supporting each other's learning, and building that sense of community. And so, it gives them steps. Before they come ask me, you have to do these four or five things to check and try to get your help, help th at you might need before you come to me. To help students find a peer expert, Mrs. Sprague has an expert wall hanging in the makerspace. This is a piece of bulletin board paper where students can write their name and their expertise so that peers can come to them if they need help with something within their area of expertise. The expert wall aligns with all three sets of guidelines developed by the makerspace design committee Activities/tools/materials/resources. Mrs. Sprague set up the school library makerspace in Elementary School Four to have six different activity areas which
183 students can choose to explore. There is a sign marking each area so that students know what to expect in each area. The six activity areas currently in the makerspace includ e Computers (Coding); Computers (Makey Makey); Science & Engineering; Building; Arts, Crafts, & Design; and Problem solving. These six areas are in close proximity of each other within the makerspace, and their arrangement is such that students could easi ly integrate elements from one area, such as building, with elements from another area, such as electronics, to create a project incorporating both. An In addition to the six activity areas, there is a mobile cart which houses a variety of robots which students can program while in the makerspace. As per ICM and the MDFG, there are both high tech and low tech activities in which students may participate that touch on a variety of the STREAM content areas. For instance, students may choose a high tech science and technology related activity such as coding Dash, a remote controlled robot, to drive up to the librarian and say her name. Alternatively, students may choose a low tech arts related activity such as sewing a purse from fabric of their choosing. Many of the activity areas also meet the guideline of including activities with a low floor, high ceiling, and wide walls, meaning that beginners can experience quick success (low floor), more experienced students can be pushed further (high ceiling), and there are a variety of ways for students to interact with the theme of that area (wide walls). An example of this can be seen in the variety of robots available for students to program while in the makerspace. For beginners, there is Code A Pillar, a robot toy made up of approximately ten individual segments that connect to make a caterpillar
184 approximately two feet long. Each individual piece codes the caterpillar t o make a depends on the order in which the student chooses to connect them. For more experienced students, there is Dash, a robot that students can code using the p rogramming language, Blockly. Further, there are a variety of robots which students may interact with in different ways, including a few snap together robot kits that perform only a few built in functions, Code A Pillar, Dash and Dot, Ozobot, and Ollie. Some tools, materials, and resources stored in the large cabinet that was a cabinet doors are closed, though students are free to get materials out of the cabinet wheneve r needed. Mrs. Sprague has purchased many additional plastic storage containers for the makerspace that do allow their contents to be both visible and accessible to students, meeting a guideline listed in both the MDFG and the DFG EMPM. Within these cont ainers is a wide variety of materials for students to choose from for their making projects. For instance, in the Arts, Crafts, & Design area, students have access to glue, markers, popsicle sticks, pipe cleaners, different colors of wire, duct tape of a variety of colors and patterns, material, buttons, yarn, thread, pompoms, googly eyes, paint, stencils, beads, crayons, cardboard, colored paper, and much more. Students also have access to tools such as scissors, a hot glue gun, and two sewing machines. Mrs. Sprague is cognizant, however, of the dangers of certain tools that are often found in makerspaces, and she limits the tools she includes in the makerspace based on this. good grie
185 dismantling or putting together. I some bigger things like cardboard and things, but even cutting the cardboard is a little hard with elementary finding sharp enough scissors There are seven desktop computers available for students to use in the makerspace along with eight iPads for use with the robots or for such things as stop motion animation. There are also a variety of print resources in the makerspace for student use as needed. For instance, there are nonfiction books about Makey Makey, Scratch, and Little Bits that are on display within the areas that house these items. Next to the sewing machines is a stack of books for kids that include both project ideas as well as simple instructions to learn to sew, knit, or crochet. Additionally, as mentioned previously, there is an expert wall that lists the names and areas of expertise of y can turn to as a resource in the makerspace. Providing these various resources are all in line with the guidelines developed by the makerspace design committee Facilitation. As per the ICM guidelines, Mrs. Sprague serves in the role of facilitator of the makerspace. Through both researcher observations and interviews with the librarian, the classroom teacher, and students, it became evident that she did so in such a way that is closely aligned to many of the guidelines in the MDFG and the DFG EMPM. F or instance, while the librarian, library paraprofessional, and classroom teacher assist students when and as needed, students participating in the makerspace work on a variety of different activities or projects that are primarily student driven and self directed. For students who do not yet know what project they want to make, the librarian strives to encourage them using such methods as discussing with them their
186 goals and interests or helping them find project inspiration in their area of interest usin g tools such as Pinterest. Once a student has an idea for a making project, rather than telling students what they need to do to make it, Mrs. Sprague often encourages them to think about what they want their project to look like before they get started. At times, she has the student explain his project idea to her, and she asks questions of him about it when clarification is needed. At other times, she has students draw out the dimensions of their planned project to ensure they match what the student h as in mind. At still other times, the librarian encourages the student to make a prototype of his project to work out any glitches in his planning/thinking. Mrs. Sprague explained it as follows. to work out the kinks before they move on to the final one. Especially with sewing, like ou to really sketch that out first, and I want you to tell me what thirty She continued later in the interview as follows. In the craft station, to avoid wasting and to encourage them to follow sort of a design process. . they have to do a sketch and some sort of plan explain it to me. Someti talk about available materials that might work, but take a minute and stop before they just get out the glue and scissors and everything and start gluing it together. When a student encount ers a challenge during an activity or project, the librarian has a variety of strategies she use s to facilitate student making. She sometimes encourages students to turn to peers in their own class or whose names are listed on
187 the expert wall for assistance. At other times, she encourages students to problem solve on their own, a move that is very intentional on her part, as her automatic reaction at times is to just help the student right away. Mrs. Sprague said when interviewed, Sometimes, they get frustrated when they are trying something new and it ll immediately step in and try At other times, Mrs. Sprague may sit down with a student to help them figure something out. Rather than Mrs. Sprague being the expert in this scenario, she and t he student are oftentimes working and learning together. An example of this was observed when a student could not get the Ozobot robot to work as he wanted it to. Mrs. Sprague sat down with the student, and they read through the instruction manual included with the robot to learn together what to do. She sometimes works directly with a student to teach him a particu lar skill he needs to know for his making project, such as when she taught a student to hand sew a basic stitch to repair a tear in an armrest reading pillow. Mrs. Sprague discusses student activities and projects with them and encourages them to think abo ut what they could do differently next time or ways they she sometimes takes di rect action to push students to go further. She said, I know the robots and stuff, there are things they can do where they just drive them around. . On the Dot and Dash robots, Dash specifically, that app so they have to use the Blockly app now, because I want them to push themselves a little further now that they are comfortable with how the to push it a little further, to take it a step further.
188 When a student was asked where he got the idea to program robots in the makerspace, Mrs. Sprague also makes a point to provide students feedback on their projects and she encourages students to give each other feedback, as well. She also strives to help them reflect on their efforts. She explained as follows. A lot of the adults, including myself, will ask them questions about what tty remarkable. And, you know, trying to encourage them to, or show them connections to the real world to help them realize, this is a pretty big deal. Like, this is something that, these skills could lead you into something, a career that could really t ake you places. Because a lot of times I think through those conversations is where they realize what they have accomplished. Areas not yet closely aligned While the resulting makerspace implementation is closely aligned to the guidelines in many areas, there are several areas the research showed where it is not yet so aligned. These areas are discussed in the paragraphs below. Guest makers. All three sets of guidelines developed by the makerspace design committee mention inviting guest makers to the makerspace to conduct workshops and/or to teach individual students a particular skill, such as soldering. The school library makerspace in Elementary School Four, however, has not yet had guest makers visit and work with students. In part, this may be due to the fact that the makerspace design committee has not completed its work in this area, which involves putting together a list of potential guest makers for various activities/skills as well as putting
189 together procedures for inviting guest makers to the makerspace while complying with district policies and procedures regarding outside visitors to its buildings. Makerspace environment The environment aspect of the MDFG calls for storag e in the makerspace for ongoing student projects as well as areas for the display of both sample and completed projects. The room that houses the makerspace was wa s not specifically designed or renovated as a makerspace. Therefore, there is not adequate shelving or cabinets for the storage and/or display of student projects. The guidelines also call for an area within the makerspace for group presentations and/or lessons, but no such area exists within the makerspace. However, Mrs. Sprague does use the instructional area of the library for this at times. Finally, the guidelines call for writeable surfaces for students in the space, both on the walls/doors, etc. a nd on the t able tops. Currently, no such writeable surfaces are available in the makerspace. E ducational M aking P rocess M odel guidelines. The makerspace design committee did not finalize the DFG EMPM until January 2017. This was midway through the fir st year of implementation of the school library makerspace in Elementary School Four and approximately two months before I began observations and interviews for this study. As such, it is not an unexpected finding that there are some areas where the maker space is not yet closely aligned with this set of guidelines. One such area is Sharing. While Mrs. Sprague encourages students to ask each other questions and tell each other about their making projects within the makerspace, there are not currently oppo rtunities provided for students to share their projects or their learning to the larger school, district, or community audience.
190 Continuous Feedback is another part of the EMPM to which the makerspace is not yet closely aligned. Again, Mrs. Sprague does strive to provide feedback to students and encourages students to talk to each other about their learning, but this portion of the EMPM emphasizes training students to give appropriate feedback as well as providing opportunities for them to provide feedba ck to others outside of their own class. In these specific ways, the makerspace is not yet closely aligned with this part of the EMPM. The makerspace is also not yet closely aligned to the Documenting Progress portion of the EMPM. It was found thro ugh student interviews that a few students devised their own method of documenting progress, such as a group of girls who made a checklist of all the things they wanted to do for their project. However, students do not use any of the listed online tools t o document their progress, nor are they provided a to this being a fairly new guideline, another reason the makerspace may not yet be closely aligned to this is because t here is not adequate storage for ongoing student projects, thereby decreasing the number of ongoing projects students make, and decreasing the need for students to keep track of what they have already accomplished. While Mrs. Sprague does have conversati ons with some students regarding what they have made and done, Reflection & Formative Self assessment is another part of the EMPM to which the makerspace is not yet closely aligned. Students do not use t on their making attempts or on their learning throughout the making process, identifying neither areas of success nor areas of potential growth or improvement.
191 Table 5 2. Summary of results of how makerspace implementation aligns to Makerspace Design Co mmittee guidelines. Alignment Innovation Configuration Map (ICM) Library Program Makerspace Design and Facilitation Guidelines (MDFG) Design and Facilitation Guidelines based on the Educational Making Process Model (DFG EMPM) Areas closely aligned Scheduling School day access Purpose/pedagogy Student interest driven Growth mindset Expert wall Safety Tools limited Activities/workshops Student interest driven Variety of materials Print resources High and low tech STREAM+ Budget District, PTA, crowdfunding Space/storage/display Designated space Can hold entire class Storage (mostly visible and accessible) Role of librarian Librarian as facilitator Environment Space/storage Individuals and groups Storage for materials Adequate lighting Ample outlets Furnishings/flexibility Lightweight/flexible Robots in library Dcor/feel of makerspace Creativity/playfulness Gender neutral Growth mindset Expert wall Activities/tools/materials/ resources High and low tech STREAM+ Low floor, high ceiling, wide walls Easy integration Student interest driven Materials visible and accessible Technology Print resources Appropriate tools Facilitation Librarian: Discusses interests Asks questions Encourages peer help, problem solving Provides feedback Inspiration Student interest driven Librarian discusses interests Libra rian helps students find project idea s Variety of materials, resources, activities Ideation Students plan or prototype projects Making Growth mindset encouraged Steps to get help Expert wall Most materials visible and accessible Variety of materials, resources, activities Print resources Problem solving encouraged Iteration Changing or improving project encouraged Optional & flexible collaboration Furniture allows for collaboration Continuous feedback Feedback from project Feedback from librarian Feedback from peers Areas not yet aligned Community involvement/guest makers No guest makers/workshops Environment Space/storage No storage for ongoing or completed projects No instructional space Furnishings/flexibility No writeable surfaces Activities/tools/materials/ resources No guest makers/workshops Inspiration No guest makers/workshops Sharing Larger community Continuous feedback Students not trained Feedback limit ed Documenting progress Reflection/formative self assessment
192 Theme Two: Makerspace Implementation I s Successful Overall The second theme to emerge through data analysis regarding the resulting makerspace implementation was that the librarian, teacher, and students involved in the study consider it to be an overall success, though all participant types mentioned some specific improvements they would like to see going forward. The ways in which the makerspace implementation is considered a success by th e participants as well as the improvements they hope to see are discussed below. Ways in which makerspace is considered a success Librarian. Mrs. Sprague feels that the makerspace is a su ccess because of her ng in it and because of the growth she sees in them as learners. When interviewed, she explained why she believes it is a success as follows. I feel like it's successful because the kids love it, and the kids are exci ted about it, and the kids are l earnin g and growing before our eyes. We can see it. We can see the progress they're making. We can see the things that they are ... We can see what they're doing. We can see their learning happening. So, in that regard, I think it's really a success. They are tr ying new things. They are getting more confident in themselves as learners. T hey're working together. So, I mean, valuable learning t hings are happening. So, in that regard, I think it is a success. Now, there are cert ainly things I can improve on, a nd I w ill. She further stated that the majority of students are deliberate regarding their use of time in the space. She commented, We have some kids who will come in and fiddle around and not be on task and kind of waste the time. But, for the most part, a lot of them are really excited to have free learning time, and they take it pretty seriously, and they use the time very wisely. During the interview, Mrs. Sprague spoke of students who were pursuing their own int erests in the makerspace and making things to meet a personal need. She told
193 the story of a young female student who needed something to hold her collection of tickets she earned for positive behavior in her classroom. She determined she was going to fig ure out something she could make to solve this problem, and she ended up making a zippered pouch in the makerspace for this purpose. This student driven, rather than curriculum driven, aspect of the makerspace is an other way in which Mrs. Sprague believes the makerspace is a success. Students also seem to be gaining 21 st century skills through participation in the makerspace, another way Mrs. Sprague believes the makerspace to be a success. When speaking of this in the interview, she stated, they're not just playing, they're working together. They're collaborating. They're designing. They're tinkering and problem solving and thinking critically and there is, there is a lot of value to this time. As little [time] as it may be, there is value here. A fin al reason that Mrs. Sprague views the makerspace as a success is because teachers in her building, some of whom were at first skeptical, have come to see benefit in the makerspace. In her words, I think the teachers have started to really buy into it. At first, I think some of them were like, "What, what is this?" Where's our computer lab, you know. And it's like, "Okay, I see, I can see what's happening now, and I think, I think this is valuable. I see the merit in this." Classroom teacher. Mrs. Mosier, the classroom teacher whose students were the subject of my observations, also believes the makerspace has been successful. In part, this is due to the growth she has seen in her students th r ough participation in the the success of the makersp
194 participating in it. When asked in an interview if she felt the makerspace was a success, she replied, I just love coming in here, and they do to, because they get to express learning problem Students. Through observations of students participating in the makerspace, I found that students, by and l arge, were purposefully engaged in a self directed project or activity for the entirety of their time in the makerspace, and that they seemed to enjoy their time in the space. In addition to these observations, students expressed their appreciation of the t makes me in t he makersp and student interviews indicate that students who have participated in the makerspace conside r it a success. Improvements participants hope to see going forward While all three types of participants felt that the makerspace was a success overall, all three also had some specific improvements they would like to see in the makerspace going forward. These improvements are discussed in the paragraphs below. Librarian. While students have consistent bi weekly time scheduled in the makerspace and some opportunities to visit the makerspace during recess or as a
195 positive behavior reward, Mrs. Sprague ide ntified the schedule as an area she would like to be improved upon going forward. She indicated that students are not able to complete ongoing projects in a timely manner within the current schedule, and they often forget about projects they started and s tored in the makerspace by their next scheduled visit. Mrs. Sprague hopes to find a way for students to have increased access to the makerspace. Another area where Mrs. Sprague hopes to see improvement is regarding the storage and display of student proje cts as well as the storage of materials and I want to figure out a better way to do shelving and storage of projects that we can do more continued, continued, larger scale or more comp lex things that last over several weeks. She has the support and financial backing of her principal to make changes to the space to better accommodate this need, and she is considering what is the best opti on for the space. She stated, W ith the way the room is though, I just haven't quite figured out how to do shelving. How to do storage where it is accessible for the kids. You know, where they are not climbing up a ladder to get to their pieces. Mrs. Sprague hopes to make this change in the upcoming s chool year. Mrs. Sprague also hopes to make changes regarding the facilitation of the EMPM. Overall, she would like to encourage students to be more deliberate in their appr oach to participating in the makerspace now that they have some previous experience with it. Now that we know what the makerspace is. We know what that time is for. Really stopping and planning and thinking about our purpose, and being intentional with w hat we are doing. And, you know, if we need to do some
196 research beforehand, doing that to help the process and help make your design more efficient, or whatever the cas e may be. But adding a little more level o f thoughtfulness and planning to it I think would be beneficial. While she already does several things in her facilitation of the space that align closely to the Inspiration portion of the EMPM, she would also like to make improvements in this area. She shared that she wants to do a bett er job nex t year of posting pictures of finished student work to kind of give them ideas of things they might want to do to inspire them a little bit. Or make a book of pictures of things they did. Or, you know, it could be an online thing. An online portfolio of th ings the kids have done that they can see. Because I know that gives the student inspiration for what they want to do next. As mentioned in a previous section above, the makerspace is not yet closely aligned to the Sharing portion of the EMPM. Mrs. Sprag ue is aware of this and has ideas to improve the makerspace in this area, as well. When asked about the opportunities students have to share their projects or their learning, she stated, This is something that I want to work on too. . I'd like them to d o more things where they could share out what they're doing in the makerspace. That's something that I h aven't done enough of this year, I don't think where they're sharing their own stuff with others. I know in the classrooms, a lot of them use like Educ reations or Canvas or Classdojo to share their work with their parents. So, maybe giving them a chance to use the iPads to share, to take pictures of what they are doing in here, or take videos and then share them with their families or share them with eac h other. It would be nice to have a platform, maybe like on my library website where they could post, or they could airdrop things to me and I could post it on the library website where they could share with each other. Because I think that would add to their sense of accomplishment and pride in what they are doing. And maybe even encourage them to push themselves a little further because they want to show what they can do, what they are capable of. She then spoke of a group of boys who made a stop motio n animation video in the makerspace and were able to share this at a spring student showcase. She stated that
197 she would like to give all students the opportunity to display their making projects during this showcase or during parent teacher conferences. T wo other related areas of the EMPM where Mrs. Sprague would like to make improvements are Documenting Progress and Reflection and Formative Self Assessment. While a few students were found through student interviews to develop a checklist to document thei r progress, students are not currently provided resources to do so in the makerspace. During the interview with Mrs. Sprague, she mentioned the students in the makerspace. She sees these journals having potential to improve both hat might be helpful to have, so they can like note down, write down the date and what they were working on, their thoughts and kind of what they learned so they can step back in next time. Mrs. Sprague also mentioned that she would like students to have more time in the makerspace devoted to reflection. These are improvements she hopes t o make in the upcoming school year. Teacher. During the interview with Mrs. Mosier, the classroom teacher whose students I observed, she mentioned a few areas of change or improvement she would like to see in the makerspace. Firstly, she would like to se the boys in the makerspace, many of whom currently spend their makerspace time in the library with Mrs. Sprague using the various robots available. Mrs. Mosier stated that she would like to be able to see what these students are doing, as she currently spends the time in the actual makerspace with the students who are working there.
198 Mrs. Mosier also would like to see additional resources provided for students in the makerspace to get project ideas. As an example, she mentioned a set of books with craft or project ideas as something that might be helpful in this regard. Finally, Mrs. Mosier felt students should be given more time outside of the makerspace to research what they want to make so that they are focused with their time in the makerspace. However, this would take away from students tinkering or exploring in the makerspace, part of the overall making process as outlined in the EMPM. Students. During student interviews, they were asked what changes or improvements they would make to the makerspace if they could. Their answers largely centered around the addition of various activities they would like to try or an increase in the materials available to them for making projects. One student, for instance, mentioned that a bit more robotics ... like a little bit complicated, more complicated ones. opportunity to build a drone in the makerspace. Regarding available materials, a female student state probably put, like, clay in there because people like to make pottery and stuff also would add more markers and more paper and more organized stuff. Um, more things that people Other students mentioned adding more resources for hand sewing, adding more Legos, and adding more print resources such as instruction manuals for students to use in the makerspace as potential i mprovements. additional activities or materials. One male student stated that the makerspace
199 the school should support the makerspace more and put Another male student commented that he felt the slowness of the older computers available in the makerspace limited what he was able to do and that he would like to see newer computers available to students. Though they did not mention it as an area of improvement, several students talked about not having enough time to make the projects they wanted to make. Therefore, additional time is an area of potential improvement that was evident through student interviews. Several students referred to a few make rspace rules that they indicated were restricting the projects they could do in the makerspace. First, there is the rule to use your time wisely and to not waste resources in the space. This rule was put in place materials and resources by just thoughtlessly gluing things together with no project idea or goal in mind. Some students, it seems from the interviews, took this to mean that they were not allowed to use materials to tinker or to build a prototype of an idea or to make multiple iterations of a project until they could get it to work, thereby limiting what they did while in the makerspace. One male student, when speaking about a project he was trying to get to work stated lly able to do them, and I was kind of like wasting materials and that, but it kind of was cool to to think of it, cuz if we were able to do it, uh it would be pretty cool stude nt mentioned in the interview that he only used Legos or the robots when in the
200 makerspace. When asked about the reason for this, he specifically mentioned this rule, as seen in the interview excerpt below. Researcher: W hy do you choose to work with the L egos or the robots instead of doing the other stuff? Student: I think because there is nothing, like, to make. Not since we have the new rule. Researcher : What's the new rule? Student : Um, spend like ... to spend your time wisely and don't waste the stuff. Researcher : So, because of that, you use just the robots and the Legos? Student : Mm hmm (affirmative). The other seemingly innocuous makerspace rule that was referred to in student interviews was the rule to choose an activity area to work in for that makerspace visit. This r ule was put in place as a student management strategy so that students who were extremely excited to be in the makerspace, especially when they first had access to it, were not chaotically running around the room from one area to another. It was intended to help students focus their efforts during their visit to the makerspace. It seems from student interviews, though, that it had the unintended consequence of students thinking they could not integrate elements of one activity area with elements of another, though such integration is included in the guidelines developed by the makerspace design committee A female student referred to this specifically in her in terview, and, as seen in the excerpt below, her suggested improvement is in relation to this rule. Researcher: I f you had the power to change something in the makers pace, what would you change to make it better? Student : Well, I would take the arts and cr afts area and, uh, keep it with the sewing because sewing is like arts and crafts. Because sometimes you can paint the fabric to make some designs.
