Becoming Makers: a Designed-Based Research Study Investigating Curriculum Implementation Through Making

University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository

Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations

2019-07-04 Becoming Makers: A Designed-Based Research Study Investigating Curriculum Implementation Through Making

Becker, Sandra Lynn

Becker, S. L. (2019). Becoming Makers: A Designed-Based Research Study Investigating Curriculum Implementation Through Making (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/110614 doctoral thesis

University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

Becoming Makers: A Designed-Based Research Study Investigating Curriculum

Implementation Through Making

Sandra Lynn Becker

A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

GRADUATE PROGRAM IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

CALGARY, ALBERTA

JULY, 2019

©Sandra Lynn Becker 2019

Abstract

Educational researchers suggest there is great potential in the implementation of makerspaces as learning environments in formal school settings (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014;

Hira & Hines, 2018; Martin, 2015; Wardrip & Brahms, 2016) My manuscript-based dissertation explores if and how making for learning might be enacted for a teacher and her class within the context of three separate curriculum topics. Each manuscript explores the research data from a different perspective, both pragmatically and theoretically: 1) comparing the figured worlds of makerspace and classroom as learning environment; 2) participants developing ontologically through the exploration of making in the context of STEM curriculum; and 3) participants growing as designers through making.

Critical to this work was the selection of participatory design-based research as methodology, underpinned by the theories of constructionism and communities of practice.

Through three cycles of making, I sought to answer the following research questions: How can teachers be supported in the development of teacher knowledge, pedagogy, and practice within an elementary school makerspace environment? and How can teachers support the development of students’ conceptual understanding of disciplinary topics in an elementary school makerspace?

My goal was to explore how teachers working within classrooms as complex systems and the constraints and opportunities of curriculum topics might adopt making practices to further learning possibilities for their students.

Three design principles emerged from the work, those being, 1) teachers, when designing for student learning in makerspaces, must consider that inherent in design iterations are opportunities for sensemaking as well as consequential displays of knowledge; 2) teachers must

experience and share with students their own experiences of learning through failure; and 3) students must be provided opportunities from start to finish to do the work of professionals.

This study focused on one teacher and her class over a year. It is recommended that future research might explore how elementary teachers in multiple school settings and from multiple backgrounds take up making as a way for their students and themselves to learn.

iii

Preface

Chapter 5 of this thesis has been modified slightly and published as:

Becker, S. & Jacobsen, M. (2019). “How Can I Build a Model if I Don’t Know the Answer to the

Question?”: Developing Student and Teacher Sky Scientist Ontologies Through Making.

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1-18. doi:10.1007/s10763-

019-09953-8

Acknowledgements

I am filled with tremendous gratitude for the opportunities provided to me throughout my doctoral journey. The support from the Werklund School of Education has been boundless. From the support staff in the graduate studies office, to the professors with whom I have worked closely to learn about research processes, to those who have simply asked, How is it going? I am in your debt. You created a wonderful atmosphere in which to learn.

To my committee, who scaffolded and nudged me, often in directions I had not considered, thank you. Dr. Michele Jacobsen, you modeled for me a constructivist approach in your way of being. By allowing me to direct my own learning path, and honouring, celebrating, and scaffolding the messy but rich work of conducting research, my learning was enhanced immeasurably. Dr. Jennifer Lock, your pithy comments, always injected with humour and grace, sharpened and clarified my thinking. Dr. Pratim Sengupta, your sage, overarching thoughts provided at just the right time, focused my notions of key ideas in the field.

I would also like to acknowledge the Werklund doctoral students with whom I was fortunate enough to study. It was a pleasure to work with such a talented, caring, and thoughtful group of student academics. Our world is in good hands.

Lastly, I would like to thank my family. My parents would have loved to have been given the opportunity I had. I acknowledge the sacrifices they both made so that future generations could have more choices and options. To my sister Kim, you were always there to listen, encourage, and wade through my papers. I am forever grateful. To my husband, Glenn, my biggest cheerleader, not only did you manage everything while I was locked away in my office, listen to my exclamations of joy (and pain), and rearrange our life to suit my needs, your acceptance of my quirks and foibles and my need to do this work is appreciated beyond measure.

