Makerspaces : Better Learning Through Creating
Rebecca Recco
Lamar University
EDLD 5305

 

 

Introduction

To say that technology has changed our society is an understatement.  New technology is introduced so frequently that it’s difficult to keep track.  Marc Prensky writes that the shift has been so drastic that it has created a problematic divide between digital natives (our students), and digital immigrants (their teachers) in the way each feels most comfortable communicating.  Careers that exist today were unheard of ten years ago.  School systems are struggling to keep up with the changes and to allocate funding on the best technology, software, peripherals, and professional development to meet the changing needs of students (Prensky, 2001).  

In this modern digital landscape, innovation is more important than ever, for our students, our schools, and the greater society.  But our schools have grown increasingly focused on standardized testing and on remediation of tested skills in struggling students in order to improve test scores.  As Carolyn Foote points out, so  much of the school day is spent working on improving standardized test skills that there is little time left over for skills that aren’t on the tests (Foote, 2013). School districts pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into 1:1 initiatives to put iPads and Chromebooks into each student’s hands, and then we force students to use those devices for skills drill practice day in and day out.  In an age where innovation and creativity are so important, we seem to value standardization and memorization the most (Claxton, 2007).

 

Makerspace

Strangely enough, though we push standardized testing and rote memorization, research shows that the best way to manifest progress in skills and content knowledge is through self-directed learning that is meaningful to the student (Rees, et. al., 2015.)  The best learning for children involves hands-on, creative problem-solving, and collaboration (Fraudenfelder, 2010).  Constructivist learning models, such as Project-Based Learning, Expeditionary Learning, Arts Inclusion, and Challenge-Based Learning are becoming more prevalent in schools.  Makerspaces are a great way to add some constructivist learning time to the school day when it fits, and because of their flexibility of implementation and myriad academic benefits, their popularity has risen abruptly (Lou, 2016).

Makerspaces, though different than traditional classroom learning experiences, are proving to be great ways for students to learn academic skills and subject content, but in a more learner-centered way (Martin, 2015).  Mark Fraudenfelder points out that students who learn in a hands-on, experiential way do as well as or better than students who learn in more traditional classrooms (Fraudenfelder, 2010).  Teachers do not need to choose between makerspace time and academic instruction.  And because making gives students agency in their work, it is more meaningful and they are more engaged (Harold, 2016).  Making increases students’ feelings of pride and ownership in their work and in their learning process (Fraudenfelder, 2010).  Makerspace activities often involve deeper depth of knowledge, and technology-based activities like coding, media making, and app creation typically rate on a deeper SAMR level than students typically experience in more traditional classroom technology usage  (Puentedura, 2006).  

 

Collaboration and Ownership

Traditional, standardized instruction leaves many students feeling disenfranchised.  Stephan Abram points out that dropout rates are often tied to literacy skills and loss of interest in schoolwork, and that boys make up a higher number of dropouts than girls.  He also points out the disconnect between female students and involvement in STEM fields, as well as the lower interest of creative students in core academics (Abram, 2005).   Makerspaces, on the other hand, provide rigorous learning experiences tailor made to each student’s interests.  Children differentiate their own instruction through choices of learning topics, making materials, and their own creative choices as the final product is entirely up to each learner.  Teachers provide options based on specific learning objectives or essential questions that need to be covered (Gerstein, 2016).  This allows students to pursue things they’re most interested in while also covering skills and concepts required by the school.  This works to boost student engagement because people enjoy following their passions.  David Loertscher points to Google’s rule for its employees called the 80/20 rule.  All employees are required to spend 80 percent of their work hours doing tasks that have been assigned, but they are also required to spend 20 percent of their work hours on “passion projects” — projects of the employee’s own choosing.  The value of personal interest in work is not lost on Google, and should absolutely be harnessed in the name of creating a love of learning  (Loertscher, et. al., 2014).  Makerspace time can improve student engagement by tying academic skills to things students care about — games, robots, apps, art, fashion, and more.  For example, a reluctant reader may not want to pick up a novel, but might sit down with books to learn coding in order to fly a drone,  or to move a robot through a maze.   However, Shirin Vossoughi, Paula K. Hooper, and Meg Escudé point out the lack of support for minority and special needs learners in the larger maker movement, which is unfortunate, given that the research on makerspaces overwhelmingly supports their many educational, social, and emotional benefits for all students  (Vossoughi, et.al., 2016).  It seems that more makerspaces in minority and low-income communities would improve academic achievement in the schools that need it the most.