201 Researcher : Gotcha. So, you said earlier that you go in and you choose one section and you stay there and w hat you're saying is you would like to be able to kinda go to both those. Student : Mm hmm (affirmative). While both rules seem quite reasonable, student interviews indicate that the above misconceptions regarding them may need to be clarified with students Research Question 3: In What Ways Do Students E xperience Participation in the Resulting School Library M akerspace? The six main themes that were developed through thematic analysis that speak to this question are as follows: Students experience adults as facilitators of making process; Students have access to makerspace at a variety of times ; Students participate in a wide variety of self directed projects and activities within the limitations of time, resources, safety issues, and makerspace rules ; Th e majority of students are purposefully engaged in and enjoy participation in makerspace ; Student making experience compared to EMPM; Students benefit from participation in makerspace. Vignette: Student Participation in Makerspace At 9:50 AM on a Monday mo their bi weekly visit to the makerspace. After entering the library, students take a seat on the floor in front of the circulation desk for a few brief instructions from Mrs. Sprague, the librarian, an d from Mrs. Mosier. Students who are interested in sewing are encouraged by Mrs. Mosier to expand beyond making pillows, something many have already done. Mrs. Sprague reminds students who are wanting to make an arts and crafts project to first draw out a design for their project and show it to either Mrs. Sprague or Mrs. Mosier prior to starting. Students are eager to get to the makerspace, and a few girls, anticipating that the instructions are coming to a close, stand up and get
202 dismissed. When students are dismissed to begin working, the majority of the class heads quickly to the makerspace, where a bottle neck forms as students attempt to enter through the mak erspace door. Students at the end of the line begin to encourage their cla and begin work on their projects. Once students get into the makerspace, they immediately disperse to the different areas of the space, depending on what they had chosen to work on for the day, and they begin to gather the materials and supplies needed for the day. Two girls go to the arts and crafts area and start pulling out supplies such as paints, markers, and a glue gun while another girl begins drawing out a design for an arts and crafts project. A girl who brought material with her sits down to get started measuring and cutting while another girl sits at the sewing machine ready to begin sewing. One boy begins working with a Connex kit while another boy begins building with the Gravity Maze kit. Several girls continue working on cardboard projects they started previously, one building a dollhouse, and two others building a castle. A group of boy s is at a center table starting a Lego project. One boy grabs a box of Snap Circuits to begin tinkering with it while another two boys start building with Contraptions planks. Two other boys begin to plan a design for an owl they want to sew out of felt and other material while two girls are browsing through the books about sewing at the sewing station. The busy excitement in the room is palpable. While most students entered the makerspace when dismissed to get started, other students stayed in the libra ry itself where Mrs. Sprague remained with the
203 technology activities are housed. The cart and its contents stay in the library so that students have more room to manipulate the robots after programming them. One boy is driving the Ollie robot around the library using the iPad while another boy is working with the Dash robot. He has the included xylophone accessory on the robot and is attempting to program Dash to play musi c. Two other boys are working with the librarian, learning the basics of using the Ozobot robot with the iPad. A mixed group of boys and girls is working together on a Stickbot Studio stop motion animation project. Students are intently focused and enga ged and appear to be having fun as they laugh, cheer, and call friends over to see what they were able to get the robot to do or to show them a clip of their stop motion animation video. The librarian, library paraprofessional, and classroom teacher roam a round the assistance as needed, such as tutoring a female student on how to use the sewing Students also talk to each other about their projects, and they, at times, seek assistance from which classmate has an expertise in a particular area so they can ask them for help when needed. While students talk, laugh, and have fun in the makerspace, the majority of them work on their projects and activities the entire time without much direction from the adults. When a few students get off task, the librarian, library paraprofessional, or classroom teacher re directs them back to a project or activity.
204 At 10:15 AM, Mrs. Sprague asks students to begin to clean up and get ready to head back to class. There is a sense of a collective groan in the room, as the thirty minutes went by very quickly and many students do not want to quit working on their projects. Two girls ask permission to continue for just a few minutes more so they can get to a good stopping point, a request which is granted them. A few students ask M rs. Sprague if she can please have certain materials on hand for their next visit, as they will be needed to continue their project. Some students proudly show the projects they made today to their friends and to the teacher. Within just a few minutes of flurried activity, students have put away their projects and activities and have the makerspace relatively clean. They line up and head back to the classroom. Theme One: Students Experience Adults as Facilitators of Making Process Students participatin g in the library makerspace at Elementary School Four experience a student centered learning environment wherein the adults in the space serve as facilitators of their making process. The adults in the space include the library media specialist, the libra ry paraprofessional, and the classroom teacher. Ways in which they facilitate student making as seen in the data are discussed below. Adults give brief directions/instructions. One way student making is facilitated by the adults in the makerspace is by p roviding brief directions or instructions to students on a variety of topics when and as needed during their time in the prior to entering the makerspace. Mrs. Sprag ue and/or Mrs. Mosier would then spend a few minutes giving students brief directions such as reminding them to draw out their ideas for arts and craft projects with dimensions and show them to an adult, reminding them of behavior expectations for their ti me in the makerspace, or simply letting
205 students know the librarian would be in the makerspace on her computer to help students who want to look up project ideas on sites such as Pinterest. After these brief directions, students were released to work on t he activity or project of their choice. At other times, brief instructions were given to individual students while they were working on activities or projects. For instance, the librarian was observed working directly with a male student for a few minut es, showing him the basics of how to use the software for the Ozobot robot and some of the options it offered. After just a few minutes, she left him to work and experiment, stating that she would be back to see if he had any questions or needed any help. Mrs. Mosier, the classroom teacher, was observed directing a male student who was working on a hand sewing project to be sure to leave enough thread at the end to be able to tie a knot. Sometimes, the directions were related to classroom management, suc h as when Mrs. Sprague directed a male student to please not intentionally crash the Ollie robot into the circulation desk. observed giving students brief directions regarding cleaning up the space before leaving. These instructions were mainly directed at the whole group, though they were, at times, directed at individual students who were not cleaning up an area as they should. Adults as resource for projects/activities. Ano ther way adults serve as facilitators of student making is by serving as a resource for the project or activity on which a student has chosen to work. This might be in the form of the librarian providing the actual physical materials a student needs for t heir project, such as when two female students were working to build a cardboard castle, and they needed toilet paper rolls.
206 They told the librarian of their need, and she replied that she would talk to the building custodians to procure some toilet paper At other times, Mrs. Sprague, the librarian, delivers whole group instruction on something that students can then utilize in the makerspace. For instance, when asked how they knew how to do some of the coding for their mak erspace projects, two male students stated that the librarian taught the e kind of tested it out in library lesson on the computer, like, took coding lessons. And also, on the SmartBoard, she kind of showed us how to do things. Adults also provide assistance as needed for individual students who are stuck and do not know how to proceed with their project or activity or who need to learn a particular skill in order to proceed. For example, the library paraprofessional was ob served working individually with a female student who was making a zippered pouch. The material was cut out and ready to be sewn, but the student did not know how to use the sewing machine. The library paraprofessional walked the student through sewing h er pouch, giving her tips and advice, and answering her questions along the way, even together so that when she was finished, she could turn it inside right and the seams wou ld be hidden inside. Students were aware that they could use the adults as a resource for their know how, he was asked w sk the teacher to teach me
207 When asked in an intervie w how students go about making once they have a than the directors of student making. She replied, I f they have questions for me, I come over and try to help. Or the library paraprofessional tries to help or their classroom teacher tries to help. But for the most part, they do it themselves. I mean it's really self directed and student driven. Adults not always experts During one of my observations of the make rspace, a male student was having difficulty getting the Ozobot robot to do something that he wanted it to do. The librarian noticed his frustration, and suggested he get out the instructions that came with the robot to see if they would help him. She ev en stayed and helped the student read through the instructions. It seemed from the observation that she was looking for the answer along with him, as if it was something she did not yet know how to get the robot to do. Whether she actually did know the a nswer or not, she facilitated the situation such that it seemed that she was learning right along with the student. Later, during my interview of the librarian, she stated that there were, indeed, times when students had questions in the makerspace and sh e had no idea of the answers. She truly was a co learner with her students in many cases. Too, she encouraged students to turn to more knowledgeable peers to help with their making projects rather than to the adults, as oftentimes other students were mor e knowledgeable than the adults about various activities in the makerspace. Mrs. Mosier, the classroom teacher, reiterated that the adults in the space were not always the experts in the room, and were, instead, facilitators. She commented that
208 when stude nts would ask her questions about things in the makerspace that she was not knowledgeable about, she would reply, know about this stuff so you need to figure it out or ask a friend to help you. Adults asking qu estions about projects/activities. Asking questions and talking to students about their projects or activities is another way the adults facilitate student making. This questioning has various results with students, but still serves to facilitate the pr ocess. For instance, the library paraprofessional was observed questioning a group of approximately eight male students who were sitting together at a table, each with a tub of Play do. Through that conversation, it became clear that this group of boys w direct them to more productive use of their time in the makerspace. Another time, the librarian was observed talking with a pair of boys who were working with the Ozobot robots, asking the m what were their goals, or what it was they were trying to get the robot to do. This turned into a somewhat lengthy interaction in which the librarian began working with the students as a sort of third partner. The encouragement, each creating a track for their Ozobot and racing them against each other, calling over some of their classmates to librarian questioned the students on what they learned from the outcome and what they would try differently next time, thereby facilitating student learning and reflection. This is an example of what Mrs. Sprague described in her interview regarding students receiving feedback in the makersp s I'm walking around, I try to
209 comment on what they are doing and ask them questions and get feedback from them as well. Adults encouraging students to When asked in an interview where he got the idea to prog ram one of the robots rather than just drive it as a remote controlled toy, a student replied that it was the librarian who encouraged him to do so. Researcher: Where did you get the idea to do things like make the robot make sounds and stuff? Where did the idea come from to do that? Student : From the teacher. She said "Don't just drive it, try to program them. It'll be a little more challenging." Researcher : And is that your classroom teacher or is that the library teacher? Student : The library teacher. This is an example of another way the adults facilitate student making in the school library makerspace: encouraging students to take their projects/activities a step further, or complexify them. This is a phrase the librarian used m ultiple times during my as when she was observed encouraging a student to th ink about what goals he had for the robot with which he was working rather than just playing with it. Or, it might happen after a student had completed a project. During the interview, Mrs. Sprague described, for instance, students who complete their firs t sewing machine project. She then asks She further stated her reasoning for enc ouraging them in this way.
210 I do think it is an important next step to encourage them to think beyond what they have just made push it a step further and add some complexity to it. Because, yeah, they could make 17 pillows, but what are you learning? Wh at are you doing to improve yourself as a learner each time you make a pillow? Are you making it a little differently? Are you making it for a different purpose? In these ways, then, students experience adults as facilitators of their making process duri ng their participation in the school library makerspace. Theme Two: Students Have Access to Makerspace at a V ariety of T imes Students involved in this study had access to the makerspace at a variety of times within their school day. All students in the st udy had regular and consistent access every other Monday for 30 minutes during their regularly scheduled library visit. Mrs. Sprague set up the schedule so that students checked out library materials or participated in the makerspace during their schedule d library visit on alternating Mondays. Students in this study also had the option to use their 30 minute recess time on Tuesdays and Fridays to work on projects in the makerspace. Four of the eight students interviewed mentioned that they had used some of their recess time to go to the makerspace to work on projects. Mrs. Sprague, the librarian, also spoke of a group of boys from a class other than the one observed for this study who used approximately two months of their recess time to complete a stop motion animation video on which they were working. Students in this study were also able to earn additional time in the makerspace earn behavior points in the for rewards. Time in the makerspace is one of the rewards available for students to
211 purchase. Mrs. Sprague sets aside time in her schedule on Friday mornings to work with students who choose to use the ir tickets for additional makerspace time. Mrs. they have a lot more time, and individualized time with me to get bigger projects done, so that helps with the time constrai Theme Three: Students Partici pate in a Wide Variety of Self D irected Projects and Activities within the Limitations of Time, Resources, S afe ty Issues, and Makerspace R ules While in the makerspace, students experience a lot of free dom to spend their time in the activity area of their choosing, either tinkering with one of the provided activity kits or working on a self directed making project within the limits of time, resources, safety, and rules. As such, when one walks into the makerspace when students are present, one sees a wide variety of activity taking place simultaneously. Students are spread out at various workstations: seated at the tables in the center of the makerspace; working at the counters that run along the two lo ng walls in the makerspace; or programming robots in the library. Some projects or activities in which students participate may not involve technology at all (low tech) while for other projects technology may be an integral part (high tech). Some project s or activities only take one visit to the makerspace to complete while other projects may continue for several weeks. Any given student may be in the planning stage of an ongoing project, in the middle of a project, or nearing completion of a project. Students were asked during their interviews to describe what one would see when walking into the makerspace. One student replied that one would see people sewing and talking to the teacher about their plans. . some kids playing on Legos and some coding And sometimes, see kids draw and
212 sometimes see kids build stuff like cars or trains and . other buildings. And I also saw s omebody messing with the robot. I observed. The following excerpts from my field n otes describe what I observed during the first few minutes of two makerspace observations. 2/27/17 A group of eight boys grabbed tubs of play doh and went to a table. Four girls at the arts and crafts area getting supplies. One girl drawing out a desig n for arts and crafts. One boy building with Connex. Another building with Gravity Maze. A group of three girls building with cardboard. 4 10 17 Several girls went to craft area and started pulling out paints, markers, glue gun, etc. Another girl brought in with her some material, and she sat to get started making her project. One boy go t a box of snap circuits to begin making something with it. Another two boys sta rted using C ontraptions. Two boys working together on a box of K'nex. Two boys w orking to plan out/draw out a design for an owl [sewing project] One boy working in the library area with a robot. The following paragraphs describe some of the wide variety of low tech and high tech activities and projects students were involved in du ring their participation in the makerspace. Low tech projects The paragraphs below describe several low tech activities and projects students participated in while in the school library makerspace. They are divided into those that took only one makerspace visit to complete (one and done) and those that took more than one makerspace visit to complete (ongoing). This is just a sampling of the types of activities and projects in which students participated. Project descriptions came from researcher observat ions as well as from interviews with students and with the librarian. One and done. One example of a low tech project students made that took only one makerspace visit was a birthday card that two girls ma de for their friend. According
213 to one of the girl Another example of this type of project is a Lego rover a male student built during one makersp ace visit. This young man sought me out at the end of the makerspace visit to tell me about it. Based on the tone of voice he used as well as his actions, he seemed very proud of what he had built. Per my field notes, He told me he came up with the ide a for it all by himself and that he made it all by himself. He built the rover to have two rows of wheels: a row of smaller wheels on the inside and a row of larger wheels on the outside. He said he wanted it to last for a long time to be passed down, an d that he As he did not want it destroyed, he placed the rover in the Lego tub still intact rather than taking it apart at the end of makerspace time. Figure 5 5 shows the studen rover project. A B Figure 5 5. Photos courtesy of author. Lego rover low tech one and done project. A) Top side of rover, B) Bottom of rover. A female student spent one makerspace visit making a picture frame. According to my field notes, the student the outside and ribbons attached to the top that she can use to hang it on the wall. She told me she was going to put in it a picture of herself and her friend.
214 Other students participated in a variety of low tech activities during a single makerspace ses sion. Such activities I observed include a pair of boys working with a set of plastic gears trying to make a series of them work together and an individual male student attempting to build a bridge with the Contraptions planks that he could roll the included ball across without the bridge collapsing. Ongoing. Other project s that students participated in, while still low tech, took more than one makerspace visit to complete, several being ongoing for many weeks. One example of such a project was a cardboard dollhouse one female student was making which can be seen in Figure 5 6 The following excerpt from my field notes are fr om the first time I observed the stu dent working on this project. One girl had an ongoing cardboard project where she was building her own dollhouse. She had been working on it several weeks, so it was already quite extensive. It had cardboard dividers inside (maybe dividers for an industrial size box of crayons?) that she connected sideways to the There were several other students making ongoing cardboa rd projects, including a A B Figure 5 6. Photos courtesy of author. tech ongoing cardboard dollhouse project. A) Student working on project during makerspace visit, B) Detailed view of ongoing cardboard dollhouse project.
215 Another ongoing low tech project I observed students making was zippered pouches shown in Figure 5 7 I observed two female studen t s working on various stages of this project. Below is the excerpt from my work on this project during one observation. Two girls came in and immediately got to work on a project they seemed to have planned out ahead of time. Both girls brought material to the makerspace with them. One of the girls had printed instructions from an Internet site on how to make a zipper pouch, and she had these instructions with her, and she seemed to be following them. The other girl had a pocket folder with her. In one pocket was a list of project ideas she hoped to make. In the other pocket seemed to be instructions for a project. Both of these girls was cutting out their material into rectangles, and they were taking care to mak e sure the rectangles were the same size. One girl had bright pink material, and she used the first rectangle she cut out as a template to cut out the second rectangle. I went to observe other students for a bit, and when I came back, this girl was just finishing up sewing the seams of her pouch around three sides of her rectangles using one of the sewing machines. The library para was seated at the other sewing machine next to her, and she was giving the girl tips and advice about her sewing. She told her that when you sew your seams, you want to put the "right" sides of your material together so that you can then turn it inside right and not see your seams. She was helping the girl turn her pouch inside right just as the class was exiting the makerspa ce. A B Figure 5 7. Photos courtesy of author. Students working on low tech ongoing zippered pouch project. A) Preparing materials according to printed instructions, B) Beginning to cut fabric into rectangles.
216 There were several other ongoing sewing projects taking place in the makerspace over the course of this study. These include a pair of male students who were observed sewing an owl from felt and other material; a female student who told me during an inter view about a bag she made for her mom as a Christmas present; and a male student who was observed making a blue felt puppet with big googly eyes and hair made from a green pipe cleaner. A few of these projects can be seen in Figure 5 8. A male student tol d me during his interview of an ongoing Lego project he and his friends had worked on wherein they were building a Lego hotel. According to the student, this low tech project took a few weeks to complete. A B Figure 5 8. Photos courtesy of author. Additional low tech ongoing student makerspace projects. A) Two boys working on an owl sewing project, B) Blue felt puppet made by a male student. High tech projects The paragraphs below describe several high tech activities an d projects students participated in while in the school library makerspace. They are divided into those that took only one makerspace visit to complete (one and done) and those that took more than one makerspace visit to complete (ongoing). This is just a sampling of the types of activities and projects in which students participated. Project descriptions came from researcher observations as well as from interviews with students and with the librarian.
217 One and done. During researcher observations of the makerspace, she witnessed a group of boys working with the Snap Circuit s electroni c components kit trying to create a working electrical circuit that would run the included fan. They were successful, and they excitedly showed me that they could hit a swi tch they had included in the circuit to release the fan, which would then fly several inches into the air. This group of boys tinkered with the Snap Circuits during the entire makerspace session, but packed everything up and put it away at the end of the session. Though they might choose to work with Snap Circuits again the next time they were in the makerspace, they would need to begin again on creating circuits as nothing was retained upon which they could build the next time. During an interview, a male student told me of another high tech activity that he and a group of friends participated in during a makerspace session. Though he was not able to name the device he and his friends were using, I surmised from his description that it was the Makey Makey kit. He describ ed his experience as follows. O ne time with my old friends, we made it so that like if we, um, we like put our thumbs onto some wires and stuff, and every time we'll high five, put a five or a fist pump, a YouT ube video will go on. . We were using, um, it was like a keyboard coding thing. This is another example of a high tech activity that was completed in a single makerspace session. Ongoing. The most notable example of an ongoing high tech student projec t came to me through the interview with Mrs. Sprague, the librarian. She told me of a group of fifth grade students who taught themselves stop motion animation and voluntarily spent their recess time creating a stop motion animati on Lego video. She expla ined,
218 T hey made like a five minute long stop motion video, which anybody that's done them before, it is a long process. I mean t hat's hundreds and hundreds of individual still frame images. And it probably took them two months of recess times to do it. Several other high tech activities in which students participated may well have been ongoing, depending on whether students saved the programming they did during each session or if they started over from scratch the next time. For instance, one young man told me in his interview that he created animated figures using the Scratch progr amming language. He stated, I made it walk around. Li ke um, change to different figures. T here's three different figures. One, one's standing still. Actually, only two. One's standing still, and one walking. And I kinda put that on a loop. . A lso I made some music behind it. It is unknown whether this student saved his Scratch programming to come back to later, but since the work could be saved and continued, I am in cluding this as an ongoing project. Other high tech projects that could be saved to continue later and are therefore being counted as ongoing projects include students who created tracks on the iPad for the Ozobot robot to follow as well as students who pr ogrammed the Dash robot to perform various commands. As with the previous Sc ratch example, it is unknown whether the students saved their programming and continued it later or if they started over each time. However, as the programming could be saved and continued, these activities are being counted as ongoing. A few of these potentially on going high tech projects are shown in Figure 5 9.
219 A B Figure 5 9. Photos courtesy of author. Potentially ongoing high tech student projects. A) Student testing out Ozobot robot on track he designed on iPad, B) Student attempting to program the Dash robot to play music using the xylophone accessory. Project limitations While students participating in the school library makerspace experience a lot of freedom regarding activities and projects in which they have a personal interest, there are several limitations to the activities and projects they can choose. There are limitations of time, resources, and safety as well as unintended barriers resulting from rules that have been put in place for using the makerspace. Time. When asked during an interview what limitations there were, if any, regarding the projects students could make, Mrs. Sprague, the l ibrarian, stated that, I observed several students in the makerspace who ran out of time to accomplish their goals for the day. For example, a male student was working one day to make a spider using constructio n paper for the body and pipe cleaners for the legs. He at first was attempting to use the hot glue gun to attach the legs, but he was having trouble getting the hot glue gun to work. He then re he was able to get very far, time was called to clean up. This same student, when asked during an interview if
220 he showed others the projects he made in the makerspace, commented that he might makerspace, so, I have a I also witnessed two girls who were working on a collaborative cardboard castle project and hoped to attach second story dentil molding design during that makerspace session. Time was ca lled to clean up before they had the final piece attached, though they did get permission to attach it before cleaning up. During student interviews, several students mentioned ways in which time was a factor in or limitation to the activities and projects they chose or that they were able to complete during makerspace time. One male student talked about how he and another student were struggling to figure out how to complete a Gravity Maze challenge, building the marble run in such a way to get the marble to the designated target as specified on the challenge card included with the kit. He described how, when they ked if they ever figured it out, his Another student spoke about trying to use a robot mouse kit where the student can build a path to a piece of plastic cheese and program the mouse to navigate to it. The stud activity in a future makerspace session. Yet another student told me of his desire to make dog toys which, according to the interview with the librarian, he had plans to sell. He did not know how to go about
221 making the dog toys. When I really know how to do that, and so I wante d to look up online, but I guess there just making the dog toys, as he did not feel there was enough time to pursue it. Resources. There are many materials and resources available and accessible to students in the makerspace that they may use for their making projects. I witnessed many instances of students freely getting into storage bins or the storage cabinet to get whatever sup plies they needed for their project. During interviews, students were able to name various supplies available for them eyes, popsicle sticks, fabric, and other stuff. Those are mostly some of the stuff I can n replied affirmatively. Another student, when asked where she and her friends got the materials they needed for their collaborati ve cardboard project, replied, We looked aro und the room for things we could use. We found the cardboard to use as the actual room. We used popsicle sticks and duct tape for the tables and beads for the drinks. All the things we used were in the makerspace. While there are a wide variety of materials and resources available to students in the makerspace, the librarian stated in her interview that lack of materials can be a limitation for s n some ways, we have a lot of resources, but there is always, I think, go ing to be a need for more, e specially the consumable stuff. S o that can be sort of a limitation, depending on what we have. area the librarian mentioned where this was the case was with building materials such me that, when the makerspace first opened, students
222 the storage bins and things when they were storing Lego projects and things, things were getting left behind, and then all of the resources were getting sucked up and left over in the storage bins ects, but must take them apart at the end of each makerspace session, limiting the projects they can make with these building materials. More of these resources would help alleviate this limitation. Students also mentioned several materials or resources t hey would use if they were available in the makerspace, such as clay, additional Legos, more paper, markers, and fabric, and even the tubes from mechanical pencils. However, as one student aptly I also noted during observations that the makerspace does not yet have tools available to students such as a 3D printer or a laser engraver, thereby limiting the types of projects students can create. Saf ety issues. During her interview, Mrs. Sprague listed safety issues as another limitation to the activities and projects students can choose in the makerspace. As she says, There are limitations on the tools they are allowed to use. You know, we of big things they are dismantling or putting to scale. While these limitations are completely reasonable, they do limit the projects students may choose to make.