You accept me and love me just as I am, and for that I am deeply grateful. I am very fortunate to have such a giving and loving partner.

Dedication

“Just to know you could. That was enough.”

(Banks, 1980)

I dedicate this work to Riley and her students. It was truly an honour and a privilege to risk take, design, create, learn, and grow together.

vii

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii

Preface ...... iv

Acknowledgements ...... v

Dedication ...... vii

Table of Contents ...... viii

List of Figures ...... xv

List of Tables ...... xvi

Chapter One Introduction ...... 1

Why Making as Innovative Teaching Practice? ...... 4

A Case for Researching Making in Canadian Schools ...... 5

Definitions and Terminology ...... 10

Constructionism ...... 10

Curriculum...... 10

Learning Environment...... 10

Maker...... 11

Makerspaces...... 11

Making...... 11

Research Questions, Purpose of the Study, and Conceptualization ...... 11

Study Site ...... 12

Selection of Theoretical Frameworks and Conceptual Framework ...... 13

Chapter Two A Review of the Literature ...... 15

Theories Underpinning Making for Learning ...... 16

viii

Constructivism to Constructionism ...... 16

Communities of Practice ...... 18

Connecting Constructivist/Constructionist Theories with Communities of Practice ...... 20

Social Constructivism ...... 20

Influence from Reggio Emilia ...... 21

Current Research Themes in Making ...... 22

What Are Makerspaces, Makers, and Making? ...... 22

Makerspaces and Learning ...... 24

A Making Mindset ...... 27

Makerspace Implementation ...... 29

Learning and Teaching Frameworks ...... 30

Assessment in the Makerspace ...... 34

Professional Development for Makerspace Educators ...... 36

Tensions in the Field ...... 38

Tools vs Pedagogy ...... 38

Over-Emphasis on STEM ...... 39

Equity and Access ...... 40

Importance of Aesthetics in Making ...... 41

Bringing the Literature to Life ...... 42

Chapter Three Methodology ...... 43

Conceptual Framework ...... 43

Design-Based Research as Methodological Choice ...... 45

Research Design ...... 49

Curricular Considerations ...... 50

A Model for Curriculum ...... 51

Learning Environment Considerations ...... 53

Research Study Phases ...... 56

Phase I – Analysis and Exploration...... 57

Phase II – Design and Construction...... 58

Phase III – Evaluation and Reflection...... 59

Implementation and Spread...... 59

Research Timeline ...... 60

Sample Population and Research Setting ...... 60

Site ...... 61

Participants ...... 61

Overview of Information Needed ...... 61

Methods of Data Collection ...... 62

Primary Data Sources ...... 62

Observations and field notes...... 62

Dialogic opportunities...... 62

Interviews...... 63

Secondary Data Sources ...... 64

Unit plans, maker planning tools, assessments, and student artifacts...... 64

Emails and text messages...... 64

Telephone conversations...... 64

Data Analysis ...... 65

Ethical Considerations ...... 66

Issues of Trustworthiness ...... 67

Research Limitations and Delimitations ...... 68

Limitations ...... 68

Delimitations ...... 69

Manuscript-Based Thesis Format ...... 69

Chapter Four Learning Environment ...... 71

How Does Learning ‘Figure’ in Figured Worlds ...... 73

Methodology ...... 76

Findings ...... 80

The Forming of Maker Identities ...... 82

John...... 82

Josh ...... 86

Emmy ...... 90

Riley...... 91

Discussion ...... 96

Conclusion ...... 99

Chapter Five Curriculum ...... 101

Learning Through Making ...... 102

Teacher Knowledge of the Nature of Science and Science Inquiry ...... 103

Elementary Teachers’ Scientific Knowledge ...... 104

Developing Effective Teaching Practices Through Inquiry ...... 104

Methodology ...... 105

Research Participants and Setting ...... 106

Data Sources ...... 108

Data Analysis ...... 108

Findings ...... 109

Pre-Making: Designing for making as an iterative learning process ...... 109

During Making: Deepening Understanding of What It Means to Be a Scientist ...... 113