The collaborative nature of the Makerspace also provides students with opportunities to learn valuable interpersonal skills that are necessary in the workforce.  Because Makerspaces are shared spaces, collaboration is a must.  Makerspaces also require students to move beyond their comfort zones, to try new things, to make mistakes, and to try again (Barniskis, 2014).   Makerspaces require students to develop a different mindset than that of the traditional classroom.  This growth mindset promotes curiosity, open-mindedness, focus, innovation, creative problem-solving, reflection, and resilience (Claxton, 2007), (Kurti, et. al., 2014;).  But operating a makerspace requires a change of mindset for teachers, as well.  Our role as educators changes in the Makerspace from the dispenser of knowledge to a collaborator, or “lead learner” making discoveries (and quite often, mistakes) along with our students (Rufo, 2013).  Quality professional development is necessary to support teachers, many of whom grew up  and were trained in more traditional classroom settings, as they adjust to a more learner-directed teaching style (Gerstein, 2016).

 

e-Portfolios

Makerspaces are great for hands-on learning and creative discovery, but reflection is crucial to ensuring that students are truly learning.  In “Becoming a Maker Educator,” author Jackie Gerstein discusses creating a system of reflection by “front-loading” makerspace time with questions designed to encourage thinking, and then ending the project with more opportunities for students to reflect on their experiences in order to create a mindset of constant reflection.  She gives examples of specific questions to ask students to encourage reflection throughout the project, such as “was I resourceful in terms of finding information, resources, and materials” and “did I share what I learned with others?”  These reflective questions and their responses would be a great way to create documentation of student learning in an e-portfolio.  The initial concept, prototypes, revisions, final product, peer and teacher feedback, and reflection tells a story of every part of the student’s experience in the makerspace, and documenting them would build language arts and technology  skills into the makerspace experience, as well as provide strong assessment of student learning (Gerstein, 2016).  There are many apps available with different features that will allow students to build e-Portfolios.

 

Conclusion

The literature discussed above shows that makerspaces provide great opportunities to combine experiential, cross-curricular learning with constant reflection, and many opportunities to document student progress.  Though they can be difficult to fit into a busy school day, it is worth the time and expense to bring makerspaces into schools, because they increase student engagement, ownership of their learning, and provide opportunities for students to build important skills and a mindset that will best prepare them for the fast-changing job market of tomorrow, while meeting the academic requirements of today.    

 



References

Abram, Stephen. (2015 Jan/Feb). Real Makerspaces in School Libraries. Internet@Schools,

22(1), 10-11.

 

Barniskis, Shannon C. (2014). STEAM: Science and Art Meet in Rural Library Makerspaces. In iConference 2014 Proceedings, 834–837.

 

Claxton, Guy. (2007 June). Expanding Young People’s Capacity to Learn. British Journal of

Educational Studies, 55(2), 115-134.

 

Foote, Carolyn. (2013, Sep/Oct). Making Space for Makerspaces. Internet@Schools, 20(4),

26-27.

Frauenfelder, Mark. (2010, Oct). School for Hackers. Atlantic, 306(3), 44.

             Gerstein, Jackie. (2016, Oct). Becoming a Maker Educator. Techniques: Connecting Education

& Careers, 91(7), 14-19.

    

Herold, Benjamin. (2016, June 9). Maker Momentum. Education Week. DiplomasCount, 35(35), 28-30.

 

Kurti, R. Steven, Kurti, D. L., & Fleming, L. (2014c, Dec). Practical Implementation of an

Educational Makerspace. Part 3 of Making an Educational Makerspace. Teacher Librarian, 42(2), 20-24.

 

Loertscher, David V., Preddy, L., & Derry, B. (2013, Dec). Makerspaces in the School Library

Learning Commons and the uTEC Maker Model. Teacher Librarian, 41(2), 48-51.

        Lou, Nicole. (2016, Mar/Apr). Rise of the Makerspace. Popular Science, 288(2), 88-88.

 

 Martin, Lee. (2015). The Promise of the Maker Movement for Education. Journal of

Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 5(1), 30-39.

 

Prensky, Marc. (2001).  Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1 – 6.

 

Puentedura, Ruben R. (2006). Transformation, Technology, and Education. Retrieved from http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/.

 

Rees, Paula, Olson, C., Schweik, C. M., & Brewer, S. D. (2015). Work in Progress: Exploring

the Role of Makerspaces and Flipped Learning in a Town-Gown Effort to Engage K12 Students in STEAM. In 122nd American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington.

 

Rufo, David. (2013). bUzZ: a guide to authentic and joyful creative learning. Power and

Education, 5(2), www.wwwords.co.uk/POWER.

 

Vossoughi,Shirin,  Hooper, Paula K., and Escudé, Meg. (2016).  Making Through the Lens of Culture and Power: Toward Transformative Visions for Educational Equity. Harvard Educational Review: Summer 86(2), 206-232.