223 Unintended barriers. Additional limitations to the activities and projects students can choose in the makerspace resulted as unintended consequences of several rules that were put in place. The following rules themselves seem quite reasonable, yet st udent interviews showed that barriers to student making projects resulted. As discussed in a previous section of this dissertation, the librarian instituted a rule that students were not to waste resources in the makerspace. Rather, she asked them to be t houghtful about the projects they wanted to make and to do a bit of planning prior to grabbing random materials and beginning to glue them together. While this rule is understandable given that students were quickly using up supplies, several students men tioned this rule during their interview as a reason they did not attempt certain projects. One male student pointed to this rule as the reason he only worked with the robots rather than making other projects. Another male student identified this rule as the reason he quit trying to make a project with which he was experimenting. Also discussed in a previous section of this dissertation is the rule regarding choosing a single area to work in during the whole of a makerspace session. Again, while this ru le seems a reasonable way to maintain classroom management, it led some students to believe they could not combine elements of one area with elements of another to create an integrated project. In particular, a student mentioned that she wanted to be able to combine a sewing project with the arts and crafts area, as she thought she might like to paint on the fabric she was using. The final rule that resulted in an unintended barrier to student making was that the Play doh and model magic were taken away fr om all fifth graders because some
224 students were not being responsible with it. During his intervie w, one male student commented, I was planning on using Play doh and model magic, but the time I wanted ing it correctly because they were just using it just to use it and they anything. Again, the general rule is reasonable given that students were misbehaving with the material, but it had the unintended consequence of resulting in a barr ier to making for this student. Theme Four: Majority of Students A re Purposefully Engaged in and E njoy Participation in M akerspace gs as intentionally and repeatedly running one of the remote controlled robots into library furniture or simply playing with Play doh, the majority of students were found to be purposefully engaged in and enjoying their time in the makerspace. Purposeful engagement Sever al student behaviors I observed while they were participating in the makerspace show that students were purposefully engaged during their time there. When students arrived at the makerspace for their scheduled bi weekly visit, for instanc e, they were very excited to enter into the space. During one observation, students were lined up in a straight line entering through the makerspace door, and a bit of a bottleneck formed at the front of the line. Students towards the b ack of the line be that they could enter the makerspace and get started. Another time, I observed students, upon entering the makerspace, running to the activity area where they wanted
225 to work for the day. This excitement to enter the space and quickly dispersing to their chosen work area was seen in all observations I conducted Once students were in the makerspace, they were eager to get started on their self chosen activity or projec t. As seen in Figure 5 10, immediately upon entering the makerspace, students began to get out the materials and/or resources they needed during their time in the space. Some students were seen in the library with the librarian selecting which robot they wanted to work with for the day. Other students were seen getting materials and supplies from the large storage cabinet in one corner of the room or from the clear front multi draw cabinets in the arts and crafts area. Still other students brought their own materials and supplies, and began unpacking them and spreading them out so they could get started on their project. This was the case with a female student who was observed bringing in materials for a sewing project she was going to start. The excer pt below from my field notes describes her actions. One young lady came in with a stack of material. Each piece was folded into a rectangle that was about 5 inches by 3 inches, [the stack] approximately 1/2" deep. They were colorful and patter ned, each one different from the others. She also had several zippers that she brought with her. She immediately got to work unfolding one piece of material, using a ruler to make measurements and marks on the material, and cutting it out the way she needed it. S he was quite focused and intent on her project, and it seemed that she had planned it out prior to stepping into the makerspace. She was ready to use the time she had in the makerspace to actually get work done on the project. Still other students pulled out ongoing projects that were stored in the makerspace to continue work on them, such as one young lady who was making a dollhouse out of a cardboard box. Most students, like the ones highlighted above, came into the makerspace with a seeming purpose in mind and started working toward that purpose as quickly as possible.
226 A B Figure 5 10. Photos courtesy of author. Students eager to get started in makerspace. A) Students disperse to various areas upon entering the makerspace, B) Two girls get out arts and craft supplies for their makerspace project. The scheduled time for students to be in the makerspace was thirty minutes, and most students worked intently on their activities or projects the entire time, not wanti ng to stop working when time was called to begin cleaning up. An example of this from my field notes was a male student who was working with the Gravity Maze kit, a kit wherein students build a marble run using the varying sizes of towers included in the kit to transport their marble to the designated target. While this student was not the primary focus of my observation that day, I observation. He was working quite intently and quietly the entire time, e ven waiting until my field notes shows two female students working together on an ongoing cardboard castle project every minute possible during their makerspace time. I wrote, The se girls worked the entire time that was available, and they nearly got all of the sides complete before time was called to clean up. They had one more side to tape, and they asked permission to finish taping it before cleaning up, which they received per mission to do. . They then worked quickly together to clean up, put all tools away, and store their project to work on again next time.
227 During one observation, I wrote in my udents, with the exception of a few boys who seemed to be off task. I further described the fee l in the space as follows in my field notes, The rest of the kids were very engaged in what they were working on. Several, like the girl with the material and the zippers, the girls with the cardboard castle, the girls with the p et shop, the boys with the K'nex the boy using snap circuits, and the boys working with the gravity maze were very focused and seemed excited for the time to work. They were heads toge ther, talking about the project or activity, asking questions of each other, all hands in grabbing parts to put together (gravity maze), etc. There seemed to be a buzz in the air for most students. When time was called to begin to clean up, several stude nts commented that it had gone quickly, or that they wanted to keep working. engagement for the whole of thei or the most part, a lot of them are reall y excited to have free learning time, and they take it pretty seriously, Student feelings about makerspace Not only are students purposefully engaged during their time in the m akerspace, but they enjoy the ti me they spend there. During my observations, I witnessed students who, while attempting to get the Ozobot robot to move along a track they had made on me the i mpression that students talk about the activity in which they were involved, however. I noted that really enjoy
228 Both the librarian and the classroom teacher mentioned during their interviews that the ir students had positive feelings towards participation in the makerspace. The le Students themselves expressed that they enjoy their time in the makerspace in a variety of ways during their interviews when asked how they feel about participating in m be able to use it. One fema e you can go appreciation for what he learne t makes me excited and ther male student said he thinks et another male Theme Five: Student Making Experience C ompared to Educational Making Process Model making experience compares to the making process outlined in the EMPM. I developed t he EMPM to assist librar ians in my school district to better understand making as a
229 learning proces s so as to design, implement, and facilitate school library makerspaces in such a way to best afford students the opportunity to experience making as a learning process. While the EMPM is not intended to be a step by step making process which all students need to follow, the paragraphs below discuss how students, overall, were found to experience each part of the EMPM in the resulting makerspace that was the subject of this study. Inspiration nd the idea that students participating in a school library makerspace will select making projects based on their personal needs or interests rather than completing teacher directed or curriculum driven projects. While interviews showed that the librarian and classroom teacher did at times suggest a project, such as sewing purses, or encourage a student in a certain direction, such as programming rather than simply driving the remote controlled robots, the overall experience of students in the makerspace w as in keeping with the Inspiration step. Where student s get project ideas I observed s tudents working on a variety of self selected activities or projects in the makerspace based on their personal needs or interests. They were asked during interviews where they get the ideas for the projects driven rather than teacher or curriculum driven. One female student, when asked where she and her friends got the idea to make a Lit y small animals. And they thought about making small little areas for the Littlest Pet dent who was working on the same project
230 reason for choosing his making project, female student who chose to m ake somethin g to fulfill a personal need. We have little star tickets that the kids make for rewards. I had a girl make a little wallet to hold tho I need something to do o my problem in the makerspace. Students who do not yet have a project in mind have resources available in the makerspace to help them find inspiration. I observed two female students browsing through the student who was browsing Pinterest for project ideas. Another option for students is to tinker with various activities in the makerspace until they determine what they want to make. As Why students choose the projects they do. Students were further asked in interviews w hy they chose the projects or activities they did rather than others. Again, their answers show their decision was student driven rather than teacher or curriculum driven. One of the female students involved in the Littlest Pet Shop caf project stated the projects
231 they did because they just seemed like the stuff we wanted to make just seemed t he more interesting than other things Ideation When a student has a making project in mind, he may by step process, the student may experience this step in conjunction with the Inspiration step, or possibly not at all. Ideation involves the student envisi oning how he wants his completed project to look. He may simply visualize it in his mind. He may draw or write out ideas for the project. He may even create a quick prototype of his idea. The librarian facilitates student ideation in the arts and craft s area through the implementation of a requirement that students draw out their idea for their projects and discuss them with her before beginning the project. This requirement was put in place, ing [materials] and to areas, there is not such a requirement in place at this time. Rather, as Mrs. Sprague i n the other stations, as of now, they kind of dive in, start playing and p roblem solving as they go. B ut in the future I think it'd probably be a good idea to have them plan ahead too. Several times during makerspace observations, I witnessed students drawing out designs for arts and crafts projects. The librarian, library paraprofessional, and classroom teacher were all observed reminding students to do so prior to starting an arts and crafts project. Other students were observed using Pinterest to find a specific example of a general sewing project they had decided to make, such as the exact
232 zipper pouch they would make, thereby visualizing how their completed project would look. When asked if she knew how she wanted her project to look before starting it, one tep of the EMPM. She replied, I knew what I wanted it to look like. . I had the picture in my mind. . I drew it out on a piece of scratch paper. I drew out what the design and what the building would be. A male student, after explaining to me how he went about making a mini crossbow toy in the makerspace, was asked if he drew this out ahead of time. The student replied experience this step of the EMPM as part of their own making process. Other students, however, did not seem to experience this step of the EMPM as part of their own making process. As acknowledged by Mrs. Sprague in the quote above, students in areas of the makerspace other than arts and crafts tend to start tinkering without having a firm idea of how their completed project will look. For f he I then asked how he went about I just messed around with th e pieces and I tried some new things and then I found what fits the best and, um ... it took me a long time, but at the end it was worth it. his student had a general idea of how he wanted his completed project to look, he did not have a detail ed plan of how to go about that he was unhappy with the way the motorcycle turned out. When asked if any project did not turn out the way he wan ted it to, the stu dent stated,
233 I guess the motorcycle because the wheels didn't really move well. The only thing it'll do is that you could either make it stand or you could take out the piece that holds the wheels, but the wheels would come off. Another example of a stu dent not experiencing the Ideation step of the EMPM is a male student who was attempting to make a Mento launcher. When asked if he knew ally seen anyone make a Mento launcher, so I never have motorcycle with only a general idea of how it might look, this student was unsuccessful in creating a working Mento la uncher. Making step is listed third in the EMPM, students may participate in this step without first having participated in the previous two. The Making step of the EMPM is where the student brings to fruition whatever it is that he has determined to make. The student may approach this step in different ways. He may jump in and start tinkering, exploring various materials and resources, attempting to create the item he has envisioned. Conversely, the student may approach the making step in a more thoughtful way, determining and then gathering the materials, resources, and knowledge needed to proceed. He then creates the physical or digital artifact he envisioned, which may involve problem solving through multiple attempts or even circling back to a previous step of the EMPM, such as Ideation, as necessary. Researcher observations and interviews showed that the approach of students participating in the school library makers pace to the Making step of the EMPM ranged from a tinkering approach to a much more planned and thoughtful approach.
234 The student mentioned in the previous section who was attempting to build a Making step of the anning ed how he went Some students were somewhat more thoughtful about the materials they would use for their project, but still took a tinkering approach to the actual creation of their project. One of the female students involved in creating a Littlest Pet Shop caf o ut of cardboard with a group of friends talked about how they went about beginning to make about the supplies we needed to use. Then we brought them out, and we started out building it, she replied, a miniature house for her dolls out of cardboard talked of using a similar approac h.
23 5 questioned further about what the building of the dollhouse entailed, she st ated that she used her imagination and made it up as she went along. Yet other students approached the Making step of the EMPM in a much more planned and thoughtful way. I observed a pair of female students who took this type of approach to the Making st ep. These girls were both working on making zippered pouches. The excerpt below from my field notes of a makerspace observation show that these students approached this step with much more planning and thought than the previously mentioned students. The y gathered the materials they needed as well as the information they needed to make the pouches successfully. Two girls came in and immediately got to work on a project they seemed to have planned out ahead of time. Both girls brought material to the ma kerspace with them. One of the girls had printed instructions from an Internet site on how to make a zipper pouch, and she had these instructions with her, and she seemed to be following them. The other girl had a pocket folder with her. In one pocket w as a list of project ideas she hoped to make. In the other pocket seemed to be instructions for a p roject. Both of these girls were cutting out their material into rectangles, and they were taking care to make sure the rectangles were the same size. One girl had bright pink material, and she used the first rectangle she cut out as a template to cut out the second rectangle. I went to observe other students for a bit, and when I came back, this girl was just finishing up sewing the seams of her pouch aro und three sides of her rectangles using one of the sewing machines. Often a part of the Making step of the EMPM is learning what you need to learn for your project or activity. Interviews showed that students went about gaining this necessary knowledge i n a variety of ways. A male student who used Scratch programming language to create animations explained that he learned to make them both throu gh formal and informal means. I kind of tested it out in library lesson on the computers; like, took coding l
236 Hey, I could do this : make this figure walk around. Several students mentioned turning to an adult as a means of learning what they needed to know. One student stated that the librarian taught him coding while another a se wing project, but did not know how. A female student who wanted to make a She was n ot the only student to mention watching videos as a way to learn a necessary an activity kit to know what to do. One male student who used the Snap Circuit set to Another aspect of the Making step is to problem solve through multiple attempts spoke in their interviews of how their students were problem solving in the makerspace. Mrs. Sprague used, as an example, a group of male students who created a stop motion animation video. Rather than being taught how to create it, this group of boys the process, stating, I know in the stop motion animation stuff, they've had some issues that they've come across. Or like the setting up a green screen, you know, making sure However, with her assistance, the students were able to overcome these difficult ies and complete their video. As Mrs. Sprague stated,
237 been anything major that we've come across that hasn't been something that we can Mrs. Mosier gave the example of two female students who had to problem solve through some challenges they encountered during a sewing project. She stated, I had some girls who really wanted to make something for one of the other teachers here so they were making her a bag and as they moved along they realized they made a mista ke S o they kind of had to back up and problem solve and said, "O kay what can we do to fix this and so some things got taken apart or some things got scrapped and they started over again. Students did problem solving not just when making a project, b ut also when participating in an activity within the makerspace. I observed two male students using a set of plastic gears during their time in the makerspace. They wanted to make a series of multiple gears that would turn together. Rather than giving u p when they could not get the gears to turn, they kept trying different combinations of gears while talking with each other about what they might do to get it to work. They worked intently the entire time in the makerspace and were eventually successful i n getting the series of gears to turn. I interviewed o ne of the male students who was using the gear set. He told of a time that he was attempting to build a bridge with the Contraptions planks that are available in the makerspace. While he was eventua lly successful in building the bridge, he told me Iteration in a student determines to update, make improvements to, or repurpose a project he made or a
238 previously existing item or items. While the librarian encourages students to think about how they might change or improve a project they have made, observations and interviews show that this is a step of the EMPM that some students follow as part of their own making process while others do not. A few students did speak during interviews of making changes or improvements to their projects, yet other students felt One female student who made a cardboard house for her dolls did make improvements to her completed project. She stated that her first version of the house n, so she decided to make A male student spoke of building a hotel out of Legos. While it turned out well, he decided to make some changes to it. He said, when you go downstairs to eat breakfast in the hotel, I felt like I just wanted to add a little bit of Halloween into i t, so I tried to make it like Halloween tables ller. While these students made changes or improvements to their projects, other students did not think changes or improvements were needed, even when their project did not turn out as expected or desired. For instance, one male student stated that the
239 stand or you could take out the piece that holds the wheels, but the wheels would come did not see a need to change or improve it, stating th Another male student provided some insight into why t his might be the case for some students. When asked during his interview if anything he attempted to make did not turn out the way he wanted, he replied, t here's really no way to not make something correctly, c uz it's just your imagination t aking over incorrect, there would be no need to correct or improve it. Sharing opportunity to show others the project they ma de as well as what they learn ed through the process of making it. While students often showed their projects to friends, classmates, and their teacher or took them home to show their families, they did not have formal opportunities to share their projects and learning with larger aud iences such as displaying projects in the library or the school, presenting projects at a school maker faire, or posting projects in an online forum. Due to the lack of storage shelving, students could not keep ongoing or completed projects on display in the makerspace itself for others to see and provide feedback. One exception to this was the group of boys who created the stop motion animation video. Mrs. Sprague posted their video on YouTube and shared it through Facebook. Students were able to easil y show others
240 Despite not having formal opportunities to share their projects and their learning, students are eager to do so. Mrs. Sprague spoke of this during her interview. When talking of how students spend their time in t ost of them are really trying to learn something new and make something new that they are share their learning in relation to the expert wall on which students can add their name and their area of expertise so that other students can come to them for assistance. She stated, t hey're always so proud to get to put their name on the wall. Like, I witnessed the eagerness of students to share their projects during observations of the makerspace. During one observation, I stopped a female student on the way out of th e makerspace to see the project she made that day. It was a picture frame made attached at the top to be used to hang it on the wall. She seemed quite happy to show me her pr oject and tell me all about it, including that she was going to put in it a picture of herself and her best friend. During this interaction, I was approached by a male student wanting to tell me all about the Lego rover he made that day. He even re enter ed the makerspace to retrieve the rover, which he had left intact in the container of Legos, to show me This student, while not one I sought to speak to because he did not have parental consent to participate in the study, was very proud of his project, referring During another observation, I was approached by a female student who wanted to show me what she was making th at day. The excerpt below describes the scene.
241 [The student] sought m e out to tell me that she was making a paint pa lett e today. I went to where she was working to take a look. Sh e had cut a circle, approximatel y 8 inches in dia meter, from cardboard, and she c ut a thumb hole in one side of it. The thumb hol e was not a ci rcle. Rather it was a circle with a slit that went al l the way to the edge of the pa lett e It was set an inch or two in from the edge. The girl had taken various colors of paint, around 10 different colors, and put a 1 1/2 inch or so circle of each color in various spots around the cardbo ard. It looked like a paint pa lett e that might be used by an actual painter. I asked if it was something she planned to use to paint with or if she was making it to go with one of th e other projects she had made. . She said she was planning to use it to paint. I asked her how she was going to use it to paint since the paint would be dry. She said that she would be able to squirt a bit of paint as she needed it onto the dried paint, using it as a kind of guide to where each color should go. I asked her if she painted much at home, and she said that she did. Optional and flexible c ollaboration Optional and Flexible Collaboration is part of the EMPM, though it is not an actual step of the making process. Rather, t his is an associated process that influences the overall making process, as students may choose to collaborate with others at different times throughout their projects. Students experienced this part of the EMPM in a variety of ways. Some students chose to work on individual projects during the course of this study, while others chose to collaborate with others. Those who collaborated with others did so at varying levels, including helping others, working side by side with someone on separate projects, a nd working collaboratively with others on a levels of Optional and Flexible Collaboration. Working individually. Throughout the study, I observed several students work ing individually on projects or activities. During one observation, I saw an individual male student working with the Gravity Maze kit, another male student working individually with the Dash robot, a third male student working individually using the
242 Geob oard application on an iPad, an app that allows the user to create and manipulate a variety of geometrical shapes by stretching virtual bands around virtual pegs, and a female student working individually on an ongoing cardboard dollhouse project. I also observed students over the course of the study working individually on such things as creating a construction paper picture frame, making a cardboard paint palette, tinkering with Snap Circuits, and building with the Contraptions planks. Interestingly, th e students me ntioned above who I observed working individually at these times were observed working collaboratively with other students at other times, with the exception of the female student working on the cardboard dollhouse project. Students moved in and out of collaborative partners when and as needed or desired. Figure 5 11 shows students working individually on makerspace activities. A B Figure 5 11. Photos courtesy of author. Students working individually in the makerspace. A) Student working with a Connex electronic piano kit, B) Student working with the Gravity Maze kit. Helping others One way students collaborated in the makerspace was by helping others when needed. This was a minimal and short term type of collaboration. For instance, one male student mentioned in his interview that another student helped him get logged into the Scratch website. Another student told of a short term reciprocal collaboration where each student taught the other to do somethi ng with one of the
243 female student helped another student in a v know how to use a hot glue gun, and they burnt themselves. So, I helped them figure type of minimal and short term collaboration was the male student who needed temporary help putting parts Workin g side by side on separate projects. Throughout the study, students were also observed working on separate projects, but choosing to do so next to a classmate. During these times, students seemed to enjoy the natural camaraderie of time spent with a frie nd. Additionally, they were able to ask questions of, share resources with, and get advice from this person while working on their individual projects. I witnessed a n example of this type of collaboration during an observation when two male students were a crane and the other building a car. The following excerpts from my observation and each other though they wer e working on individual projects. While he was building it [the crane], he leaned over to [the other student] to ask what piece he should use to get it to do what he wanted. [He] talked to him for a minute, and the two boys dug through the tub to find a p iece they thought would work. The boys work well side by side, though they are not building a collaborative project. They help each other find pieces they need, ask each other questions about what piece to use to make their project the way they want it,
244 opinions along the way, visited about some completely unrelated things, and shared the tub of K'Nex without fighting over them. I observed t h ese same two male students during another observation working side by side in the arts and crafts area on separate projects, one making a felt puppet and the other making a spider out of construction paper and pipe cleaners. Students can be seen working s ide by side on individual makerspace projects in Figure 5 12. A B Figure 5 12. Photos courtesy of author. Students working side by side on individual projects. A) Students working side by projects, B) Students working side by projects. Another example of students working side by side on separate projects was found in the female students who were making zippered pouches. I observed them multiple times sitting together at one of the tables in the center of the makerspace, working on their own zippered pouch. Both girls had a folder with project ideas they wanted to make in the future and/or instructions for making the zippered pouches that they seemed to have printed from the Internet. During one observation, they were looking together a t one of the sewing project books in the makerspace. During another observation, they both had their material spread out on the table and were cutting out rectangles from it, preparing to sew their pouches. While I did not focus on this pair of
245 girls dur ing any one observation to know the conversations that took place, it is clear they were choosing to work side by side while making their individual zippered pouches. Working collaboratively on shared project Other students chose to work collaboratively on a shared project. Several examples of this type of collaboration happened during this study. One such project was a Littlest Pet Shop caf that a group of three girls was building out of cardboard and other materials. These students were observed wor king on different parts of this project, but working toward the shared goal of completing the caf. They were also observed discussing how to proceed when something new was introduced to the mix, such as a new material or supply that was found to be avail able. The excerpt below from my field notes provides a description of these students working together on this project. T wo girls I observed were working together with a third girl on an ongoing project. They were sitting at the counter along the perimete r in the craft area. They were making a Little st Pet S hop caf out of cardboard and other materials. They said they had worked on it several times previously, but then stopped working on it for a while. They were now getting back to it. Though there we re three girls working on it, they were only building one pet shop. The outside had an "open" sign hung outside the "door." It was not just written or drawn on the cardboard. They had cut out a small piece of car dboard and written "open" on it, connecte d a small piece of rope to it, and taped it on the "shop" next to the door. Next to the open sign, one of them had written "open 24 hours" on the pet shop. Inside the pet shop were various pieces that were cut out from paper or cardboard and colored/deco rated. These signified things such as the counter, a display table, etc. There were even pictures/decoration on the wall of the shop. The girls were working together, but on separate tasks toward their project. One was tearing small bits of different c olors and patterns of tissue paper, crinkling them into "balls" and putting them into a small, clear plastic jar about the size of a prescription jar (but not). She told me these were gumballs that were going to go on display in the pet shop Another was sorting out different types of beads into a similar jar, and this was going to be another type of candy on display in the pet shop. While the first one continued to work on the tissue paper gumballs, the other two went to the big storage cabinet for addi tional supplies. They were digging through the cabinet together, looking for something specific, though I am
246 unsure what they were looking for. After some time, the second girl left the third girl to continue looking and came back to work on the pet shop The third girl came over moments later with a sheet of horse stickers. One girl gasped excitedly, and the three girls started to discuss what they should do with the stickers. After a few moments discussion, they seemed to come to an agreement, and on e girl started "directing" the others with specific tasks. This was done in a friendly man ner, and the other girls respond ed favorably, asking clarifying questions as to what specifically they were to do. During a student interview, I asked the female stu dent who had been directing the others how they know who is going to do what when they work on a collaborative usually they let me decide because I'm kinda like the leader or something. So, I leave friend one to do what she does be st and I leave friend two to do what she does best. 13. A B Figure 5 13. Photos courtesy of author. Group of girls working collaboratively on a shared project. A) Each girl working on a different part of the project, B) One girl gets supplies for th e group from storage cabinet. One of the other girls who was working on the collaborative project describ ed above told me ir collaboration, stating that S he [her friend] would hold the hot glue gun. She would put down the knew who was going to do what because
247 I witnessed or learned through interviews a bout several other shared collaborative projects during the time of this study, including a pair of boys sewing an owl project, a pair of girls building a cardboard castle, and the group of girls highlighted above making a birthday card for another of thei r friends. When discussing the collaboration that was taking place between students in the makerspace, the librarian more a natural sort of collaboration . that I hadn't seen as much in the library before this. onal shared collaborative projects are seen in Figure 5 14. A B Figure 5 14. Photos courtesy of author. Additional shared collaborative projects. A) A pair of boys sewing a shared owl project, B) A pair of girls building a shared cardboard castle. Continuous f eedback Throughout the process of making a project or working on an activity, students get feedback either from the project or activity itself or from others. Therefore, Continuous Feedback is another related process included as part of the EMPM. While students did receive feedback from the projects they made or the activities in which they participated, feedback from others was limited, as they did not have the opportunity to share their projects or t heir learning beyond their classroom and their home.