Post Making: Seeing students and teachers as emerging scientists ...... 117

Emerging scientists as theorists...... 117

Emerging scientists as knowledge experts ...... 118

Emerging scientists guiding their own learning process...... 119

From Ontology of a Scientist to Ontology of a Learner ...... 121

Discussion ...... 122

Conclusion ...... 124

Chapter Six Design ...... 127

Design as a Way of Knowing ...... 129

Connecting Design Epistemology to Makerspaces as Inquiry Driven Learning Environments

...... 134

Methodology ...... 136

Findings ...... 137

Learning from Research Cycle 1: Designing Science ...... 138

Learning from Research Cycle 2: Designing for Mathematics ...... 142

Learning from Research Cycle 3: Designing for Humanities ...... 145

Follow-up in Year Two: Maker Teacher as Learning Designer ...... 148

xii

Discussion ...... 152

Interpretations of the Design Process ...... 154

Design as Artifact ...... 154

Design as Problem Solving ...... 157

Design as Reflection ...... 159

Design as Sense Making ...... 161

Conclusion ...... 162

Chapter Seven Conclusion ...... 165

Key Elements in the Study ...... 165

Design ...... 165

Curriculum ...... 166

Encouraging stances in curriculum enactment...... 167

Stance 1: Restrict “separate subject domains to a more limited number of broader

learning areas” ...... 167

Stance 2: Connect learning inside and outside school ...... 167

Stance 3: Make learning more personal and challenging ...... 168

Balancing curriculum components...... 169

Curriculum as represented and realized...... 171

Comparing curriculum implementation at different levels ...... 173

Learning Environment ...... 175

Example 1: Learning goals ...... 178

Example 2: Learning approaches ...... 178

Example 3: Learning sequences ...... 179

xiii

Design Principles ...... 179

Additional Insights Arising From the Study ...... 183

Gauging Pedagogical Intentions ...... 183

Experiencing Joy in Making ...... 186

Accepting Tensions in the Research Process ...... 188

Directions for Future Research ...... 190

Conclusion ...... 191

References ...... 194

Appendix A: Analysis of Makerspace Research Articles ...... 224

Appendix B: Semi-Structured Teacher Interview Guiding Questions ...... 229

Appendix C: Semi-Structured Principal Interview Guiding Questions ...... 230

xiv

List of Figures

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of design-based research study ...... 44

Figure 2. van den Akker's curriculum spider web (2013). Reprinted with permission...... 52

Figure 3. van den Akker's curriculum typology (2013). Reprinted with permission...... 53

Figure 4. Design considerations for makerspaces. A comparison of Collins' (1993) design issues for learning environments...... 55

Figure 5. Research model. Adapted from McKenney and Reeves' generic model for DBR

(2012)...... 57

Figure 6. Codes and subcodes used in analyzing data to compare the makerspace and classroom as learning environment...... 79

Figure 7. Challenges identified in the figured worlds of classroom and makerspace...... 81

Figure 8. Conjecture map (Sandoval, 2014) for supporting curricular implementation through making...... 180

Figure 9. Innovation maker pathway using routine expertise. Based on the concept of adaptive expertise (Schwartz, Bransford, & Sears, 2005)...... 185

List of Tables

Table 1 Research Themes Identified in Makerspace Literature (n = 43) ...... 6

Table 2 Research Methodologies Identified in Makerspace Literature (n = 43) ...... 7

Table 3 Inventory of Data Sources Collected During the Study ...... 65

Table 4 Estimations of Teacher and Student Responsibility for Roles in Enacting Curriculum . 98

Table 5 Time Used for Design, Enactment, and Reflection in Three Making Cycles ...... 153

Table 6 Curriculum Components as Enacted by the Teacher and Students ...... 170

Table 7 Researcher Reflections on the Teacher and Students' Notions of Representation of

Curriculum ...... 172

Table 8 Examples of Design Considerations Implicitly Addressed in the Makerspace ...... 177

xvi

Chapter One

Introduction

An important development in educational technology is makerspaces: “physical environments that foster opportunities for hands-on learning and creation, often enabled by emerging technologies” (Freeman, Adams Becker, Cummins, Davis, & Hall Giesinger, 2017, p.

