91 15.3 Discussion

Learning in Academic Makerspaces & The Role of the Educator

Makerspaces have existed for decades as shared spaces for individuals and groups to make, tinker, play, explore tools and materials, and create projects and artifacts (Shanshan, 2016); however, over the past decade, they have become popular in formal learning spaces like schools, libraries, and museums. Depending on their location and intended users, makerspaces offer various tools and resources to support making, like Lego blocks, crafting and building materials, robotics kits, electronic components like circuits, computers with specialized software, 3D printers, and more. They may supply pre-made STEM kits, loose materials, or both. Often, these spaces provide opportunities for informal learning through tinkering and exploration; however, in more formal settings like schools, they are often expected to extend STEM instruction and enhance students’ digital competencies (Kajamaa & Kumpulainen, 2020) and 21st-century skills like creativity, critical thinking, collaboration, and problem-solving (Soomro et al., 2023).

Despite a growing interest in using technology-rich makerspaces for formal learning in STEM curricula and fostering 21st-century skills, the design and integration of these spaces are often done unsystematically.  This lack of standardization across makerspaces means that each space is designed and integrated differently depending on the background and expertise of the individuals creating or using the space, varying the quality of learning that can be achieved (Turakhia et al., 2023). Barring the introduction of a more uniform makerspace design in academic settings, upgrading educators’ technical skills and ability to integrate these technology-rich makerspaces into the curriculum will help close the learning gap.

According to Yurtseven Avci et al. (2020), there is an expectation that present-day teachers understand how to use technology for teaching and learning effectively; however, they face many barriers to doing so. Barriers include resources, knowledge, skills, and beliefs in realizing these goals. These challenges are as prevalent in makerspaces as they are in classrooms, specifically for educators with limited or no experience with makerspace technology or how to insert makerspace learning and assessment into an already packed curriculum (Fasso & Knight). This can result in the underutilization of available technology and materials in makerspaces for learning, with some educators relying solely on ready-made STEM kits (Fasso & Knight).

Educators cannot fully realize the potential for learning in academic makerspaces without access and time for training and development opportunities, experimenting with technology, planning the best technology to meet their learners’ needs, and institutional support to realize these goals (Stevenson et al., 2019).

Constructionism

While there are no standardized approaches to learning in makerspaces, their active, problem-based, process-over-product approach aligns with existing constructionist and social constructivist theories. Piaget’s constructivist theory, a predecessor to Papert’s constructionism, states that knowledge is constructed through experiences (Shanshan, 2016), aligning with the hands-on experience of makerspaces. Papert’s constructionist theory proposes something more tangible, where individuals construct a physical artifact (Shanshan, 2016) or product (Hatzigianni et al., 2020). In a makerspace, students are provided opportunities to create physical products by interacting with technology and tools. Further, Vygotsky’s social constructivism builds on this by considering the role of social collaboration and interaction when constructing knowledge (Hatzigianni et al., 2020). In a makerspace, learners can co-construct knowledge with peers. There are opportunities for peer teaching or mentoring to allow more knowledgeable students to share their experiences with those who are less familiar.

To support learning in makerspaces, educators should adopt this student-focused approach, acting as facilitators rather than learning directors. By creating environments where students actively, and sometimes socially, construct knowledge through exploration, problem-solving, and the iterative process of designing, students are afforded the benefits of constructionist and social constructivist education. Learners will develop collaboration, creativity, and critical thinking skills while becoming more engaged in learning, taking ownership of the learning process, and developing deeper connections to course content.

Gender Inclusion in STEM Learning

Addressing gender inequities in education, specifically in STEM disciplines, is a global priority of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, n.d.). Makerspaces have been proposed as a potential strategy for challenging this male dominance in STEM fields (Ottemo et al., 2023) and providing opportunities for girls and women to develop interest, knowledge, and skills in these areas. Increasing this diversity not only has the potential to close the gender gap in these fields but also to foster improved innovation in these areas, attributable to increased diversity, equity, and inclusion (Marshall et al., 2022). Despite these benefits, both STEM learning and makerspaces remain highly gendered and designed to privilege white males (Tomko et al., 2020), especially those with pre-existing interests in STEM areas (Ottemo et al., 2023), limiting their potential for supporting those who are excluded.

A study by Ottemo et al. (2023) revealed that even when a makerspace is designed to be open and attract a more diverse population, its approach may still unintentionally favour white males with prior interests and experience. Their study focused on a makerspace at a Swedish university that attempted to recruit more female participants by incorporating forms of making assumed to be more popular with females, like crafting through e-textiles and pottery (Ottemo et al., 2023). Despite these efforts to be more gender inclusive, the space was dominated by male participants. Ottemo et al. (2023) state, “Tying pluralization ambitions to redefining what making and engineering is about, comes at the risk of sidestepping rather than critically addressing and analytically deconstructing links between masculinity and technology” (p. 116).  Focusing on traditionally feminine types of making can further limit female participation instead of increasing it because it perpetuates ideas about the differences between women and men as makers.