248 Students often received instantaneous feedback when attempting to program the various robots available in the makerspace or when attempting to manipulate something on the computer screen through coding For instance, the student attempting to program the iPad so that the Ozobot robot would follow the path he created would get feedback as to his success or failure immediately upon starting the robot upon the track. It would either behave as he expected spinning or moving fast where he intended, or it would not. Similarly, the student attempting to program the Dash robot to interact with the included xylophone accessory would get fast feedback when Dash either did, or did not, play music. Students al so received feedback from the projects and activities they did in the makerspace that did not involve technology. During interviews with me students spoke of things they made in the makerspace that did not turn out as they had hoped. The male student wh examples of students receiving feedback from their low tech projects. Other examples include the female stude nt whose cardboard dollhouse turned out to be too small to fit the toys she had planned to use with it, the female students who had to redo parts of the bag they were sewing for a teacher, and the male student whose Lego house turned out looking more like a garden, being too flat and wide. Not all feedback students received from their projects was negative, however. The female student who sought me out to show me the cardboard paint palette she made and the male student who ea gerly shared with me the Lego rover he built received feedback from their projects that they had turned out well.
249 The activities in which students participated in the makerspace also provided them with continuous feedback. For instance, the pair of boys mentioned earlier wh o were working with a set of plastic gears trying to make a series of them work together got continuous feedback when the gears would either turn or not. Similarly, the male student attempting to build a bridge from the Contraptions planks received feedba ck each time the planks fell as well as when he was ultimately successful in building the bridge. While the feedback students receive from others is limited as they do not have much opportunity to share their projects or their learning to a wider audien ce, both Mrs. Sprague and Mrs. Mosier strive to provide feedback to students and encourage students to give feedback to each other. Mrs. Sprague stated in her interview that she believes the makerspace is conducive to students providing each other with fe edback. She explained further that They really do work together a lot and collaborate and feed off of each is a lot of student to adult, but also student to student feedback and conversations happening about what they are doing. Mrs. Mosier also believes that her students provide each other feedback in the if somebody is making something I asked students during interviews if others had ever told them what they thought of the projects the y made. Some students said they had not received feedback from others, but most students said they had. A male student stated that Mrs. Mosier had
250 much says it to their projects. One female student received feedback from others that was not as positive. She stated somebody said that they Documenting p rogress Another associated process that is part of the EMPM is Documenting Progress. Encouraging students to document their progress allows them to know exactly where they left off with their project during their previous makerspace visit so that they can immediately begin again during their next visit. The DFG EMPM developed by the makerspace design committee suggest providing students with a physi cal or digital tool designed for this purpose, such as the Build in Progress site discussed in Chapter Two of this dissertation. As this is a guideline that Mrs. Sprague h as not yet fully implemented in the makerspace, students, as a whole, did not experience documenting their progress as part of their making process during this study. While students are not yet provided a formal means to document their progress in the ma kerspace, observations and interviews found that a few students developed their own way to do so, and had, therefore, incorporated this into their overall making process. When asked during an interview how she and her friends knew where they left off and what they needed to do next for their ongoing collaborative project, the student the
251 if the entire class o, just my three friends. Well, we, like, he further explained that they keep the checklist in the cardboard box they are using to make their project. During multiple observations, I witnessed a pair of female students working on a sewing project wherein they were making zippered pouches. Both g irls had put together a folder that contained project ideas for the future as well as step by step instructions for making the zippered pouches. These girls, then, were able to refer to the instructions during each visit to the makerspace to know exactly what they needed to do next to make the pouches. This served as a way for them to document their progress during their ongoing sewing project. Reflection/formative s elf assessment The final associated process included in the EMPM is Reflection/Formative Se lf Assessment. Here, students would thoughtfully consider and keep track of what had working on a project or activity. Again, the DFG EMPM developed by the makerspace d esign committee notebook to use for such reflections or guiding them to use on online tool designed for this purpose, such as the Build in Progress site discussed in Chapter Two of this disserta tion. They also suggest asking students questions about their projects, what they have tried, what worked, what did not, and what they learned, to facilitate reflection and self assessment. As mentioned in the previous section, students are not yet provi Progress, so they do not formally track their reflections or the things they have learned
252 in this way. Interviews and observations showed that many students did not experience Refl ection/Formative Self Assessment as a regular part of their overall making process. While Mrs. Sprague does have conversations with students about their projects and encourages them to think about what worked, what did not, and what they might want to try next time, no students were found who were keeping track of such reflections nor of what they had learned. Theme Six: Students Benefit from Participation in Makerspace Based on both interviews and observations, students seem to experience several benefits through their participation in the school library makerspace. The paragraphs below discuss the benefits to students found through data analysis of observations and interviews, the final theme for Research Question Three. Learning in the makerspac e. Though unique to each individual participant, students learn a variety of skills or build background knowledge in a variety of areas through the projects and activities in which they participate in the makerspace. When asked in an interview what she f elt students had learned from their time in the makerspace, Mrs. Sprague, the librarian, commented that they had learned coding and such as how it works, how it functions and how to use it to communicate; practical skills such as sewing; social skills such as working together and asking questions about each were largely borne out in student interviews as well as in my observations. The majority of students interviewed mentioned coding or programming as something they learned through participation in the makerspace. Some students
253 mentioned coding or creati ng animations on the computer using the Code.org website or Scratch programming language while others talked of coding various robots, such as Dash and Ozobot. Several students had experience with coding both on the computer and with the robots. One stud ent talked of how he appreciated the opportunity to learn coding as he saw a connection to a potential re al life career. He commented, I feel doing coding with Dot and Dash is kind of cool, cuz it also teaches you how to do it during real life, like if y ou were an engineer or something, and you build robots, and you wanted to code them. This is kind of like a practice one first . so then you kn ow what you already need to do. Both Mrs. Sprague and Mrs. Mosier also spoke in their interview of a group of fifth grade boys who learned, with very little direction from the adults, to do stop motion animation and created a 5 minute long video. Students also spoke in interviews of the practical skills they had gained in the makerspace. These included such spoke of sewing, particularly using the sewi ng machine, as a skill th ey learned in the makerspace. From both observations and interviews, it was found that both male and female students chose to make projects involving the use of the sewing machine. One male student was excited to learn how to make knots at the beginning and end of a line of sew ing on the machine, stating, It cuz you have to go forward and back, like at the very ends. Like, you go a little bit ba ck, forward, and back a little. H e was further excited to learn that, when making a pillow, you also have to leave one side of it open, so then you can put the stuffing
254 M I observed many instances of stu dents working together on joint projects or side by side on sep arate projects during which they utilized the social skills of working together or asking each other questions. For instance, two female students were working together to make a cardboard castle, and on the day of my observation, they were working to add dentil molding around the top of the castle. Below is an excerpt from my field notes describing what I saw. During the observation, these girls worked quietly and collabo ratively. It seemed that they were on the same page as to what they wanted to do to the castle, as I heard no disagreement between them. Rather, their discussions focused on the next step to take. They seamlessly worked together to accomplish their seem ing task of getting the second story faade built around the rest of the castle. One would work on cutting out a piece of cardboard to fit and cutting out the denti l molding around the top while the other would work to cut pieces of duct tape. They discussed things like how hard it was to cut the cardboard. The one would hold the cardboard in place on a side of the castle while the other cut a slit in the bottom of the piece with scissors where it overhung the side and needed to be trimmed. She then proceeded to cut the extra length off the piece. One would hold the cardboard back in place while the other used a piece of duct tape to attach it. They worked togeth er so well that they switched It was hard to keep track of who was doing what from moment to moment as it was almost like four hands and one mind. In this case, the students joint ly discussed and decided what the design should look like, split between them the tasks of cutting the design in the carboard, cutting the cardboard to fit the castle, and taping it to the castle. They talked while they worked, asking que stions or making suggestions, anticipating how they might help each other. Students, though they were unable to articulate specific principles or concepts they had learned, did seem to gain prior knowledge in a variety of areas through
255 participation in the school libra ry makerspace. For instance, I observed a pair of boys working together in the makerspace with a set of plastic gears. They were attempting to connect multiple gears in a pattern that would still turn. Though they did not fully understand the principles they needed to follow to make the gears work as they wanted them to, the conversation between the boys shows that they were gaining prior knowledge that could be useful in the classroom when learning about force and motion. The excerpt below from my fiel together to try to get the gears to turn, as seen in Figure 5 15. They proceed to just work together, digging various gears out of the box, adding them to the base, trying to make the gears work. They ask questions of each other and comment along the way. "Nope, that is too tight on the gears." "Try to find another piece that will work." "Let's just try this other piece." "Nope, too tight again." They each equally add gear pieces to the base, talki ng to each other about what they are doing along the way. "We need a medium one." "Too tight." "It takes patience." "That makes the movement somewhat chunky." "How are we going to do this?" "Oh, I got it, I got it." "How are we going to connect it?" "I don't know." "Wait, wait." "Oh, there's singles." All the while, the boys are using trial and error to figure out how to make a long series of gears spin. "Maybe we can move this somewhere." "Let's change these." "It's basically the same thing, bu t the red i s here." "I know, but it may make it easier. Want to know why? It's using less force, so it will be easier. Cause you're not trying to push as much." "I see the reason why." A B Figure 5 15. Photos courtesy of author. Boys working together to get a series of gears to turn. A) Both boys beginning to add gears to the base, B) Adding additional gears to base and trying to get them to turn.
256 Another student, when asked what he felt he had learned through participation in the makerspace, began telling me about tinkering with a set of wooden planks called Contraptions with which students can build ramps, bridges, or scaffolding. The set also includes two balls of differing weights that students can roll down the ramps they build. Yet another student hinted at building prior knowledge through his use of the Snap Circuits kit, a set of snap together electronic components allowing students to build working electrical circuits and connect such things as a fan or a buzzer. When asked what he need ed to do to make the fan work with the Snap Circuits, he mentioned that this was shows that he is unable to articulate specific concepts he may have learned, though his previous description of his interaction with Snap Circuits showed he was certainly building prior knowledge. Developing 21 st century skills As seen in the excerpt above, when asked what he felt he had learned from tinkering with Snap Circuits in the makerspace, the st century skills identified in Table 1 1 of this dissertation which studen ts are purported in
257 the literature to develop through makerspace participation. A female student, referring to a collaborative project she and two of her friends were working on in the makerspace, we all teamwork to create one thing stated in her interview that one benefit to her students of participation in the makerspace was teamwork. Creativity is another 21 st century skill some students mentioned during their interviews that resulted from participatio n in the makerspace. One male student listed Three other students, one female and two males, also spoke of creativity as an outcome of participation in the makerspace, Both Mrs. Sprague, the librarian, and Mrs. Mosier, the classroom te acher, spoke in their interviews of 21 st century skills they believed their students gained through participation in the makerspace. In addition to teamwork or collaboration and creative thinking, they also mentioned such skills as problem solving, critic al thinking, as the year went by their mindset changed from their time in the makerspace. She stated, I feel like they've learned to be independent. I feel like they've learned to be problem solvers. I feel like they've been able to try something new without being afraid of failure which I think are all great life skills. I'm really proud of what they've become and I want to take that back into my classroom and give them more opportunities to do more things in science the same way. Through observations of students participating in the makerspace, I also found that many students remained focused on their making activities or projects for the
258 entirety of their time in the m akerspace. Many students were observed entering the makerspace and immediately gathering the materials they needed for the day. Some brought materials or printed instructions with them to the makerspace, showing that they had been planning their making p roject prior to their time in the makerspace. They would then get started on their self directed activity or project and remain intently engaged in it until time was called to clean up. Many of these students expressed disappointment at having to stop wo rking on their activity or project for the day. These behaviors show that students were exhibiting focus, another of the 21 st century skills listed in Table 1 1 as developing through makerspace participation. Playful learning is yet another soft skill listed in Table 1 1 as developing through participation in a makerspace, and I witnessed many examples of this during my observations of students in the makerspace. This was often seen with students who were working with the various robots available in th e makerspace. To a casual observer, seeing students driving a remote controlled robot around the library floor such as Dash or watching a smaller robot such as the Ozobot make his way around a track drawn on an iPad may look like simple playing. While th ese students certainly appeared to be having fun, and while they may have started out simply driving the robots or running a built in program, I found during observations that these students were also learning how to code these robots. While their coding skills were not yet very sophisticated, as they were not programming the robots to follow lengthy or complicated In interviews, students spoke of programming the robo with included accessories, such as the xylophone that is included with the Dash robot.
259 Students were also seen participating in playful learning with other activities such as the Contraptions planks. Each of the wooden ways to build bridges, ramps, or other structures. Several students were observed using these planks during makerspace time, w hich, as with the robots, looks like playing. However, in an interview, one of the male students who had been observed using these planks talked about his attempts to build a bridge with them. He stated that ertain way to support the other planks. In addition to playing, then, this student seemed to be learning about structures. Chance to shine. Another benefit Mrs. Sprague has noticed for her students through participation in the makerspace is that it p rovides students with an opportunity to excel who may not do so in the more traditional classroom setting for a variety of reasons. For instance, she spoke of a group of boys, some of whom got in trouble in the classroom, but who chose to spend much of th eir recess time working on a video project in the makerspace. She stated, ey were interested in. But they, they took the stuff. They figured it out. I did not show them anything about how to use it. I just had the iPads and told them that we had a stop motion app. And they got the Legos, and I think they had seen the Lego movie which is stop motion animation, and it sort of sparked their interest, but they did it all themselves. And it has been really astonishing what they are able to do when they have a little bit of time and a little bit of, of support and resources, what the y are able to accomplish.
260 She also told about students who were not always academically successful in the classroom, but were successful using Snap Circuits to build working circuits and connecting things like a fan. She said, S ome of the students who I think struggle a lot with academics were able to sit down and play and sort of figure things out. And some of the things they were able to make were really impressive. And maybe it helps build their confidence up a little bit more, and allow them to see t hat they do have some strengths in area s maybe they didn't even know w ere areas to explore. She further spoke of students who find that they have interests in areas that they, or others, might not expect through participation in the makerspace. She told t he story of one male student who found he had an interest in coding. T here was a boy in fifth grade who um, we did some of the code.org lessons together in class. But he went above and beyond that . .He mad e like a little game out of cod ing. T his was a s tudent that I didn't foresee that bein g an interest for him. H e's typically a little bit more athletic, and sometimes has a too cool for school attitude. But he got so excited about this, and he was so proud to put his name on the expert wall and show ki ds about coding, and it was just really exciting seeing that transformation. As seen in the sections above, the results of this study show that student s benefit in a variety of ways through participation in the school library makerspace. Chapter Summary Th is chapter addressed research questions two and three of this study: What is the resulting school library makerspace implementation? In what ways do students experience participation in the resulting school library makerspace? I presented a vignet te of the resulting makerspace implementation, and then discussed the two main themes surrounding research question two that resulted from thematic analysis. The two main themes were as follows: Intentionality in Makerspace Implementation which described ways in which the resulting makerspace aligns with
261 various guidelines developed by the makerspace design committee as well as areas where it does not, and Makerspace Implementation is Successful O verall which highlighted ways in which the makerspace is viewed as a success while acknowledging changes and improvements the librarian hopes to make going forward. Next, I presented a vignette of student participation in the makerspace and discussed the six ma in themes surrounding research question three that resulted from thematic analysis. Those six main the me s were as follows: Students experience adults as facilitators of making process; Students have access to makerspace at a variety of times ; Students par ticipate in a wide variety of self directed projects and activities within the limitations of time, resources, safety issues, and makerspace rules ; The majority of students are purposefully engaged in and enjoy participation in makerspace ; Student making e xperience compared to EMPM; and Students benefit from participation in makerspace. Chapter Six will discuss both successes of school library makerspace implementation in my district as well as areas of possible improvement.
262 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSIO N AND IMPLICATIONS The purpose of this design case dissertation was to provide a detailed and thorough account of the design process the makerspace committee went through to bring makerspaces to the library program in my school district so as to preserve a nd share the precedent knowledge gained through the process (C. D. Howard, 2011). According to C. D. Howard (2011), design cases have an overall singular focus in t experience of the design to help readers better understand the design. In keeping with the se foci, this design case dissertation answered the following similar questions. Research Question 1: What processes and decisions were involved in the design Research Question 2: What is the resulting school library makerspace implementation? Research Question 3 : In what ways do students experience participation in the resulting school library makerspace? Research question one was answered through a detailed narrative account found in Ch apter Four which described the members of the makerspace design committee and presented the processes and decisions involved in the design of school library makerspaces organized around separate discussions of the components of the design. Biographical in formation about the members of the makerspace design committee as well as a wide variety of documents pertaining to the design process were the data sources I reviewe d and analyzed to answer research question one. For research questions two and three, dat a were collected through qualitative observations,
263 conducting thematic analysis (2006). My methods were described in greater detail in Chapter Three of this study. Results pertaining to research questions two and three were provided in Chapter Five of this study. This final chapter will discuss the results of the study in the context of both successes and areas for improvement and will discuss how the results align to exist ing literature. Recommendations to others wanting to undergo a similar design and implementation process will be included, as well, based on lessons learned through the design and implementation of makerspaces in my district. The chapter will then discus s the implications of the results to my professional context, to other school districts wanting to design and implement school library makerspaces, to the field of library science, and to the study of makerspaces as learning environments. Finally I will recommend potential areas for future research of school library makerspaces. Research Question One: Design Process What processes and decisions were involved in the design of school library mak district? addressing this question, Chapter Four, first described the specific professiona l context of the design, stated why I believe this design case will be o f interest to others, described th e members of the design team, and detailed my role in the design process as a member of the design team. Next, the chapter described in detail the most pertinent components of the design process based on my knowledge of it as a member of the design team a nd on my review of pertinent documents pertaining to the design process. The description of these components included decisions and changes that were made during the process. In addition to a
264 textual description of the most pertinent components of the pr ocess, images of various documents relating to the design process were provided, including the design and implementation guidelines developed by the design team for use by the district library program. The sections below discuss ways in which this design process was successful, areas where the process could be improved, and recommendations for others wanting to undergo a similar design process based on lessons learned from the process. Design Process Successes One way in which the design process was succe ssful is that the m akerspace design committee was focused during its meetings on specific tasks it needed to accomplish to implement makerspaces in the district, making the best use of limited meeting time. Prior to the first meeting of the m akerspace des ign committee members worked collaboratively using a shared online document to develop a logic model to guide its work toward the implementation of school library makerspaces. The logic model, which was later collaboratively revised by the group, defined purpose for implementing school library makerspaces in the district, the resources available or needed for implementation, the activities to be accomplished for the project to be successful, the deliverables to be developed from the activities and the short mid and long term outcomes anticipated through the implementation of school library makerspaces. The committee often referred to this document to focus its efforts, and it was instrumental to the successful completion of much of the wo rk accomplished by the group. Similarly, the m akerspace design committee established a shared understanding of school library makerspace implementation expectations early in the design process
265 through the collaborative development of an Innovation Configur ation Map specifying school library makerspaces. The discussions in which the members of the committee engaged to establish the ICM served to allow committee members to s hare their understanding of makerspaces and of the learning theory of constructionism with each other, to ask questions, and to allow me as library coordinator of the district, to clarify my vision of school library makerspaces in the district. Establish ing this shared understanding so early in the design process allowed the committee to use this as the foundation for its other work, including the development of a mission and vision statement and of guidelines for the design and facilitation of school lib rary makerspaces. Operating on this shared foundational understanding of acceptable makerspace implementation is another way in which the design process was successful. The m akerspace design committee utilized a variety of collaborative processes as disc ussed in Chapter Four to develop the mission and vision statement and the guidelines for the design and facilitation of school library makerspaces mentioned above. Though each member of the committee brought with her a different level of experience in the field of education, in the field of library science, and with the concept of makerspaces, all members shared the desire to learn more about the underlying principles of makerspaces and to bring the opportunity to create and innovate to students through th e implementation of a makerspace in the school library. Therefore, all members approached the development of these various documents with an open mind, engaging in meaningful discussions, and willingly changing their perspective
266 when an alternative perspe ctive made more sense or when literature reviewed by the group showed such a change was warranted. This open mindedness and willingness to change perspectives was a strength of the group and was another important way in which the design process was succes sful. Many members of the m akerspace design committee had the opportunity to visit nearby school library makerspaces to see how others were implementing them. They then shared with the rest of the committee what they learned from these visits, and the g roup discussed these makerspace implementations in comparison to the planned implementation in our district. This is another way in which the design process was successful, as these discussions helped the committee further clarify goals for implementation collaborative development of the ICM, the mission and vision statement, and the several sets of guidelines for the design and facilitation of school library makerspaces, this core grou p has a solid common understanding of how school library makerspaces in the district are to be designed, implemented, and facilitated. This common understanding allows this group to share a unified message regarding makerspace implementation with other li brarians, teachers, administrators, parents, and other interested parties. Too, while there may be differences in their makerspaces based on the needs and challenges of each building, this common understanding ensures a level of consistency regarding the principles and philosophies underlying the implementation of these spaces.