40). Makerspaces are collaborative spaces where novices and experts alike engage in design thinking, tinkering, and playing with ideas using low and high tech tools and materials. Seen by many as a pedagogical fit for formal educational settings, the makerspace environment can encourage learners’ development and representation of deep conceptual understanding by providing opportunities for the construction of multiple iterations of physical and digital forms.

Implementing a makerspace requires a shift from direct instruction models toward designs for more active learning and a greater focus on the current competencies outlined by

Canadian educational policymakers. Across Canada, provincial education ministries, along with other government and non-profit agencies, are calling for the integration of core 21st century competencies in Canadian education systems (Boudreault, Haga, Paylor, Sabourin, Thomas, & van der Linden, 2012; British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2015; C21, 2012; Ontario

Ministry of Education, 2016). These competencies, which include critical thinking, problem solving, decision-making, creativity, innovation, communication, digital and technological fluency, along with social, cultural, and environmental responsibility, are meant to be developed over time, and within environments that are student centred (Alberta Education, 2011). A task force report from Action Canada states that the “application of 21st century learning across provinces is largely inconsistent” (Boudreault et al., 2012, p. 3). Challenges exist in

implementing these policy and curricular imperatives within the realities of practice in public schools in Canada today. These challenges include standardized curriculum (Alberta Education,

2017) and teacher directed models of instruction (Davis, Sumara, & Luce-Kapler, 2015), a focus on summative assessment (Volante & Ben Jaafar, 2008; Volante, 2010), a lack of well supported contextualized teacher professional learning models (Bruce, Esmonde, Ross, Dookie, & Beatty,

2010; Fullan, Hill, & Crevola, 2006), and scheduling and timetabling constraints. Makerspaces provide a viable option for cultivating 21st century competencies because inherent in the design thinking, tinkering, and playing that learners engage in through making, are the very competencies decreed as critical by policymakers.

The success of makerspaces in schools, as with many other technological interventions

(Cuban, 2013), will be determined in part by the supports provided to teachers in design and implementation. Choosing design-based research, a participatory educational research methodology, allowed for the testing of iterative school makerspace designs within the complexity of a real world setting, and also provided data used in developing preliminary design principles that can be foundational to further development of makerspaces in formal learning environments.

Lowyck (2013) maintained there is “high complexity in both conceptualization and realization” when it comes to implementation of technology enhanced learning environments (p.

15). I posit that this is particularly so in schools. Recent critiques suggest that due to some of the tensions in the field, the external forces that ushered in making in education in the early part of this century now threaten the possibilities it may hold (Blikstein & Worsley, 2016). Blikstein and

Worsley (2016) have advocated for all stakeholders to “prioritize research, equity, pluralism, and

powerful ideas” (p. 76) in order to realize the possibilities envisioned by early adopters of making for learning.

This doctoral research is a call to action, in supporting those who are on the ground, living, designing, and iterating school makerspaces, in all of their complexity and messiness. If we believe in the inherent value of makerspaces, as documented in the results from this study, it is important that we become part of the dialogue around reframing teaching through making.

Halverson and Sheridan (2014) expressed the fears of many who believe that propelling makerspaces into formal educational institutions will “quash the emergence, creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurial spirit” (p. 500) that are the very essence of making. They acknowledge that schools must move beyond making as a series of activities completed with the use of tools to a thoughtful ideological approach to learning through making. It is my hope that in the presentation of results from the design, implementation, and evaluation of a makerspace in an elementary school in this study, there is increased potential to inform a middle ground, where educators can work within the confines of the complex system of which they are a part, while promoting and cultivating innovative learning experiences for their students and themselves.

We are at a critical juncture in education. Without the research to support makerspace implementation, and opportunities to build on and extend the ideas that have already been developed, the possibilities that exist for making in formal environments may not be realized.

Since current research on makerspaces has predominantly taken place in informal learning environments, there is a pressing need for greater study of makerspaces in schools. To that end, this design-based research study explored a promising innovation in the complexity of an authentic elementary school environment in order to inform the field of the learning sciences.