267 A final way in which the design process was successful is that there are several tangible artifacts that have resulted thus far through the collaborative efforts of the m akerspace d esign committee that can be shared with other librarians in the district who want to start a makerspace. These artifacts include the ICM, the MDFG, the DFG EMPM, and the Mission and Vision Statements. The ability to share these documents and the underlyi ng principles and philosophies contained within them across the district to all librarians will help ensure consistency in the implementation of school library makerspaces not just within the design team, but throughout the entire district library program. Design Process Areas for Improvement While the design process used by the m akerspace design committee was successful in many ways, there are areas where it could have been improved. One such improvement pertains to the scheduling of meetings. Friday wa s selected as the day that meetings would be scheduled as this was the day the highest number of committee members, including myself were available to attend during the school day. Specific dates were chosen based on the availability of committee members to attend with the fewest substitutes needed to cover scheduled classes or events. Over the course of three semesters, the committee met twelve times, each meeting lasting three hours. While this is a substantial amount of time, the committee was unabl e to complete all its designated tasks during these meetings. As such, the design process would be improved by scheduling additional meetings, or, perhaps, full day rather than half day meetings, allowing additional work to be completed. Another option m ight be to schedule meetings outside of the school day, perhaps in the evenings or on weekends, so that more members of the committee would be readily
268 available to attend. Given that these meetings would be outside of contracted work hours, there would be a cost to the district to pay the committee members for their attendance, precluding this as an option if funding were not available. Yet another option would be to assign tasks to individual committee members to be completed prior to the next meeting, b ut this would be somewhat problematic as it would again be requiring librarians to put in additional work beyond their contracted hours without compensation. My school district offers Professional Growth Courses (PGC) in the evenings and on weekends for w hich faculty are paid to attend. Setting up a PGC with the planning and implementation of school library makerspaces as its goal might be a in between classes. Anoth er area where the design process could have been improved is in regards to communication, including communication with other librarians in the district, with central office administrators, and with the Board of Education. Though at the time of this study, the m akerspace design committee had not yet completed the shared online resource repository where district librarians could access the mission and vision statement and the guidelines for makerspace implementation developed by the group, these documents we re emailed to all district librarians upon completion. However, has more time to digest their contents and then, inadvertently, forget about. I believe this, or someth ing similar, happened in regards to the documents sent to district librarians containing the work of the m akerspace design committee as I was contacted multiple times by librarians wanting to start a makerspace asking if any such guidelines
269 existed. Addi tionally, at a makerspace training I conducted after the study was completed, several district librarians were unaware of the specifics of the guidelines developed by the committee. Therefore, a better plan to communicate the work of the team to district librarians throughout the design pro cess would be a useful improvement. Perhaps in addition to emailing the documents to district librarians, it would be helpful to devote a bit of time in the monthly meetings I have with them to reviewing the details of the documents. Similarly, the design process would have been improved by including a plan to communicate the work of the committee with central office administration and with the promotional campaign to co mmunicate with these groups about the concept and benefits of school library makerspaces, it would be helpful to communicate with these groups throughout the process. Sharing the work of the committee as well as completed student projects with central off ice administrators and the Board of Education in the early stages of the design process could lead to additional support for the overall work. Design Process Recommendations to Others For those who might want to undergo a similar design process to the on e described in Chapter Four of this study, I offer several recommendations to better ensure a successful process. It is recommended that several of the members of the design committee have at least a basic knowledge of the project or initiative to be impl emented, and that all members are passionate about its success. In this case, though their level of knowledge of makerspaces varied, many committee members had read articles, attended workshops, or spoken to colleagues about makerspaces prior to
270 joining t he committee. While other members had little to no knowledge of makerspaces, having several members who had some prior knowledge helped ensure more meaningful discussions in the early meetings. If it is not possible to include members who have prior know ledge of the project or initiative to be implemented, I recommend developing a pre requisite set of resources to be reviewed by the committee prior to the first meeting. Alternatively, the first meeting could be devoted to guided exploration of the projec t or initiative. Regarding committee members, it is also recommended that members be selected for the committee, in part, based on their ability to work collaboratively with the team, including their willingness to remain open minded and to change their p erspective on things when warranted. In the case of this study, the members of the design an intentional act. I suspect the design process would not have seen the s ame level of success if the members did not possess such qualities, and I recommend not leaving this to chance when forming the design team. Perhaps it was because district librarians tend to be a fairly small and close knit group, but the meetings ran ver y smoothly and were quite efficient and effective despite the fact that no group norms had been established regarding expected behaviors of the committee. Such norms may include expectations such as follows: Meetings will begin and end on time; No sidebar discussions will take place during meetings; and Treat each other with dignity and respect. I recommend, especially when working with a group who may not be as well known to the team leader as the m akerspace design
271 committee was to me establishing group norms at the first meeting and reminding the group of those norms at the beginning of each subsequent meeting. As discussed above in the design process successes section, the collaborative development of a logic model to focus the work of the team and the collaborative development of an ICM to establish a shared understanding of acceptable implementation of the pro ject or initiative was important to the overall success of the design team in this case. I recommend both these activities be included in the design process for the implementation of a similar project or initiative to the one discussed in this study. Simi larly, the collaborative development of guidelines for the design, implementation, and facilitation of school library makerspaces in my district established a high level of consistency in the implementation of makerspaces in the libraries of the committee members, and, as these are shared with librarians across the district, they will help establish this high level of implementation consistency across the district. At the same time, the guidelines take into account that there are various needs and challeng es individual buildings face, so they allow for some flexibility in how they are implemented in each building. For instance, the ICM lists as optimal implementation that a makerspace be housed in a designated space, but it allows for mobile makerspace car ts under acceptable implementation as not all schools can provide a designated space. Another example of this flexibility is seen in the DFG EMPM that lists suggestions of how to design for and facilitate each part of the EMPM. Each building can meet the se guidelines by selecting from the list of suggestions those that
272 work best for their situation, or by developing other methods that better meet the needs of their building and their students. Beginning in the Fall of 2016, the second semester during wh ich the m akerspace design committee the cost of substitutes for members of the committee who needed one to attend the meetings. This was extremely helpful to continuing the work of the com mittee, but it was not something I planned for ahead of time. Rather, as an afterthought, I reached out to the professional development department to ask if any funds might be available for this purpose. I recommend contacting the professional developmen t department in funding options for various meeting scenarios or for providing substitutes if meetings must take place during the school day. Whether funding is available or not, more effective planning can take place when one knows the options. For those hoping to develop a design case based upon a design process such as the one discussed in this dissertation, I have a few additional recommendations. It was extremely im portant to the development of this design case to have access to a wide variety of documents related to the design process, including the multiple versions of collaboratively developed and revised implementation guidelines and the mission and vision statem ent. It is highly recommended, then, that the person hoping to write a design case put a system in place to track and organize all print and digital documents used as part of the process for later review. In addition to organizing the documents developed through the process, it is equally important to ensure that all aspects of the design process are documented in some way, to the extent possible, such as the
273 processes used by the design team in the development of implementation guidelines and decisions m ade and changed along the way The description of these processes and decisions is an essential part of a design case, adding greatly to the precedent knowledge others may take away from the case (Smith, 2010) If the one writing the design case is also a member of the design team, I recommend that once a committee meeting has begun, focus on the work at hand rather than on the design case. A design case is to be a description of real work that has taken place, including both successes and areas for imp rovement. The fact that one is writing a design case to describe the processes and decisions made should not drive what processes are used or what decisions are made. Rather, the design case should be separate from the design proc ess, and it should provi de an honest refle ction of what took place, good or bad, during the design process. According to Smith (2010), the design process does not necessarily have to be rigorous in order to be the basis of a rigorous case (p. 15). it will be difficult to develop a rigorous case if there are not artifacts and records in some form from the design process, whatever the process may have been (p. 15). R esearch Q uestion Two: Resulting Makerspace Implementation Research question two of this themes surrounding this question that resulted from thematic analysis of the data: Intentionality in Makerspace Implementation which described ways in which the resulting makerspace closely aligned to the various guidelines developed by the m akerspace design committee as well as areas where it did not, and Makerspace Implementation is Successful O verall which highlighted ways i n which the makerspace
274 was viewed as a success while acknowledging changes and improvements the librarian hoped to make going forward. The sections below discuss the results of research question two in the context of the overall successes of the makerspac e implementation, areas for improvement, and recommendations for others wanting to implement a school library makerspace in their own setting while highlighting where these results align to existing literature. Makerspace Implementation Successes As disc ussed in Chapter Five, Mrs. Sprague, the librarian at Elementary School Four, was intentional in her design and facilitation of the library makerspace, striving to closely align to the various guidelines developed by the m akerspace design committee This close alignment to the guidelines is one way in which the resulting makerspace implementation was successful. The guidelines developed by the m akerspace design committee upon which the school library makerspace was based, were, themselves, based largely o n existing literature about makerspaces. Therefore, the resulting school library makerspace implementation also closely aligns in many ways to the makerspace literature. The paragraphs below discuss not only the close alignm ent to the guidelines as a success of the makersp ace implementation, but also the areas where the makerspace im plementation aligns to existing literature. Table 6 1 provides a summ ary of the areas of alignment of makerspace implementation to existing literature
275 Table 6 1. Summary of areas where makerspace im plementation successes align to literature Successful area of makerspace implementation Supporting c itations Purpose/p edagogy Student interest driven Develop self directed learner Encouraging growth mindset Makerspace as community Barron & Martin, 2016; Brahms, 2014; Litts, 2015; Oxman Ryan, et al., 2016; Peppler & Bender, 2013; Peppler, et al., 2016; Resnick, et al., 2016; Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014; Wilkinson, et al. 2016 Learning from others in makerspace Brahms, 2014; Cohen, et al., 2016; Litts, 2015; Ox man Ryan, et al. 2016; Washor & Mojkowski, 2013 School library makerspace allows access to all Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Houston, 2013; Wong, 2013 Importance of adequate budget Kurti, et al. 2014a; Plemmons, 2014 Makerspace environment Space/storage Furniture/flexibility Dcor Blikstein, 2013; Gutwill, et al ., 2015; Houston, 2013; Kurti, et al., 2014a; Kurti, et al., 2014b; Martinez & Stager, 2013; Petrich, et al., 2013; Range & Schmidt, 2014; Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013 Makerspace activities High and low tech Variety of ways to interact Abram, 2013; Blikstein, 2013; Dixon & Ward, 2014; Fredrick, 2015; Kurti, et al., 2014a; Martinez & Stager, 2013; Petrich, et al., 2013; Range & Schmidt, 2014; Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013; Sheridan, et al., 2014; Thomas, 2013 Makerspace facilitation Encourage projects of interest Adults not always experts Discuss projects, ask questions, encourage com plexification Gutwill, et al., 2015; Houston, 2013; Kurti, et al., 2014b ; Petrich, et al, 2013; Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013 Makerspace benefits to students Student engagement Development of 21st century skills Blikstein, 2013; Bowler, 2014; Gutwill, et al., 2015; Kalil, 2013; Makerspace Playbook, 2013; Martin, 2015; Peppler & Bender, 2013; Petrich, et al., 2013; Pisarski, 2014; Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014; Washor & Mojkowski, 2013 One area where the resulting makerspace implementation aligns to makerspace literature is in its underlying pedagogy and purpose. As seen in Chapter Five, one of provide a place where students can pursue their own creative interests, experience
276 individualized learning, and become self directed learners. This is very much in keeping with existing makerspace literature which stresses that the process of making is driven by the interests and/or needs of the individuals who are involved in the making (Litts, 2015; Peppler & Bender, 2013; Peppler, et al., 2016; Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014; Wilkinson, et al. 2016) and that the development of self directed learners is a goal of educ ational makerspaces ( Barron & Martin, 2016; Oxman Ryan, et al., 2016; Resnick, et al., 2016). Mrs. Sprague also spoke of encouraging a growth mindset in her students and Dale Dougherty (2013) based his idea of a maker mindset on the writings of Carol Dweck (2006) regarding a growth mindset, and the development of a maker mindset is another goal of student participation in educational makerspaces identified in the literatur e ( Litts, 2015). The idea of developing a sense of community is closely aligned to existing literature which emphasizes community as an essential element of makerspaces ( Brahms, 2014; Litts, 2015 students to sup makerspaces as being centered around the shared use of space, tools, and materials as well as on the collaboration between and support of members of various levels of expertise during the proc ess and practices of making (Washor & Mojkowski, 2013) The literature also points to the distributed nature of knowledge and learning in a makerspace and the opportunity for members of a makerspace to take advantage of the knowledge and skills of other i ndividuals within the space (Brahms, 2014; Cohen, et al.,
277 201 6; Litts, 2015; Oxman Ryan, et al. 2016). aligned with existing literature. While students in Elementary School Four do not have complete open access t o the library makerspace, Mrs. Sprague successfully found a way to adjust her schedule so that all students in her building had the opportunity to experience participation in the makerspace. This is consistent with makerspace literature that lists access to all as a reason why educational makerspaces are a good fit for school libraries ( Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Houston, 2013 ; Wong, 2013 ). The literature also discusses the importance of funding for the makerspace to be successful, and the challenges tha t can be faced in securing an adequate budget ( Kurti, et al. 2014a; Plemmons, 2014 ). While additional funds are needed for the library makerspace in Elementary School Four, Mrs. Sprague successfully obtained enough tools, materials, and resources through some district level funding, her building PTA, donations, and crowdfunding to implement the makerspace. Another area where the resulting makerspace implementation closely aligns to existing literature is in regards to three aspects of makerspace design: e nvironment, activities, and facilitation of the makerspace. Considerations for the first design aspect, environment, include space/storage, furniture/flexibility, and dcor. As seen in Chapter Five, the library makerspace in Elementary School Four is loc ated in a designated space that was previously a computer lab. The space is quite large, with enough space for individuals and groups to simultaneously work on self directed projects wi th room to walk around while work is being done. There is quite a bit of storage for tools, materials, and resources, and there is adequate lighting and ample electrical outlets. In
278 these ways, the makerspace implementation is closely aligned to suggestions in the existing literature regarding this as pect of the makerspace environment (Houston, 2013; Martinez & Stager, 2013; Petrich, et al. 2013; Range & Schmidt, 2014). Regarding makerspace furniture/flexibility, existing literature recommends that f urniture in the makerspace should be flexible, mobil e, and should encourage collaboration. At the same time, however, the makerspace should readily accommodate those who desire or need to work on a project independently. The needs of both individuals working alone and groups working collaboratively should b e met through the flexible use design of the space (Gutwill, et al. 2015; Houston, 2013; Kurti, et al., 2014b; Petrich, et al., 2013; Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013). While some elements of the school library makerspace in Elementary School Four were beyond t to readily change, such as the built in counters that ran along the two long walls of the space, she did design the space with flexibility in mind, and her design choices are in keeping with the recommendations in the literature. Mr s. Sprague selected lightweight tables and chairs that, while not on casters, were easy to rearrange to accommodate provided space for individual students to work or for groups t o work collaboratively, if desired. The counters running along the walls provided space more conducive to individual work, though some students elected to work collaboratively here, as well. Students working with robots had the flexibility to expand beyo nd the makerspace itself and to use the entire library so they could maneuver the robots without running into others or chancing the robots getting stepped on.
279 While the paint color in the makerspace was another element beyond the adily change, she did carefully select other elements of the makerspace dcor. The posters she chose to display in the space were gender neutral, focusing on such things as explaining the concept of a makerspace, defining and encouraging a growth mindset, defining the STREAM acronym, presenting a design process students could choose to use, and providing steps for students to follow when they needed help. Mrs. Sprague also included specific dcor to reflect the creative spirit of the space, such as the ma kerspace sign she created and the gear clock she hung in the space. These elements of the dcor align to recommendations in the literature that paint colors, posters, signs, etc. should be and that t he dcor should be purposefully chosen to inspire creativity, playfulness, and a sense of wonder (Blikstein, 2013; Kurti, et al., 2014a; Martinez & Stager, 2013). The resulting makerspace implementation is also closely aligned to existing literature in the makerspace design aspect of activities. According to existing literature, activities available to students in the makerspace ought to include both high tech and low tech options (Abram, 2013; Blikstein, 2013; Dixon & Ward, 2014; Fredrick, 2015; Kurti, et al., 2014a; Marti nez & Stager, 2013; Range & Schmidt, 2014; Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013; Thomas, 2013 ) As seen in Chapter Five, the school library makerspace in Elementary School Four offers six different activity areas to students ranging from a low tech arts and crafts a rea to high tech computer coding and robotics areas, in keeping with the recommendation of the literature. In each activity area, there are a variety of ways for students to interact with the theme of the area, some activities allowing students with no e xperience to find quick
280 success and other activities challenging more experienced students. This is very much in line with makerspace literature which suggests that makerspace a ctivities should have multiple entry points and pathways to participation so s tudents of varying knowledge levels can be challenged and successful and so students have freedom to explore within the theme (Blikstein, 2013; Petrich, et al., 2013; Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013; Sheridan, et al., 2014) This is another way the makerspace is successful regarding the design aspect of activities. The final makerspace design aspect wherein the resulting makerspace implementation is closely aligned to existing literature is in the facilitation of the makerspace. Results of the study seen in Ch apter Five show that Mrs. Sprague created a welcoming space where students pursued projects and activities of interest, similar to what is suggested in the literature ( Petrich, et al, 2013 ) She encouraged students to learn what they needed to know for th eir activities and projects in a variety in the library, or online, or asking for assistance from more knowledgeable peers. Mrs. Sprague even included an expert wal l in the makerspace to facilitate this process. While she and the other adults offered assistance to students when needed, learning from the adults was not emphasized as the primary way for students to gain the knowledge they needed for their projects and activities. This is consistent with makerspace literature discouraging adults from being the experts in the space (Kurti, et al., 2014b) When she noticed a student exhibiting frustration, rather than providing the answer they needed, Mrs. Sprague often discussed the activity or project with the student. She asked questions and assisted the student through the process of finding
281 the answer needed to continue. Mrs. Sprague also used a variety of methods to encourage students to complexify their activiti es or projects, such as encouraging facilitation of the school library makerspace, then, is closely aligned to the recommendations for makerspace facilitation found in t he literature ( Gutwill, et al., 2015 ; Houston, 2013; Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013 ). Another way in which the resulting makerspace implementation was successful is that, as seen in the results of this study, all participant groups expressed during intervi ews that students enjoyed their time in the space, and researcher observations and the librarian interview indicated that the majority of students were engaged during their time in the makerspace. The literature suggests that sustained engagement of stude nts is a benefit often seen in makerspaces in schools (Peppler & Bender, 2013) so this result is consistent with the literature. Librarian and teacher interview results showed that students seem to be gaining 21 st century skills through participation in the makerspace. For example, the librarian and teacher mentioned that students were collaborating, thinking critically, problem solving, and expressing creativity. These are but a few of the 21 st century skills suggested in the existing literature that students gain through participation in makerspaces (Blikstein, 2013; Bowler, 2014; Gutwill, et al., 2015; Kalil, 2013; Makerspace Playbook, 2013; Martin, 2015; Petrich, et al., 2013; Pisarski, 2014; Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014; Washor & Mojkowski, 2013). A fin al area of success of the resulting makerspace implementation is that teachers in the building, who at first were skeptical, came to see the value of their
282 my district to be succ essful long term, it is important for others to buy in to them and to be supportive of them. That teachers in this building so quickly came to see the value of this space to their students bodes well for the possibility of gaining support for school libra ry makerspaces from other teachers, principals, and central office administrators. Makerspace Implementation Areas for Improvement While the implementation of the library makerspace in Elementary School Four experienced a great deal of success, there are a reas where the implementation could be improved. For instance, though Mrs. Sprague was able to make adjustments to her library schedule that allowed all students to have the opportunity to experience participation in the makerspace, they do not have compl etely open access to the space, and their time in the makerspace is very limited. This resulted in students not having enough time to complete projects or choosing not to pursue a project in which they were interested for fear they would not have time to complete it. Mrs. Sprague may be able to find ways to offer students additional time in the makerspace, such as sponsoring an after school makerspace club or hosting evening or weekend makerspace events. However, substantial improvements may only come th rough the examination and restructuring of the school day, devoting a segment of the day to student personalized learning, during which students could choose to work in the makerspace. While this is beyond the control of the librarian to change, personali zed learning has become a topic of conversation in my school district. The makerspace budget is a nother area for improvement. While I have provid ed so me district level funds from my budget to support school library makerspaces across the district there is not funding devoted specifically to support them. While the funds I
283 contributed and the donations the librarian procured were sufficient to launch the makerspace, consistent, dedicated fun ding is necessary to sustain it Regarding the makersp ace design aspect of environment, one area where the makerspace implementation is lacking is in storage space available for both sample projects and ongoing student projects. This lack of storage space for projects precludes the makerspace from following the suggestion found in some makerspace literature to display a variety of levels of previously completed projects in the makerspace ( Petrich, et al., 2013; Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013 ). It also limits the projects students can make, as they cannot store on going projects in the makerspace, and, therefore, may not choose to pursue such a project. While the school library makerspace in Elementary School Four provides a wide variety of tools, materials, and resources for student use, there are areas for impro vement in this aspect of the makerspace design, as well. Bringing in guest makers as a resource for students wanting to learn a specific skill is included in the guidelines developed by the m akerspace design committee but is not currently being done in th e makerspace. As mentioned in Chapter Five, this is, in part, because the design team has not completed its work in this area, and procedures for bringing guest makers into the building while still following district policies regarding visitors still need to be developed. However, guest makers would be a valuable resource for student makers, so this is an area where improvement could be made. available to students in print and/or digital format that they could use to plan projects, document their progress, and reflect on their process and their learning. This is anot her
284 guideline of the design team that has not yet been implemented but that would improve print and digital resources in the makerspace for students to use to gain the know ledge they need for their projects would improve makerspace implementation. There are some print resources currently available to students in the makerspace for this purpose, but they are not prominently displayed and are, therefore, easy to overlook. Mak ing these existing resources more visible to students would be another area for improvement. During interviews, students mentioned a variety of additional resources and activities, listed in Chapter Five, that they would like to have added to the makerspa ce. Determining specific resources and activities all students would like to see included in the makerspace through an interest survey or checklist and then purchasing as many as possible for inclusion in the makerspace would be another way to improve the makerspace implementation. Also, expanding the technology available to students to include such things as 3D printers and laser engravers would be a useful improvement which would allow students many more project options. As the DFG EMPM were not finali zed by the m akerspace design committee until January 2017, midway through the first year of implementation of the school library makerspace in Elementary School Four and only a few months prior to the start of this study, it was not a surprising finding th at there were areas where the makerspace was not yet closely aligned to these guidelines. However, makerspace implementation would be improved through closer alignment to them. In particular, implementation would be improved by more closely aligning to t he Sharing, Documenting Progress, and Reflection/Formative Self assessment portions of the DFG EMPM.