Using a design-based approach to studying makerspaces and learning in elementary schools not

only allowed for research within a real-world teaching and learning space, it allowed for the conceptualization of a set of design principles for teaching as design that contribute to the current literature and practice on makerspace implementation.

Why Making as Innovative Teaching Practice?

I come to this researcher role with a lengthy background as practitioner. Though I spent many years in the classroom, I also served in an informal leadership capacity as teacher librarian where I researched, initiated, and implemented multiple iterations of a school learning commons with an elementary school staff, and later, led the creation of an attached makerspace. Both of these learning spaces served as locations for teachers and students to conduct research and test out ideas. When designing the spaces, I envisioned students and teachers engaged in continual cycles of learning by building knowledge in multiple ways, with multiple tools and resources, over multiple iterations.

Pedagogically speaking, my theoretical roots lie within the realm of social constructivism

(Vygotsky, 1978). In my work as teacher librarian, I came to see that technology could empower constructivist practices, in that students used digital technologies to construct meaning by playing both individually and in groups with ideas, presenting for audiences outside their classrooms, and engaging in what they and others considered to be important, thoughtful work.

One of the reasons for initiating a makerspace as extension of school learning commons was that I envisaged the potential impact that this type of learning environment might have if designed and implemented thoughtfully. I was concerned that the emerging maker movement in schools appeared to be reflecting a bandwagon effect, so common in educational innovations, without sufficient research-based evidence to support the innovation in formal school settings. In essence, there was a great deal of hype around makerspaces in schools, but little substantive

research to inform it or back it up. The question in the back of my mind was, the notion of hands- on making sounds exciting, but where is the evidence to support implementation?

As an educator and librarian, I observed firsthand how conducting curricular work in a makerspace setting led to rethinking practices away from teacher directed instruction to student led engagement in problem solving. Based on my undocumented observations, the makerspace environment changed the traditional teacher role of knowledge holder and learning director to teacher as observer, supporter, and advisor. I also noted the types of support teachers seemed to require, to not only envision how the makerspace could serve as a vehicle for curriculum implementation, but also for embracing failure and risk-taking as tools for their own and their students’ learning. Observations of students led me to see that their learning appeared to focus on the development of continual, iterative solutions to not only the overarching task, but a myriad of minute problems that arose during the work. The focus on continual problem solving required students to innovate, test, and persevere in mutually collaborative ways in order to succeed.

My informal observations and teaching experience helped me to zero in on two significant impressions: 1) Teachers in an elementary makerspace setting were able to re- envision their role in students’ learning processes; 2) Teachers’ re-envisioning required significant time, support, and iterative opportunities for experimentation.

A Case for Researching Making in Canadian Schools

In order to derive a sense of the research themes and methodologies found in the makerspace literature, in the summer of 2017, prior to initiating this research study, I completed an analysis of 43 articles, dated from 2009 to 2017, with 38 published in 2014 and beyond

(Appendix A). The research described in the articles took place in informal environments for children and adults or formal environments, K-20. Thirteen articles presented reviews, proposals,

and analyses of makerspace topics, sixteen described studies conducted in informal spaces, six in post-secondary, seven at the middle and high school level, and two at the elementary school level.

Though some articles addressed more than one theme, I identified the most prominent in each article for the table.

Table 1

Research Themes Identified in Makerspace Literature (n = 43) Theme Investigated Number of Articles Percentage of Articles Overarching Exploration of Topic 7 16% Pedagogy 16 37% Assessment (2) 4% Epistemology 1 2% Implementation 7 16% Tools and Technologies 4 9% Engagement and Access 4 9% Professional Development 4 9%

Of the 16 articles that had a strong focus on pedagogy, two were related specifically to assessment. Only one article exclusively targeted student learning that took place during a makerspace activity and that article submitted that facility with tools was critical in learning. Some of the articles studied student learning as it related to engagement and access in distinct maker activities. In those cases, the articles’ core findings leaned toward student identity and equity through engagement. As for professional development, the articles emphasized the importance of grounding pedagogy in makerspace creation.