285 The makerspace implementation could also be improved by rethinking some of the rules that have been implemented for the space that have led to some unint ended consequences to student making or by clarifying these rules for students so that they no longer negatively impact student making. The two rules that were discussed in Chapter d choose one activity area to work in during your makerspace visit. These rules led to some students not selecting certain projects because they did not think they could explore, tinker, or make unsuccessful prototypes, and some students who did not think they could integrate elements of one activity area with those of another to create a project that was a combination of both. Perhaps the development of a reflective form for the librarian overseeing the makerspace would help bring such issues to light. Finally, the implementation and facilitation of the school library makerspace could be improved with the development and delivery of a training program fo r librarians specifically on facilitation of a makerspace. While the design committee has developed v arious sets of guidelines, it has not yet developed a specific training program for the facilitation of a makerspace. Doing so would likely lead to improvements in makerspace Makers pace Implementation Recommendations to Others Especially if implementing school library makerspaces across a district with multiple sites, I strongly recommend to others the development of guidelines that can be used for the design, implementation, and fac ilitation of these spaces. Theme one of research question two found that these guidelines can be utilized by the librarian to intentionally design the school library makerspace. While it is likely that not every guideline will be met by every district si te due to the individual needs and challenges of
286 each building, the existence and intentional use of th ese guidelines for makerspace implementation was found in theme two of research question two of this study to lead to an overall successful implementatio n closely aligned in many ways to existing literature regarding makerspaces. It is important to note that I recommend that others develop their own guidelines for the design, implementation, and facilitation of school library makerspaces using a similar p rocess to the one described in this study rather than attempting to adopt the guidelines developed in my school district. The purpose, my district, and the guidelines for the design, implementation, and facilitation of school library makerspaces would likely need to be different as well. Though I strongly recommend the development of guidelines as stated above, I also recommend moving forward with implementation even if n ot every guideline has yet been met. As seen in theme two of research question two, t he school library makerspace in Elementary School Four experienced many areas of success even though it had not yet implemented all of the guidelines of the design team. While the guidelines, students were still able to participate in the makerspace and to begin to experience making as a learning process in the meantime. I also recommend deve loping and implementing a training program for facilitators of the space that goes beyond learning about the philosophy and guidelines. Rather, the training should teach librarians how to facilitate student making. This would allow for increased consiste ncy in the facilitation of the makerspaces just as the guidelines allowed for consistency in the design and implementation of the spaces and would help
287 address an area for improvement to implementation mentioned in theme two by the librarian, specifically increasing alignment to the EMPM Finally, I recommend developing a promotional campaign to educate others (teachers, principals, central office administrators, school board, parents) about the underlyi ng philosophy and purpose of makerspaces and to high light them in action. This is an activity included on the log ic model to be completed by the design committee in my district, but that has not yet been accomplished. I recommend making this a priority earlier in the process to help gain much needed suppo rt for the makerspaces. Gaining such support might alleviate other areas for improvement mentioned in theme two by participants, such as establishing consistent funding or determining ways to allow more time in the schedule for students to participate in the makerspace. R esearch Q uestion Three: Student Participation in Makerspace In what ways do students experience participation in the resulting school library makerspace? this study presented the six themes surroundi ng this question that resulted from thematic analysis of the data: Students experience adults as facilitators of making process; Students have access to makerspace at a variety of times ; Students participate in a wide variety of self directed projects and activities within the limitations of time, resources, safety issues, and makerspace rules ; The majority of students are purposefully engaged in and enjoy participation in makerspace ; Student making experience compared to EMPM; and Students benefit from par ticipation in makerspace. The sections below discuss the results of research question three in the context of the overall successes of student participation in the makerspace, areas for
288 improvement, and recommendations for others regarding student particip ation in the makerspace while highlighting where these results align to existing literature. Student Participation Successes the resulting makerspace was successful as well experience of participation aligns with existing literature. Table 6 2 provides a summary of this alignment which is discussed in the paragraphs below. When Seymour Papert ( 1991 b p.19) shared his vision of constructi onist learning environments, he described them as places where children are engaged in constructing things are engaged in activity they experience as meaningful advised by an empathic, helpful consultant colleague teach er. stressed the importance of these learning environments support ing and being facilitated by the availability of technology and supportive adults ( Papert, 1991b ; Papert, 1993a; Papert, 1993 b ). As seen in the results of this study, the library makerspace in Elementary School Four operates as a student centered environment wherein students select projects and activities of their choice based on their interests or needs. There is some technology ava ilable to them to support their making process, and the adults in the space facilitate rather than direct student making efforts. That students experience participation in the makerspace as self directed learners in the pursuit of personally meaningful pr ojects and activities and are supported by adults who facilitate their which student participation in the makerspace was successful.
289 Table 6 2. Summary of areas where s tudent participatio n experience successes align to literature Area of student participation success Supporting c itations Self directed learners in the pursuit of personally meaningful projects and activities supported by adults who facilitate their making process Papert, 1991b; Papert, 1993a; Papert, 1993b All students have some opportunity to participate in school library makerspace Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Houston, 2013; Wong, 2013 Students choose projects based on personal interest or needs Litts, 2015; Peppler & Bender, 2013; Peppler, et al., 2016; Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014; Wilkinson, et al. 2016 Students participate in a variety of high and low tech projects and activities, ongoing and one and done Abram, 2013; Blikstein, 2013; Dixon & Ward, 2014; Fredrick, 2015; Kurti, et al., 2014a; Martinez & Stager, 2013; Range & Schmidt, 2014; Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013; Thomas, 2013 Students purposefully engaged during their time in makerspace Gutwill, et al., 2015; Makerspace Pl aybook, 2013; Martin, 2015; Peppler & Bender, 2013 Students experience Inspiration phase of EMPM, based on existing literature Litts, 2015; Peppler & Bender, 2013; Peppler, et al., 2016; Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014 ; Wilkinson, et al. 2016 Students experience Ideation phase of EMPM, a similar step found in other processes Martinez and Stager, 2013; McGalliard, 2016; Resnick, 2007 Students experience Making phase of EMPM, variety of approaches, individualized learning Blikstein & Worsley, 2016; Brahms, 2014; Martin, 2015; Sheridan, et al., 2014 Students experience Iteration phase of EMPM, similar to aspect of making seen in literature Dougherty, 2013; Regalla, 2016; Tseng, 2016; Wilkinson, et al., 2016 Students experience Op tional and Flexible Collaboration Gabrielson, 2013; Litts, 2015; Martinez & Stager, 2013; Peppler, et al., 2016; Regalla, 2016; Sheridan & Konopasky, 2016 Students experience Continuous Feedback Martin, 2015; Resnick, et al., 2016; Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013; Tseng, 2016; Wilkinson, et al., 2016 Students learned STEM re lated skills as coding and seem ed to gain background knowledge in other areas such as force and motion Britton, 2012; Houston, 2013; Peppler & Bender, 2013; Quinn & Bell, 2013; Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014; Worsley & Blikstein, 2014 Student recognized skills he learned as helpful for a future STEM career Blikstein, 2013; Britton, 2012; Houston, 2013; Kalil, 2013 Students who participated in the school library makerspace practiced several of the 21 st century skills found in the literature Blikstein, 2013; Bowler, 2014; Gutwill, et al., 2015; Kalil, 2013; Makerspace Playbook, 2013; Martin, 2015; Petrich, et al., 2013; Pisarski, 2014; Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014; Washor & Mojkowski, 2013
290 As discussed previously, all students in Elementary School Four have some opportunity to participate in the school library makerspace. Additionally, some students used the makerspace during their recess t ime, and yet others earned additional time in given in the literature for locating a makerspace in the school library is that it is one of few spaces in a school that all s tudents have access to, regardless of their class schedule ( Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Houston, 2013 ; Wong, 2013 ). While the amount of time students in this study had in the makerspace was less than ideal, that all students in the school were able to exp erience participation in the makerspace at some level is another area of success, and it reinforces the point made in the literature regarding the placement of makerspaces in school libraries. Another area of success regarding student participation in the makerspace was the finding that students had autonomy to choose making projects or activities based on personal interests or needs, and, as such, a wide variety of individual projects were observed taking place simultaneously during any given makerspa ce visit. The student autonomy seen in the study echoes existing literature which shows that an important aspect of the process of making is that it should be driven by the interests and/or needs of the individuals involved in the making (Litts, 2015; Pep pler & Bender, 2013; Peppler, et al., 2016; Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014 ; Wilkinson, et al. 2016). As discussed in Chapter Five, students in the school library makerspace in Elementary School Four participated in both high tech and low nd with the expectations for the types of projects and activities that would be seen in a
291 school library makerspace based on the recommendations from the literature of w hat to offer to students in the space (Abram, 2013; Blikstein, 2013; Dixon & Ward, 2014; Fredrick, 2015; Kurti, et al., 2014a; Martinez & Stager, 2013; Range & Schmidt, 2014; Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013; Thomas, 2013 ) The results of this study also showe d that the majority of students enjoyed their time in the makerspace and were purposefully engaged during the entirety of their visit. This is another area of success regarding student participation in the makerspace, and one which also aligns to existing makerspace literature. As seen in Chapter Five, students were excited to enter the makerspace, eager to get started on their projects, worked on those projects during the entirety of their visit, and were disappointed when time was called to be done for the day and clean up. Some students were seen to have planned their projects ahead of time outside of makerspace time and even brought the necessary materials and supplies for their projects with them so they could spend their time in the makerspace worki ng on the project. These observed student behaviors hearken back to existing literature wherein s ustained student engagement is consistently seen as a purported benefit of makerspaces in schools (Peppler & Bender, 2013). A study co nducted in the Tinkerin g Studio (Gutwill, et al., 2015) identified ne indicator of engagement observed in those participating in making ac tivities. E lsewhere in the literature making activities are said to be motivating and e ngaging (Martin, 2015) a nd makers are said to be Makerspace Playbook, 2013). Students observed as part of this study were purposefully engaged during their time in the makerspace and, consistent with the
292 literature, displayed behaviors as listed above that could certainly be described as motivated. Though the m akerspace design committee did not finalize the DFG EMPM until January 2017, halfway through the first year of implementation of the school librar y makerspace in Elementary School Four and just a few months prior to the start of this study, results found that students still experienced making as a process aligned closely to many of the phases of the EMPM As the EMPM was developed based on existing literature, student participation in the school library makerspace successfully replicated many elements of the making process identified in the literature. Results of the study showed, for instance, that students participating in the school library make rspace selected making projects based on their personal needs or interests rather than completing teacher directed or curriculum driven projects. This not only aligned to the emphasizes the importance to the making process of individuals selecting projects based on their own interests and/or needs (Litts, 2015; Peppler & Bender, 2013; Peppler, et al., 2016; Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014 ; Wilkinson, et al. 2016). Students were also observed exploring various activities in the makerspace without a particular goal in mind, and one phase of the EMPM, and it is also discussed in the literature as a valuable part of the making process, though it is often referred to in the literature as tinkering. Some in the literature even recommend focusing less on projects and more on tinkering in educational
293 makerspaces as inspiration for personally meaningful projects often results from tinkering (Peppler & Bender, 2013). Ideation phase of the EMPM during their part icipation in the school library makerspace. During this step, students begin to visualize their project in their heads or to draw out or write down plans for their project, something that was also seen repeatedly in the literature. Similar steps are foun d in three processes discussed in Chapter Two of this tep of the Creative Play Spiral (McGalliard, 2016). EMPM through participation in the school library makerspace. Students in the study were observed utilizing a variety of appro aches to this step of the EMPM. Some students utilized a tinkering approach to making, experimenting with the materials or resources at hand without a solid plan in mind. Other students took a more planned and thoughtful approach, determining and then ga thering the tools, resources, and knowledge needed and then problem solving through possibly multiple attempts to create a completed project. The variety of approaches to the Making step taken by students are similar to some of the learning practices Bra hms (2014) identified in her based on the specific needs of the project at hand is also consistent with existing
294 literature (Blikstein & Worsley, 2016; Brahms, 2014; Martin, 2015; Sheridan, et al., 2014). EMPM as part of their making process, making changes or improvements to their projects that did not turn out as expected or desired. Existing literature states that making is often an iterative process (Dougherty, 2013; Regalla, 2016) wherein one makes a project through a series of starts and stops, going back to the beginning to learn additional information before being able to move forward again (Tseng, 2016; Wilkinson, et al., 2016). While this is a step of the EMPM that needs to be further encouraged in students, I consider it a success that at least a few students experienced iteration as part of their making process during the course of the study. Another phase of the EMPM that students exhibited as part of their making process during the study was Optional and Flexible Collaboration. Some students chose to work on projects or activities individually. However, even when this was the case, other students assisted them in a variety of ways when and as needed or desired, which is consistent with exist ing literature (Litts, 2015; Regalla, 2016; Sheridan & Konopasky, 2016). Study results also found that students collaborated with others by working side by side on separate projects and by working collaboratively on shared projects. This, too, is consist ent with existing literature which showed that collaborating with others as needed or wanted is another part of the making process (Gabrielson, 2013; Martinez & Stager, 2013 ; Peppler, et al., 2016).
295 Study results also showed that students experienced Con tinuous Feedback as part of their making process, another part of the EMPM. Existing literature suggests that continual feedback is inherent to the process of making (Martin, 2015; Resnick, et al., 2016; Wilkinson, et al., 2016), and that students may rec eive this feedback from a variety of sources and in a variety of ways. According to the literature, students may receive kudos from others about a project that turned out well (Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013; Tseng, 2016). The study found that while feedback from others beyond their own classmates was limited, students in the school library makerspace in Elementary School Four did receive feedback in this manner, though, at times, the feedback was negative. Students in the study also received feedback from th e projects they made or the activities in which they participated. This finding is consistent with existing literature which states that feedback also comes from the created artifact itself in the form of whether or not it works or behaves as intended (Ma rtin, 2015; Resnick, et al., 2016; Wilkinson, et al., 2016). Another area of success of student participation in the school library makerspace is that students seemed to benefit in several ways from their participation. Results of the study found that students learned such STEM related skills as coding through makerspace participation while also seeming to gain background knowledge in other areas such as force and motion. Some students stated that they increased their ability in more art related areas such as painting, or were observed learning a new practical skill, such as sewing. This finding echoes the broad agreement seen in the literature that makerspaces could have a potential positive impact on student learning in the areas of science, techno logy, engineering, and math (STEM) as well as the arts
296 (STEAM) (Britton, 2012; Houston, 2013; Peppler & Bender, 2013; Quinn & Bell, 2013; Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014; Worsley & Blikstein, 2014) During an interview, one student referred to the fact that the c oding he was learning in the makerspace would be helpful if he someday became an engineer. This may indicate that, as the literature suggests, makerspaces provide an entry point for students to develop an interest in STEM and STEM related careers (Blikste in, 2013; Britton, 2012; Houston, 2013; Kalil, 2013). Existing makerspace literature purports that students stand to gain 21 st century skills through participation in a makerspace (Blikstein, 2013; Bowler, 2014; Gutwill, et al., 2015; Kalil, 2013; Makerspa ce Playbook, 2013; Martin, 2015; Petrich, et al., 2013; Pisarski, 2014; Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014; Washor & Mojkowski, 2013). Results of this study found that students who participated in the school library makerspace practiced several of the 21 st century s kills found in the literature, including teamwork, collaboration, problem solving, critical thinking, independent learning, a growth mindset, focus, and playful learning. A final way in which student participation in the makerspace was a success is that st udents who did not always do well in the traditional school environment excelled in the makerspace. Some students who often got into trouble in the regular classroom became very engaged in creative pursuits in the makerspace. Students who were not always academically successful in the classroom were able to explore concepts in the makerspace and experience success with them. Students were able to expand beyond how others typically saw them, such as athletic, to discover new interests in the makerspace.
297 Student Participation Areas for Improvement As seen in the section above, there were many areas of success regarding are several ways in which their experience of parti cipation could be improved. One such improvement, which was also listed as an area of improvement for makerspace implementation, is for students to have more time in the makerspace to work on their projects. While results of the study showed that all stu dents had some opportunity to participate in the makerspace during scheduled library times and that some students had access to the makerspace at other times such as during their recess, the amount of time students get in the makerspace is quite limited. This time limitation was found to in which they were interested because they did not have enough time to complete them. Rather, these students chose less complex proje cts or activities because they fit within the time constraints. Providing more time for students in the makerspace, then, could improve the way in which students experience participation by allowing them to pursue more complex projects of personal interes t. participation could be improved in this area. While some students chose projects that took more than one makerspace visit to complete, many of the projects students made were quite s implistic. Some students chose to make a more simplistic project because that was their interest at the time or perhaps because they were unsure what else to make. For these students, the librarian and other adults can encourage increased complexity in t heir projects. However, other students seem to have chosen more simplistic projects for other reasons, such as the time constraints mentioned above, the
298 lack of storage for ongoing projects, a lack of resources such as enough Legos for students to keep th eir projects intact between makerspace visits, and misconceptions regarding the integration of elements from various activity areas into a single project. Addressing and making improvements to the issues underlying these reasons for student choice of simp participation by removing barriers to their pursuit of more complex projects. Interestingly, the projects student chose to make seemed, overall, to be impacted by gender notions Intention ally including materials and resources in the makerspace that provide an entry point for students into areas where they might otherwise be hesitant to participate is another way student participation could be improved regarding projects. E Textiles, which have been shown to allow an entry point into computer programming for some students, especially young girls (Kafai, et al. 2014) is one example of the type of materials that could be included to improve this aspect of student participation. Another improvement to the way in which students experience participation in the makerspace would be through increased facilitation of student making as a process as defined in the EMPM. While study results showed that students did experience many of the phases of the EMPM as part of their making process, other phases of the process have yet to have oppo rtunities to share their projects and their learning beyond their classroom. Sharing completed projects and the knowledge gained from making them is seen in the literature as an important aspect of making (Dougherty, 2013; Regalla, 2016; Rusk,
299 2016) as we ll as one of the core learning practices of the adult making community (Brahms, 2014) Two other parts of the EMPM that could improve the student experience of participation if more intentionally facilitated as part of the student making process are Docu menting Progress and Reflection/Formative Self Assessment. Results showed that a few students developed their own way of tracking their progress during a making notebook to use to document their progress or to use for reflection and self assessment, nor were they encouraged to do so by the adult facilitators. Existing literature, though, shows that it is common for makers to document what they have tried and learned throughout the making process ( Martinez & Stager, 2013 ; Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013) as it helps the individual maker keep track of what has already been done or tried throughout a long term making project and it allows the project and the process to be more readily sh ared with others once the project is complete (Resnick, et al., 2016). Providing students with opportunities to share their completed projects and their document their prog ress and to participate in reflection and self assessment would improve their overall making experience, increase their ability to articulate what they have learned, and encourage their development as makers. Student Participation Recommendations to Others Just as I strongly recommended that others develop guidelines on which to base makerspace design, implementation, and facilitation related to research question two, I strongly recommend that others base student participation in the makerspace on a well de fined process of student making, such as the EMPM. Having an agreed upon
300 definition of the process of student making in place allows greater consistency in how students experience making across all makerspaces in an organization. Theme five of research q uestion three showed how student participation in the makerspace can be aligned to the EMPM. Whether others adopt the EMPM or develop their own definition of the process of student making based on their own review of the literature, I also recommend cons idering the success of the makerspace based on the degree to which students are developing as makers who experience making as a process rather than on the completion of certain projects or the development of a certain set of skills by all students. A meas urement tool to gauge this type of success would need to be created. Finally, as mentioned as a recommendation related to research question two, I recommend that a specific training program be developed and implemented for the facilitation of the makerspac e based on the EMPM or other definition of the process of student making adopted by an organization. This would help alleviate some of the areas of improvement listed above where students were not experiencing certain steps of the EMPM as part of their ow n making process as was shown in theme five for research question two Implications This design case dissertation served to document the processes used and decisions made by a team of librarians in my school district who worked to develop guidelines for t also described the resulting makerspace implementation and the ways in which students experienced participation in the resulting makerspace, discussing both areas of success and areas for improvement. The sections below discuss the implications of
301 the results of the study for my professional practice and local context, for other school districts wanting to implement library makerspaces, for the field of library science, and for the st udy of makerspaces as learning environments. Professional Practice and Local Context As library coordinator for my school district, I led the m akerspace design committee through the process of developing guidelines for the implementation o f school library makerspaces in our district. As such, the ways in which the design process was a success as well as ways in which it could be improved as discussed earlier in this chapter have direct impli cations to my professional practice and local con text. While the work of the m akerspace design committee is nearly complete, there will be other occasions in my position when I will need to make use of a similar process to implement another program or initiative. The re s ults of this study will help me make needed adjustments to the design process to ensure an even higher level of success in those future endeavors. The results of research questions two and three of this study have more immediate implicatio ns for my professional practice and local context. The results of these two research questions were discussed above showing the areas of success and areas for improvement of the resulting makerspace implementation as well as for the ways in which students experien ce participation in the school library makerspace. This information will allow me to work with the m akerspace design committee as well as with any other librarians in my district who have implemented a makerspace to make the adjustments needed to improve the makerspace implementations as well as the immediate areas of improvement I plan to encourage are to ensure the display of completed projects as well as the storage
302 of ongoing projects, to provide stu dents with a resource to use and to encourage them to document their progress and to reflect on their process and their learning, and to provide opportunities for students to share their completed projects and the knowledge gained through making them. Mul tiple themes discussed in Chapter Five for both research question two and research question three showed that these elements were lacking and that this was impacting the student making process. For Other Districts The results of this study also have implic ations for other districts wanting to implement school library makerspaces. As a design case dissertation, the main purpose of this study was to preserve the precedent knowledge gained by the design team through the design and implementation of school lib rary makerspaces in my district and to pass this on to others. I believe that the detailed descriptions of the experience of participation, and the discussion of the areas of su ccess, areas for improvement, and researcher recommendations have accomplished that goal. Other districts wanting to implement school library makerspaces could learn from the process and results described in this study and use the knowledge gained to cond uct their own design and implementation process. While I do not recommend that other districts simply adopt the guidelines that were developed by the m akerspace design committee in my district, I do recommend that other districts develop their own guid elines. The detailed processes described in this study provide other districts a potential framework to use for the development of their own guidelines. I also recommend that other districts adopt a common definition of the making process that they hope to facilitate in students. In this case, other districts
303 may want to adopt the EMPM presented in this study that was developed based on existing literature rather than developing their own, and I encourage them to do so. For Field of School Library Scienc e Makerspaces have become quite popular in the field of library science, and m any trade journals in the field discuss school library makerspaces and provide advice about starting one (Canino Fluit, 2 014; Loertscher, et al. 2013; Range & Schmidt, 2014). However, there has been very little research done on school library makerspaces. The results of this study have implications for the field of school library science in that it adds to a very limited body of knowledge on this topic. While descriptive in nature, this study provides school librarians detailed information about a process that might be used to design and implement school library makerspaces as well as what a resulting makerspace implementation might look like and how students might experience participation in the makerspace. Those who are new to the concept of makerspaces could benefit from these detailed descriptions, including the vignettes included as part of the study results. More importantly, however, the presentation of the EMPM provi des school librarians a way to understand student making as a process that can be intentionally facilitated. For the Study of Makerspaces as Learning Environments The results of this study also add to the growing body of knowledge of makerspaces as learn ing environments, very little of which has thus far focused on school library makerspaces. The major implication of this study for this body of knowledge is the EMPM I developed as a way to understand making as a process. I developed the EMPM based on th e elements of making repeatedly found in existing literature. It is my hope that the EMPM can lead to a common understanding within the
304 field of educational making as a process that can be intentionally facilitated. This common understanding of education al making as a process could then become the basis of research into the best methods to facilitate this process to develop student makers. Future Research This study was conducted with one class of students in a single elementary school. Conducting additi onal studies focusing on research questions two and three of this study with other classes of students, in multiple elementary schools, or in school libraries with makerspaces on mobile carts would be useful to see if similar themes resulted. This is one area where future research could be conducted. A design case is descriptive in nature and is not intended to show a causal connection between such things as student participation in a school library makerspace and academic achievement. As such, this study did not attempt to make any such statements of causality. However, there are several areas of research stemming from the results of this study where such causal connections could be explored. One avenue for future research would be exploring the connect ion between student participation in the makerspace and learning of various content area knowledge. This study showed that students seemed to gain background knowledge in some content areas, but further research could explore whether and to what degree st udents are gaining such knowledge as a result of makerspace participation. Similarly, future research could development of 21 st century skills such as confidence, teamwork, problem solving, and growth mindset. This study revealed that the librarian and the classroom teacher
305 believed that their students were gaining these skills through makerspace participation, but future researc h could explore the possibility of a causal connection. As mentioned in the discussion of the results of research question three earlier in t his chapter, the majority of projects and activities students chose to participate in during their time in the make rspace seemed to be impacted by gender notions Future research could explore whether the introduction of materials intended to allow students access into areas they might otherwise be hesitant to attempt has an effect on their project choices Many stu dents who were part of this study participated in makerspace activities related to STEM areas, and at least one student mentioned how the skills he was learning in the makerspace would be helpful if he someday chose to be an engineer. Future research coul d explore this area to determine if a connection exists between student participation in the school library makerspace and an interest in STEM subject areas and/or STEM careers. Another potential area of future research is to explore the reasons why some s in making projects or activities. Are these students disengaged from the making process during every makerspace visit, or just during some visits? What are the reason s for their disengagement? How do seemingly innocuous rules that govern student behavior in the makerspace impact their level of engagement? Understanding why these students are disengaged may help develop ways to better engage them in the process.
306 A fin al area of future research is in r elation to the EMPM While students were found in this study to experience many steps of the EMPM as part of their own making process, there were other steps that they did not experience. Why? Is it because these guidel ines were so new that the librarian had not yet had the chance to fully implement them? Are some steps harder to implement, requiring even greater intentionality on the part of the facilitator than what was seen in this study? Can certain steps of the pr ocess students further develop as makers? Research in this area could lead to adjustmen ts to the EMPM to better match what students experience or to better ways to facilitate student making as a process. Researcher Reflections I learned a lot about myself through the process of working with the design committee to design and implement school library makerspaces in my school district. Working through this process and developing a design case based upon that process has helped me identify some areas of strength in my leadership abilities as well as some areas where I could improve. As to stre ngths, I have come to realize that I am quite an organized and detail oriented person. This helped not only during the process of planning, organizing, and facilitating the makerspace design committee meetings, but also during the development of the desig n case based upon the process, as I was easily able to review and provide examples of various documents, including different versions of the guidelines developed by the team. I have also come to realize that my leadership s ideas and truly collaborative in nature. While I may come to a meeting, for instance, with my own idea of how something could be done, it is
307 important to me to get input and ideas from other team members and to truly consider them as viable alternatives As a leader, though it admittedly makes me a bit uncomfortable in the moment, I appreciate others challenging my thoughts and ideas with those of their own. Rather than obstinately holding to my own ideas simply because they are mine, I look at this as an opportunity to see another perspective or another way the problem could be approached, and I have, at times, abandoned my I believe these strengths served the makerspace desi gn process well and will be equally valuable to future projects in which I might be involved. This process has also helped me identify areas where I could make improvements to my leadership. I was fortunate to work with a hard working and professional gro up of librarians who made up the makerspace design committee. However, as a leader, I need to do more going forward into other projects to establish group norms to set the stage for how meetings will be run and for the level of work and professionalism ex pected from team members to ensure the same positive outcome for those future projects. Another area of improvement for my personal leadership style is to ensure a greater level of communication to concerned parties outside of the design team itself. In this instance, I could have done a better job of keeping the other office administrators who may have more quickly provided support for makerspaces. This is a lesson I w ill take with me going forward as I take on other projects: to have a communication plan in place to keep these various stakeholders better informed of progress.
308 This dissertation represented only a snapshot of an ongoing process to design and implement sc hool library makerspaces in my district. Since the study concluded, additional progress has been made to bring the opportunity of making to the students in my district. For instance, s everal members of the design team conducted a session on school librar week. This session was geared toward classroom teachers wanting to learn more about the school library makerspaces recently implemented in their buildings, though several librarians w ho wanted to start a makerspace were also in attendance. The session discussed the learning theory of constructionism and the purpose and goals of the Participants also had the opportunity to interact with many of t he items their students encounter in the makerspaces, such as Makey Makey, Squishy Circuits, Scratch programming, Sphero, stop motion animation, and craft activities such as origami. Another area of progress pertains to the school library makerspace that w as the focus of this study. There was a change of building leadership, and the new principal proved to be supportive of the school library makerspace as was her predecessor. With her support, the makerspace has undergone many changes since this study. T he mauve counters lining two walls of the space were removed, and new lightweight mobile tables were purchased to take their place. Some space was left along the walls where storage units were placed rather than filling the entire wall with tables. Addit ional shelves were installed at approximately eye level along one of the walls to allow for the display of sample projects or the storage of ongoing student projects. The principal also purchased several lightweight tables with dry erase tops to replace t he tables that had
309 been in the center of the makerspace. Additional changes, such as adding a presentation space and a Lego wall to the room are planned. Three additional elementary libraries have started implementing a makerspace since this study, while another four elementary libraries plan to start implementing one very soon. Also since this study was completed, a district level committee has been formed innovative instructiona l practices. One such practice that has been identified is school K 8 Instruction. Other members include the Directors of Elementary and Secondary Curriculum, Instru ction, and Pro fessional Development, the Lead Coordinator of to all of the distri classroom teachers on opportunities to incorporate student making, and financially supporting the makerspaces to ensure they all include a base level of tools, materials, and technology. Th is work is in its early phases, yet it is exciting to have the support of the Board of Education and district level administration to expand making opportunities to our students. Conclu ding Remarks School library makerspaces have become quite popular in the field of library science, and are being incorporated into many school libraries. However, these spaces are often being implemented in a haphazard way, based on what the individual librarian has r ead about makerspaces in trade journals or heard about them at conferences, on social media, through other librarians, or through other informal means. This design
310 case dissertation showed that these spaces can be purposefully designed to remain in keepin g with the underlying principles of constructionist learning theory and to help meet the goals of a district library program. Further, this study showed that the resulting makerspace implementation based on the design as well as the ways in which students experience participation in the makerspace can be successful in many areas, while areas of improvement also were found. In addition to providing detailed descriptions of the processes used, the decisions made, and the resulting makerspace implementation and student experience of participation, I also provided recommendations to others wanting to implement school library makerspaces i n their own context. A fter discussing the implication professional practice and local contex t, for other school districts wanting to implement library makerspaces, for the field of library science, and for the study of makerspaces as learning environments, I suggested several areas for future research in the area of school library makerspaces. F inally, I reflected both on what I learned through the design process as well as providing information as to progress that has been made in the design and implementation of s chool library makerspaces in my district since the study was completed.
311 APPENDIX A SCHOOL LIBRARY MAKERSPACE OBSERVATION PROTOCOL School: Librarian: Grade Level: Teacher: Number of Students: Date: Time of Observation: __________ __________ Environment Storage/Space Furnishings/Flexibility Dcor/Feel of Makerspace Inspiration Ideation Activities/Tools, Materials, & Resources Activities Tools, Materials, & Resources Making Iteration Facilitation Sharing Additional Observations Regarding the Physical Space
312 Makerspace Observation Protocol School: Librarian: Grade Level: Teacher: Number of Students: Date: Time of Observation: __________ __________ General Observations of First 10 minutes Observer Comments Student Actions/Behaviors/Comments Librarian (L) or Teacher (T) Actions/Behaviors/Comments
313 Makerspace Observation Protocol School: Librarian: Grade Level: Number of Students: Teacher: Date: Time of Observation: __________ __________ Observer Reflections/Summary of Observation
314 APPENDIX B STUDENT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL Student Name: _____ ________________________ Date: ______________ ___ Introduction to Interview t it is like for you to use the makerspace, the kinds of things you do in the makerspace, and how you feel about using the makerspace. I really appreciate you letting me ask you some questions about those things. I want you to know that I am not looking for a certain answer to these questions. I really just want to get your thoughts and feelings, ok? Student Interview Questions General Questions about Student Experience Using Makerspace 1. About how many times have you used the makerspace? 2. Walk me through what it is like for you to use the makerspace. If I were to visit the makerspace with you, what would we see, hear, and do? 3. How do you feel about using the makerspace? Questions Aligned to Educational Making Process Model Dream It! Inspiration 4. Tell me about some of the things you have done or made in the makerspace. 5. Why did you do or make those particular things instead of other things? 6. Where did you get the idea to do or make those things? Visualize It! Ideation 7. So, once you knew what you wanted to do or make, what did you do next? 8. Did you know exactly what you wanted your end result to be or look like before you started? IF YES: How did you figure out what you wanted it to be or look like? Create It! Making 9. How did you know how to do or make those th ings? 10. Have you ever not known how to do something for a project? IF YES: What did you do about that? 11. What tools or materials did you need to make those things? Where did you get those items?
315 Improve It! Iteration 12. Is there something you tried to do or make in the makerspace that did not work or did not turn out quite how you wanted it to? IF YES: Tell me about that. 13. wanted? Present It! Sharing 14. When you are finished making something, what do you do with it? Optional & Flexible Collaboration 15. Have you ever helped someone else with something they were trying to do or make in the makerspace? IF YES: Tell me the story about that. 16. Has someone else ever helped you with something you were trying to do or make in the makerspace? IF YES: Tell me the story about that. 17. Have you ever worked together with others in the makerspace on a project? IF YES: Give me some examples of you working together with others on a project. Continuous Feedback 18. Has anyone else in the makerspace told you what they thought of something you made? IF YES: Tell me about a time when that happened. Documenting Progress 19. Have you ever had a project that took more than one visit to the makerspace to complete? I F YES: How did you remember what you needed to do next when you came back? Reflection & Formative Self Assessment 20. Think back on all the things you have done in the makerspace. List for me as many things as you can that you feel you have learned while usi ng the makerspace. Question Regarding Areas of Needed Improvement for Makerspace 21. If you could change something about the makerspace, what would you change? Question Allowing Open Ended Response from Student Regarding Makerspace 22. What else would you like to tell me about using the makerspace? Conclusion to Interview Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts and feelings about makerspaces with me. Your answers will be very helpful.
316 APPENDIX C LIBRARIAN INTERVIEW PROTOCOL Librarian Name: __________________________________ Date: _________________ Introduction to Interview Thank you for taking the time to talk to me today. I want to ask you some questions about your school library makerspace. My goal is to learn more about the design of the physical space, your goals for students using the space, how you facilitate student space. Please provide as much detail as possible when answering the q uestions. Librarian Interview Questions Questions Aligned to Guidelines for Environment and Activities 1. Tell me about the physical set up of your makerspace. POSSIBLE FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS ABOUT: Furniture, Dcor, Activities, Electricity, etc. Question A ligned to Innovation Configuration Map 2. What are your goals for students through participation in your library makerspace? Questions Aligned to EMPM Dream It! Inspiration 3. What are some things students have done or made in your makerspace? 4. Where did the ideas for those things come from? 5. What limitations are there, if any, on student making projects? Visualize It! Ideation 6. Once students know what they want to make, how do they go about making it? Create It! Making 7. What challenges have you seen students enc ounter in the makerspace? 8. How have you helped them overcome those challenges? Improve It! Iteration 9. In what ways, if any, do you encourage students to make multiple attempts at a project or to improve upon a project? Present It! Sharing 10. What opportunities do student have to share their projects with others?
317 Optional & Flexible Collaboration 11. In what ways, if any, have you seen students work together or help each other in the makerspace? Continuous Feedback 12. In what ways do students get and give feedback in the makerspace? Documenting Progress 13. For projects that take more than one makerspace visit to complete, how do students remember where they left off and where to start on the next visit ? Reflection & Formative Self Assessment 14. What are some things you believe students have learned through use of the makerspace? 15. How do students know or realize what they have learned? Questions Regarding Areas of Needed Improvement for Makerspace 16. As a member of the makerspace design committee you are aware of the guide lines we developed for makerspaces including the Innovation Configuration Map the guidelines for environment, activities, and facilitation, and the additional guidelines base on the EMPM. Have you found any of these guidelines difficult or impossible to implement? IF YES: Which ones? 17. One by one, talk to me about why it has been difficult or impossible to implement and any suggestions you have to make it easier or better. 18. Do you feel your makerspace has been a success? Why or why not? 19. What changes or i mprovements do you think need to be made? Question Allowing Open Ended Response from Librarian Regarding Makerspace 20. makerspace? Conclusion to Interview Thank you for sharing you r thoughts and feelings about your makerspace design, your goals for students using your makerspace, how you facilitate student making, and your perceptions of student experiences in the makerspace. Your answers will be very helpful.
318 APPENDIX D TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL Teacher Name: __________________________________ Date: _________________ Introduction to Interview Thank you for taking the time to talk to me today. I want to ask you some questions about the school library makerspace. My goal is to learn about your goals for students Please provide as much detail as possible when answering the questions. Teacher Interview Questions Questions Aligned to Innovation Configuration Map 1. What are your goals for your students using the library makerspace? 2. Have you seen any of those goals met? IF YES: Give me some examples of how you have seen those goals met. Questions Aligned to EMPM Dream It! Inspiration 3. Wh at are some things your students have made in your makerspace? 4. Where did the ideas for those things come from? 5. What limitations are there, if any, on student making projects? Visualize It! Ideation 6. Once your students know what they want to make, how do they go about making it? Create It! Making 7. What challenges have you seen students encounter in the makerspace? 8. How have they overcome those challenges? Improve It! Iteration 9. In what ways, if any, have you seen students make multi ple attempts at a project or make improve ments to a project? Present It! Sharing 10. What opportunities do student s have to share their projects with others outside of the makerspace ?
319 Optional & Flexible Collaboration 11. In what ways, if any, have you seen students work together or hel p each other in the makerspace? Continuous Feedback 12. In what ways do your students get and give feedback in the makerspace? Documenting Progress 13. For projects that take more than one makerspace visit to complete, how do your students remember where they left off and where to start on the next visit ? Reflection & Formative Self Assessment 14. What are some things you believe your students have learned using the makerspace? Questions Regarding Areas of Success & Areas of Needed Improvement for Makerspace 15. Do you feel it has beneficial to your students in other ways to participate in the makerspace? IF YES: Tell me about some of the benefits you have seen. 16. Do you feel the makerspace has been a success? Why or why not? 17. What changes or improvements do you thin k need to be made? Question Allowing Open Ended Response from Teacher Regarding Makerspace 18. What else do you think I should use of the makerspace? Conclusion to Interview T hank you for sharing your thoughts and feelings about your goas for your students in using the makerspace and your perceptions of student experiences in the makerspace. Your answers will be very helpful.
320 APPENDIX E PARENT/GUARDIAN LETTER
321 APPENDIX F CHILD ASSENT Child Assent Dear Student, My name is Mrs. Anderson, and I am a student at the University of Florida. I am trying to learn more about what it is like for you to participate in your school library makerspace, so I am conducting some research to find out. I will be observing your class three times while you participate in the makerspace, and I will be writing down some of the things I see and hear. I will be asking some of you about what you are doing in the makerspace, and I will be interviewing several of you to find out more abo ut what you think and how you feel about participating in the school library makerspace. There are no risks to you if you agree to participate in this study, though you may feel a bit nervous about being observed or being interviewed. I assure you that if you are interviewed, there are no right or wrong answers to my questions. I just want to know he makerspace anyone else in the school about it, and when I write about it in my report, I will use a fake name instead of your real name. Whether or not you agr ee to participate in the study, you will still get to use the makerspace. I just will not include the things you say or do in my study, and I will not interview you. Your parents have already said that you may participate in this research study. Would y ou be willing to participate in the study? ____ Yes ____ No ________________________________________ Print Your Name ________________________________________ _______________ Your Signature Date
322 APPENDIX G DESIGN TEAM INFORMED CONSENT FORM Makerspace Design Team Informed Consent Form Title: School Library Makerspace Design and Implementation in a Large, Midwestern School District: A Design Case Dissertation Introduction As you know, I am a current doctoral candidate at the Universi ty of Florida pursuing a doctorate in the fiel d of Educational Technology working under the supervision of Dr. Kara Dawson. I am also the District Library Coordinator for North Kansas City Schools. Also as you know I have been working with a group of sc hool library media specialists in the district to design and implement school library makerspaces in several of our library facilities. For the dissertation portion of my doctoral program, I am writing a design case dissertation which will describe the pr ocesses used and the decisions made by this team in the design of school library makerspaces. Additionally, my dissertation will describe a school library makerspace environment as well as the student experience of participation in the makerspace. Purp ose The main purpose of my research is to preserve a record of the processes used and the decisions made during the design process of school library makerspaces in the district so that ourselves and others might benefit from the knowledge gained through th e process. Another purpose of my research is to identify both areas of success in the design and implementation of school library makerspaces in the district as well as areas of possible improvement in order to ensure the best student experience in these learning environments. Description of Study As part of my research, I will gather data from a variety of sources including the review of documents pertaining to the work of the design team, biographical information from members of the design team, observ ations of a school library makerspace and observations of students while they are participati ng in the makerspace I will also conduct interviews with the librarian who oversees the makerspace, the classroom teacher whose students are participating in the makerspace, and a few students to ask about their experience participating in the makerspace. What You Will Be Asked to Do As a member of the makerspace design team, you will be asked to provide biographical information about yourself to assist with the description of the design process of school library makerspaces To maintain your confidentiality, a pseudonym will be used in place of your name and in place of the name of your school when reporting this information as part of this dissertation. You wi ll also be asked to review rough drafts of descriptions of various processes and events that took place as part of the overall design process to help ensure their accuracy.
323 I will also observe one school library makerspace three times as part of this study If your makerspace is selected to be observed, you will be asked to help distribute and collect parent and student informed consent forms. Additionally, if your makerspace is selected to be observed, you will be asked to participate in a single intervi ew lasting no longer than one hour experience of participation in the school library makerspace and to learn more about the design of your makerspace. This interview will be conducted in the school library after school, and it will be audio recorded and transcribed. The audio recordings and transcripts will be available only to myself and my dissertation committee to be use solely for educational purposes. Upon completion of the dissertatio n, the audio recordings will be destroyed. Voluntary Participation You may choose not to participa te in this study without repercussions Even if yo u do agree to participate, you may withdraw from the study at any time without repercussions. Risks, Benefits, and Compensation There are no risks nor direct benefits to you f r om participation in this study. There is no compensation for participation in this study. Sharing of Study Results and Confidentiality All data gathered from this study will be ma intained in a secure location. The study results will be shared as part of a doctoral dissertation. The identity of all participants will be kept confidential and pseudonyms will be used to identify individual participants when reporting results. Addit ional Information Regarding Study or Rights as a Participant If you have any questions about this study you may contact me, Susan Anderson, at 816 321 4051 or my faculty supervisor, Dr. Kara Dawson, at dawson@coe .ufl.edu If you have questions o r concerns about your rights as a participant in this research study you may contact the IRB02 Office, University of Florida Institutional Review Board, P. O. Box 112250 Gainesville, FL 32611 2250 (352) 392 0433. I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily give my consent to participate School Library Makerspace Design and Implementation in a Large, Midwestern School District: A Design Case Dissertation have rec eived a copy of the study purpose and description. I understand that I may withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. _____________________________________ Librarian Printed Name _____________________________________ ____________________ Librarian Signature Date
324 APPENDIX H TEACHER INFORMED CONSENT FORM Teacher Informed Consent Form Title: School Library Makerspace Design and Implementation in a Large, Midwestern School District: A Design Case Dissertation Introduction My name is Susan Anderson, and I am a current doctoral candidate at the University of Florida pursuing a doctorate in the fiel d of Educational Technology working under the supervision of Dr. Kara Dawson. I am also the District Library Coordinator for North Kansa s City Schools. For some time, I have been working with a group of school library media specialists in the district to design and implement school library makerspaces in several of our library facilities. For the dissertation portion of my doctoral progr am, I am writing a design case dissertation which will describe the processes used and the decisions made by this team in the design of school library makerspaces. Additionally, my dissertation will describe a school library makerspace environment as well as the student experience of participation in the makerspace. Purpose The main purpose of my research is to preserve a record of the processes used and the decisions made during the design process of school library makerspaces in the district so that o urselves and others might benefit from the knowledge gained through the process. Another purpose of my research is to identify both areas of success in the design and implementation of school library makerspaces in the district as well as areas of possibl e improvement in order to ensure the best student experience in these learning environments. Description of Study As part of my research, I will gather data from a variety of sources including the review of documents pertaining to the work of the design t eam, biographical information from members of the design team, observ ations of a school library makerspace and observations of students while they are participati ng in the makerspace I will also conduct interviews with the librarian who oversees the make rspace, the classroom teacher whose students are participating in the makerspace, and a few students to ask about their experience participating in the makerspace. What You Will Be Asked to Do I will be observing your students as they participate in the s chool library makerspace three times as part of this study. As part of my observations, I will also be noting your behaviors, actions, and comments while interacting with students in the makerspace. Too, you will be asked to participate in a single inter view lasting no longer than one hour participation in the school library makerspace from your perspective and to learn more about the design of the makerspace. This interview will be conducted in the school library after school, and it will be audio recorded and transcribed. The audio recordings
325 and transcripts will be available only to myself and my dissertation committee to be use solely for educational purposes. Upon comp letion of the dissertation, the audio recordings will be destroyed. Voluntary Participation You may choose not to participa te in this study without repercussions Even if yo u do agree to participate, you may withdraw from the study at any time without re percussions. Risks, Benefits, and Compensation There are no risks nor direct benefits to you f r om participation in this study. There is no compensation for participation in this study. Sharing of Study Results and Confidentiality All data gathered fro m this study will be maintained in a secure location. The study results will be shared as part of a doctoral dissertation. The identity of all participants will be kept confidential and pseudonyms will be used to identify individual participants when rep orting results. Additional Information Regarding Study or Rights as a Participant If you have any questions about this study you may contact me, Susan Anderson, at 816 321 4051 or my faculty supervisor, Dr. Kara Dawson, at firstname.lastname@example.org If you have questions o r concerns about your rights as a participant in this research study you may contact the IRB02 Office, University of Florida Institutional Review Board, P. O. Box 112250 Gainesville, FL 32611 2250 (352) 392 0433. I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily give my consent to participate School Library Makerspace Design and Implementation in a Large, Midwestern School District: A Design Case Dis sertation have received a copy of the study purpose and description. I understand that I may withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________ Date
326 LIST OF REFERENCES About Maker Ed: Who we are. (2015). Retrieved July 6, 2015, from Maker Ed website: http://makered.org/about us/who we are/ About the conference. (2015). Retrieved July 18, 2015, from FabLearn 2015 website: http://fablearn.stanford.edu/2015/about/#.VarwtrnbLIU Abram, S. (2015, January February). Real mak erspaces in school libraries. Internet@Schools 22 (1), 10+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE7CA398074020&v=2.1&u=gain40375&i t=r&p=PROF&sw=w&asid=d633a7c7b0572c0f2b42c1c36f4dc9a4 Abram, S. (2013). Makerspaces in libraries, education, a nd beyond. Internet@schools 18 20. Ackermann, E. K. (2004). Constructing knowledge and transforming the world. A learning zone of one's own: Sharing representations and flow in collaborative learning environments 1 15 37. AnnMarie Thomas, Ph.D. (n.d.). Retrieved May 8, 2016, from https://annmarie thomas.squarespace.com/about/ Archwamety, T., Pitiyanuwat, S., & Tangdhanakanond, K. (2005, Fall). Constructionism: student learning and development. Academic Exchange Quarterly 9 (3), 259+. Retrieved from http: //go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA138703700&v=2.1&u=gain40375 &it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=8dbd620f61af282562ed6d2e1bfd87b5 Barrett, K. (2014). Playtime hacked: kids' makerspaces blend art and technology to reuse and repurpose. Alternatives Journal 40 (3), 42 +. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA376632866&v=2.1&u=gain40375 &it=r&p=PROF&sw=w&asid=3fa78d5a5c6bfc213373e5bf44ed9079 Barron, B., & Martin, C. K. (2016). Making matters: A framework for assessing digital media citizenship. In K. A Peppler, E. Halverson, & Y. B. Kafai (Authors), Makeology: Makers as learners (Vol. 2, pp. 45 71). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Berland, M. (2016). Making, tinkering, and computational literacy. In K. A. Peppler, E. Halverson, & Y. B. Kaf ai (Authors), Makeology: Makers as learners (Vol. 2, pp. 196 205). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Bevan, B., Gutwill, J. P., Petrich, M., & Wilkinson, K. (2015). Learning through STEM rich tinkering: Findings from a jointly negotiated researc h project taken up in practice. Science Education 99 (1), 98 120.
327 of invention. In J. Walter Herrmann & C. Bching (Eds.), FabLabs: Of Machines, Makers and Inventors. Blikstein, P. (2015). Foreword [Foreword]. In P. Blikstein, S. L. Martinez, & H. A. Pang (Eds.), Meaningful making: Projects and inspirations for FabLabs and Makerspaces (pp. xiv xv) [PDF e book]. Retrieved from http://fablearn.stanford.edu/fellows/page/meaningful making book Blikstein, P., & Krannich, D. (2013). 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). New York, NY: ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2485760.2485884 Blikstein, P., & Worsley, M. (2016). Children are not hackers: Building a culture of powerful ideas, deep learning, and equity in the maker movement. In K. Peppler, E. R. Halverson, & Y. B. Kafai (Eds.), Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environments (Vol. 1, pp. 64 79). New York: Routledge. Boling, E. (2010). The need for design cases: Disseminating design knowledge. Inte rnational Journal of Designs for Learning 1 (1). Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2009). Exploring standards of rigour for design cases. Bowler, L. (2014). Creativity through "maker" experiences and design thinking in the education of librarians [PDF]. Knowledg e Quest 42 (5), 58 61. 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. (2016). Learning to make in the museum: The role of maker educators. In K. A. Peppler, E. Halverson, & Y. B. Kafai (Authors), Makeology: Makers as learners (Vol. 2, pp. 15 29). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Brahms, L., & Werner, J. (2013). Designing makerspaces for family learning in museum and science centers. In M. Honey & D. E. Kanter (Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 71 94). New York, NY: Routledge. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology 3 (2), 77 101. Britton, L. (2012). The makings of maker spaces: Making space for creation, not just consumption. Library Journal 137 (16), 20 23. Buechley, L., & Eisenberg, M. (2008). The LilyPad Arduino: Toward wearable engineering for everyone. Pervasive Computing, IEEE 7 (2), 12 15.
328 Building demographic data [Table]. (2016, November 20). Canino Fluit, A. (2014). School library makerspaces: making it up as I go. Teacher Librarian 41 (5), 21+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/p s/i.do?id=GALE%7CA373680327&v=2.1&u=gain40375 &it=r&p=PROF&sw=w&asid=b21fc32049f4f8bfafd6ea29169e234f Cavalcanti, G. (2013, May 22). Is it a Hackerspace, Makerspace, TechShop, or FabLab? Make Retrieved from http://makezine.com/2013/05/22/the difference between hackerspaces makerspaces techshops and fablabs/ Cohen, J. D., Jones, W. M., Smith, S., & Calandra, B. (2016, March). Makification: To wards a framework for leveraging the maker movement in formal education. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (Vol. 2016, No. 1, pp. 129 135). Colegrove T. (2013). Editorial board thoughts: Libraries as makerspace? [PDF]. Information Technology and Libraries 2 5. Creswell, J. W. (2014 ). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches Sage publications. Dillon, S., & Laughlin, A (2014). Starting from Scratch. School Library Journal 34 35. District demographic data [Table]. (2016, November 20). Dixon, N., & Ward, M. (2014, Fall). The Maker Movement and the Louisville Free Public Library. Reference & User Services Quarterly 54 (1 ), 17+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA408784927&v=2.1&u=gain40375 &it=r&p=PROF&sw=w&asid=b62d08228ba6fc93414bc968efe87f24 Docherty, S., & Sandelowski, M. (1999). Focus on qualitative methods: Interviewing children. Research in nu rsing & health 22 (2), 177 185 Dougherty, D. (2012). The maker movement. Innovations, 7 (3), 11 14. Dougherty, D. (2013). Maker mindset. In M. Honey & D. E. Kanter (Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 7 11). New Y ork, NY: Routledge. Dougherty, D. (2016). Forward [Foreword]. In K. Peppler, E. R. Halverson, & Y. B. Kafai (Eds.), Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environments (Vol. 1, pp. ix xi). New York: Routledge. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology o f success New York: Random House. Falbel, A. (1993). Constructionism: Tools to build (and think) with. LEGO DACTA
329 Foote, C. (2013). Making Space for Makerspaces. Internet@Schools 20 (4), 26 27. Framework for 21st century learning (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, Comp.) [Pamphlet]. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/P21_Framework.pdf Fredrick, K. (2015). Making it matters [PDF]. Sch ool Library Monthly 31 (7), 22 24. Gabrielson, C. (2013). Tinkering Sebastopol, CA: Maker Media. Galloway, A. (2015). Bringing a Reggio Emilia inspired approach into higher grades Links to 21st century learning skills and the maker movement (Doctoral diss ertation, University of Victoria). Gutwill, J. P., Hido, N., & Sindorf, L. (2015). Research to practice: Observing learning in tinkering activities. Curator: The Museum Journal 58 (2), 151+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA4060363 48&v=2.1&u=gain40375 &it=r&p=PROF&sw=w&asid=f53522e555f430c94956fa599d6cc44c Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. M. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review 84 (4), 495 504. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA3 96492631&v=2.1&u=gain40375 &it=r&p=PROF&sw=w&asid=59dfb5e9930fc1b360aaf3897464b82a Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1991). Software design as a learning environment. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Authors), Constructionism: Research reports and essays, 1985 1990 (pp. 41 84). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Pub. Hatch, J. A. (1990). Young children as informants in classroom studies. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 5 (2), 251 264. Houston, C. C. (2013). Makerspaces@your library: Consider the possibilities!. Kentucky Libraries 77 (3 ), 26 28. Howard, C. D. (2011). Writing and rewriting the instructional design case: A view from two sides. International Journal of Designs for Learning 2 (1). Howard, A. (2011, November 4). The maker movement's potential for education, jobs and innovation is growing: "MAKE" founder Dale Dougherty was named a "Champion of Change" by the White House [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/11/dale dougherty make white house.html Innovation configurations. (n.d.). Retrieve d December 29, 2016, from http://www.sedl.org/cbam/innovation_configurations.html Irwin, L. G., & Johnson, J. (2005). Interviewing young children: Explicating our practices and dilemmas. Qualitative health resear ch 15 (6), 821 831.
330 ISTE standards for students. (2016). Retrieved October 1, 2016, from International Society for Technology in Education website: http://www.iste.org/standards/stan dards/for students 2016 Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., and Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015 K 12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Johnson, S., & Thomas, A. P. (2010, April). Squishy circuits: a tangible medium for electronics education. In CHI'10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 4099 4104). ACM. Jukes, I., Dosaj, A., & Macdonald, B. (2000). NetSavvy: Building information literacy in the classroom (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Corwin Pre ss. Kafai, Y., Fields, D., & Searle, K. (2014). Electronic textiles as disruptive designs: Supporting and challenging maker activities in schools. Harvard Educational Review 84 (4), 532 556. Kafai, Y., & Harel, I. (1991). Learning through design and teachi ng: Exploring social and collaborative aspects of constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Authors), Constructionism: Research reports and essays, 1985 1990 (pp. 85 110). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Pub. Kafai, Y. B., Peppler, K. A., & Chapman, R. N. (2009). The Computer Clubhouse: Constructionism and creativity in youth communities New York: Teachers College Press. Kafai, Y. B., & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbau m Associates. Kalil, T. (2013). Have fun learn something, do something, make something. In M. Honey & D. E. Kanter (Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 12 16). New York, NY: Routledge. Kim, M. (2012). Theoretica lly grounded guidelines for assessing learning progress: cognitive changes in ill structured complex problem solving contexts. Educational Technology Research & Development 60 (4), 601 622. doi:10.1007/s11423 012 9247 4 Kortesluoma, R. L., Hentinen, M., & Nikkonen, M. (2003). Conducting a qualitative child interview: methodological considerations. Journal of advanced nursing 42 (5), 434 441. Krhenbhl S., & Blades, M. (2006). The effect of interviewing techniques on young children's responses to questions. Child: care, health and development 32 (3), 321 331.
331 Kurti, R. S., Kurti, D., & Fleming, L. (2014a). The environment and tools of great educational makerspaces: Part 2 of making an educational makerspace. Teacher Librarian 42 (1), 8+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA387953011&v=2.1&u=gain40375 &it=r&p=PROF&sw=w&asid=00295a5d9a0cc6ff32c9640cfcc1ec81 Kurti, R. S., Kurti, D. L., & Fleming, L. (2014b). The philosophy of educational makerspaces: Part 1 of making an educational makerspace. Teacher Librarian 41 (5), 8+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA373680322&v=2.1&u=gain40375 &it=r&p=PROF&sw=w&asid=b351712 e87a7a6c7b80bf9bd7839ada6 Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press. Lawson, B. (2004). Schemata, gambits and precedent: some factors in design expertise. Design s tudies 25 (5), 443 457. Litts, B. K. (2015). Making learning: Makerspaces as learning environments (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest database. (UMI No. 3672348) Loertscher, D. V., Preddy, L., & Derry, B. (2013). Makerspaces in the school lib rary learning commons and the uTEC maker model. Teacher Librarian, 41 (2), 48 51,67. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1470785948?accountid=10920 Loertscher, D. V. (2014). Makers, self directed learners, and the library learning commons. Tea cher Librarian 41 (5), 35 38. Makerspace playbook (School ed.). (2013). Retrieved from http://makered.org/wp content/uploads/2014/09/Makerspace Playbook Feb 2013.pdf Martin, Lee. (2015). The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre Colle ge Engineering Education Research 30 39. Retrieved from ERIC database. Martin, L., & Dixon, C. (2016). Making as a pathway to engineering and design. In K. A. Peppler, E. Halverson, & Y. B. Kafai (Authors), Makeology: Makers as learners (Vol. 2, pp. 183 1 95). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. S. (2013). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom. Constructing modern knowledge press. McCracken, H. (2015, April 29). Maker Faire founder Dale D ougherty on the past, present, and online future of the maker movement. Fast Company Retrieved from https://www.fastcompany.com/3045505/maker faire founder dale dougherty on the past present and online future of the maker moveme
332 McGalliard, M. (2016). From a movie to a movement: Caine's Arcade and the Imagination Foundation. In K. A. Peppler E. Halverson, & Y. B. Kafai (Authors), Makeology: Makers as learners (Vol. 2, pp. 111 124). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. McKenzie, J. (1998). New plagiarism: Seven antidotes to prevent highway robbery in an electronic age. From Now On 7 ( 8). Retrieved from http://fno.org/may98/cov98may.html McKenzie, J. (2001). Toolishness is foolishness. From Now On 11 (1). Retrieved from http://fno.o rg/sept01/toolishness.html Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Milne, A., Riecke, B., & Antle, A. (2014). Exploring maker practice: Common attitudes, habits and skills from Vancouve Studies 19 (21), 23. Moorefield Lang, H. (2015). Change in the making: Makerspaces and the ever changing landscape of libraries [PDF]. TechTrends 59 (3), 107 112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528 015 0860 z Obama, B. (2009, November). Remarks by the President on the "Education to Innovate" campaign. Washington DC: Office of the Press Secretary. https://obamawhitehouse.arch ives.gov/the press office/remarks president education innovate campaign Obama, B. (2014, June 18). Remarks by the President at the White House Maker Faire [Video file]. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the press office/2014/06/18/remarks president white house maker faire Oxman Ryan, J., Clapp, E. P., Ross, J., & Tishman, S. (2016). Making, thinking, and understanding: A dispositional approach to maker centered learning. In K. A. Peppler, E. Halverson, & Y. B. Kafai (Authors), Makeology: Makers as learners (Vol. 2, pp. 29 44). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Papert, S. (1991a). Situating Constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.), Constructionism Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Papert, S. (1993a). The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: BasicBooks. Papert, S. (1991b). Perestroika and epistemological politics. In I. Har el & S. Papert (Authors), Constructionism: Research reports and essays, 1985 1990 (pp. 13 27). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Pub. Papert, S. (1993b). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.
333 Parrott, K. (2015, May). Maker bookshelf: a starter collection for current and aspiring makebrarians. School Library Journal 61 (5), 48+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA413169311&v=2.1&u=gain40375 &it=r&p=PROF&sw=w&asid=00c0000262 359bbc60e0bd1780205cd6 Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. Peppler, K., & Bender, S. (2013). Maker movement spreads innovation one project at a time: lessons learned from the grassroots spreading of the "maker movement" can help us reimagine schools and foster a mindset of creativity and innovation in educational settings. Phi Delta Kappan 95 (3), 2. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA351948712&v=2.1&u=gain40375 &it= r&p=PROF&sw=w&asid=9cd93be08d6d296bea77cc787470dd92 Peppler, K., & Hall, T. (2016). The make to learn youth contest: Gaining youth perspectives on learning through making. In K. A. Peppler, E. Halverson, & Y. B. Kafai (Authors), Makeology: Makerspaces as l earners environments (pp. 141 157). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Peppler, K., Halverson, E. R., & Kafai, Y. B. (2016). Introduction to this volume. In K. Peppler, E. R. Halverson, & Y. B. Kafai (Eds.), Makeology: Makerspaces as learning env ironments (Vol. 1, pp. 1 11). New York: Routledge. Perkins, D. N. (1993). Person plus: A distributed view of thinking and learning. In G. Salomon (Author), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 88 110). Cambridge [Englan d]: Cambridge University Press. Petrich, M., Wilkinson, K., & Bevan, B. (2013). It looks like fun, but are they learning? In M. Honey & D. E. Kanter (Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 50 70). New York, NY: Routl edge. Pisarski, A. (2014). Finding a place for the tween: Makerspaces and libraries [PDF]. Children and Libraries 13 16. Plemmons, A. p. (2014). Building a culture of creation. Teacher Librarian 41 (5), 12 16. Practices. (2013). In Makerspace playbook (Sc hool ed., pp. 21 26). Retrieved from http://makered.org/wp content/uploads/2014/09/Makerspace Playbook Feb 2013.pdf Qi, J., Dick, J., & Cole, D. (2016). Paper electronics with circuit stickers. In K. Peppler, E. R. Halverson, & Y. B. Kafai (Eds.), Makeolog y: Makerspaces as learning environments (Vol. 1, pp. 207 222). New York: Routledge. 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,
334 make, pl ay: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 17 33). New York, NY: Routledge. Range, E., & Schmidt, J. (2014, April). Explore, plan, create: developing a makerspace for your school community. School Library Monthly 30 (7), 8+. Retrieved from htt p://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA403918885&v=2.1&u=gain40375 &it=r&p=PROF&sw=w&asid=ea9293047f1e915b9930ae1fcbea42e1 Regalla, L. (2016). Developing a maker mindset. In K. A. Peppler, E. Halverson, & Y. B. Kafai (Authors), Makeology: Makerspaces as le arners environments (pp. 257 272). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Resnick, M. (2007, June). All I really need to know (about creative thinking) I learned (by studying how children learn) in kindergarten. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI c onference on Creativity & cognition (pp. 1 6). ACM. Resnick, M. (1996). Toward a practice of "constructional design". In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Authors), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 161 174). Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. Resnick, M., Eidman Aadahl, E., & Dougherty, D. (2016). Making writing coding. In K. A. Peppler, E. Halverson, & Y. B. Kafai (Authors), Makeology: Makers as learners (Vol. 2, pp. 229 240). New York: Rout ledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Resnick, M., & Ocko, S. (1991). LEGO/Logo: Learning through and about design. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Authors), Constructionism: Research reports and essays, 1985 1990 (pp. 141 150). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Pub. Resnick, M., & Rosenbaum, E. (2013). Designing for tinkerability. In M. Honey & D. E. Kanter (Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 163 181). New York, NY: Routledge. Rusk, N. (2016). Motivation for making. In K. A. Peppler, E. Ha lverson, & Y. B. Kafai (Authors), Makeology: Makers as learners (Vol. 2, pp. 85 108). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Rusk, N., Resnick, M., & Cooke, S. (2009). Origins and guiding principles of the Computer Clubhouse. In Y. B. Kafai, K. A. Peppler, & R. N. Chapman (Authors), The Computer Clubhouse: Constructionism and creativity in youth communities (pp. 17 25). New York: Teachers College Press. Salomon, G. (1993). No distribution without individuals' cognition: A dynamic interactional view. In G. Salomon (Author), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 111 138). Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press. Schutt, R. K. (2012). Investigating the social world: The process and practice of research (7th ed .). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
335 Sheridan, K. M., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B. K., Brahms, L., Jacobs Priebe, L., & Owens, T. (2014). Learning in the making: a comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review 84 (4), 505 531. Retrieve d from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA396492649&v=2.1&u=gain40375 &it=r&p=PROF&sw=w&asid=1c6a8d02ccc94f0173ffa675d4100006 Sheridan, K. M., & Konopasky, A. (2016). Designing for resourcefulness in a community based makerspace. In K. A. Peppler, E Halverson, & Y. B. Kafai (Authors), Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environments (Vol. 1). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Smay, D., & Walker, C. (2015). Makerspaces a creative approach to education. Teacher Librarian 42 (4), 39+. Retriev ed from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA414004291&v=2.1&u=gain40375 &it=r&p=PROF&sw=w&asid=99afd5632a91d26f7097ef89dfcbb295 Smith, K. M. (2010). Producing the rigorous design case. International Journal of Designs for Learning 1 (1). Standards fo r the 21st century learner (American Association of School Librarians, Comp.) [Pamphlet]. (2007). Retrieved from ht tp://www.ala.org/aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/content/guidelinesandstandards/lea rningstandards/AASL_LearningStandards.pdf Thomas, A. (2013). Squishy circuits. In M. Honey & D. E. Kanter (Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innov ators (pp. 119 137). New York, NY: Routledge. Thompson, G. (2014). The maker movement connects to the classroom. Education Digest 80 (3), 34+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA388596182&v=2.1&u=gain40375 &it=r&p=PROF&sw=w&asid=1cb69 cc74862d2686917a88b91db1e30 Tseng, T. (2016). Build in progress: Building process oriented documentation. In K. A. Peppler, E. Halverson, & Y. B. Kafai (Authors), Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environments (Vol. 1, pp. 237 254). New York: Routledge, T aylor & Francis Group. Vossoughi, S., & Bevan, B. (2014). Making and tinkering: A review of the literature. National Research Council Committee on Out of School Time STEM 1 55. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychologic al processes Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wardrip, P. S., & Brahms, L. (2016). Taking making to school: A model for integrating making into classrooms. In K. Peppler, E. R. Halverson, & Y. B. Kafai (Eds.), Makeology: Makerspaces as learning enviro nments (Vol. 1, pp. 97 106). New York: Routledge.
336 Washor, E., & Mojkowski, C. (2013). Making their way in the world: Creating a generation of tinkerer scientists. In M. Honey & D. E. Kanter (Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM in novators (pp. 198 217). New York, NY: Routledge. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Wilkinson, K., Anzivino L., & Petrich, M. (2016). The big idea is their idea. In K. A. Peppler, E. Halverson, & Y. B. Kafai (Authors), Makeology: Makers as learners (pp. 161 179). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Wong, T. (2013, May June). Makerspaces take libraries by storm. Library Media Connection 31 (6), 34+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA346372347&v=2.1&u=gain40375 &it=r&p=PROF&sw=w&asid=3a8b45f1b8a495e8b276c6c0f0daf1d4 Worsley, M. and Blikstein, P. (2014). The impact of principle base d reasoning on hands on, project based learning. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference of the Learning Sciences.
337 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Susan R. Anderson received her undergraduate degree in s econdary English E ducation from Missouri Western State University in 1997 and began working as a school librarian for the Osborn R 0 School District in Osborn, Missouri the same year. She has earned a Master of Arts in library science an Education Specialist in e ducational technology and an Education Specialist in educational administration from the University of Missouri She m ost recently received a Doctor of Education from the University of Florida in curriculum and instruction with a concentration in educati onal technology in 2017. Susan serves as the library c oordinator for a lar ge suburban school district in n orthwest Missouri and an adjunct faculty librarian at a local community college. Her research interests include school library makerspaces, digital versus print recreational reading of K 12 students, and teaching methods for information and technology literacy curriculum.