Table 2

Research Methodologies Identified in Makerspace Literature (n = 43) Methodology Employed Number of Articles Percentage of Articles Literature Review 7 16% Report/Essay 3 7% Analysis 3 7% Qualitative Interviews and Surveys 7 16% Observation 3 7% Case Study 7 16% Critical Ethnography 1 2% Jointly Negotiated Frameworks 2 4% Narrative Inquiry 1 2% Participatory 3 7% Action Research (1) 2% Design-Based Research (1) 2% Participatory Design (1) 2% Mixed Methods 1 2% Quantitative Survey 3 7% Phenomenological Approach 1 2%

The majority of researchers included in this review employed methodologies that sought to observe implementation and the learning happening in makerspaces. Only three selected participatory methodologies, and of those three, only one explicitly declared use of design-based research at the high school level as the research methodology.

The results from this small-scale analysis conveyed a need by showing limited research at the elementary level, with DBR as a methodology. Engaging in a design-based research (DBR) approach to elementary makerspace implementation, one that could elicit “usable knowledge”

(McKenney & Reeves, 2012, p. 7) in the “iterative development of solutions to practical and complex educational problems” (McKenney & Reeves, 2012, p. 7) was initiated to move not only the researcher, but the teacher beyond pedagogy to learning in the makerspace. Though there has been significant research conducted in informal makerspace learning environments,

developing a set of applicable design principles for teacher use in formal settings leant itself to this research in that the methodological essence of DBR as an intentionally interventionist approach to blending theory and practice corresponds to the pedagogy of the makerspace and allowed for a purposeful focus on epistemology.

The work in both DBR and the makerspace required design, followed by learning through reflection, followed by further design. Both DBR and the makerspace involved study that took place through iteration and revision, social interaction, and active participation by all constituents

(Barab & Squire, 2004; McKenney & Reeves, 2012).

The design process inherent in both DBR and makerspaces, provided opportunities for deep learning because of the need for creativity and flexible thinking (Edelson, 2002). According to Bannan-Ritland, (2003), “it may be productive to consider a program of research as a design event” (p. 21), in that decisions made in the design process, whether successful or not, were central to the researcher’s and the teacher’s learning about learning.

Design-based research allowed me as researcher to “critique narratives of progress, actively seeking alternative models to account for change over time” (McWilliams, 2016, p. 270) as it specifically related to learning, enabling the teacher and students to experience failure as a

“viable pathway through education” (McWilliams, 2016, p. 267). A DBR approach in this study led to the development of guidelines, procedures and even domain theories (Edelson, 2002), which address both theory and practice.

DBR continues to develop in the learning sciences (Sawyer, 2014) as a way of examining

“learning within its full contextual splendour” (Barab, 2014, pp 166). Learning scientists seek out context in order to deepen theoretical connections to practical implementation (Barab, 2014).

The generative intertwining of research and implementation in this study speaks to the rich

complexity of DBR but also the challenge of gleaning insights about learning that demonstrate a rigorous process. This challenge is a commitment felt throughout the learning sciences community in that each DBR study furthers knowledge on a particular topic, in this case makerspaces, but also presents an opportunity to deepen understanding of the methodology. The makerspace was a rich environment in which to study a pedagogical innovation while teasing out the creative aspects of DBR.

The intentional selection of DBR as methodology though necessary, was risky, given my previous roles as teacher and learning leader. I was cognizant of the change in representation from teacher to researcher and was concerned that one of my former identities might usurp the researcher role. As McWilliams (2016) queries, “How do we negotiate the very real cultural and local demands that require us to conceal, delay, or ignore aspects of our identities and experiences that might have very real bearing on the force and direction of participatory design?”

(p. 269). Working as a teaching colleague for many years predisposed me to the collegial and collaborative model, and leading school learning as teacher librarian drove my need to promote innovation. Maintaining the predominant position as researcher, albeit in a collaborative ethos, required constant vigilance. Added to this, were the identities all participants brought to the makerspace, notably the teacher, who saw herself in relation to her discipline knowledge (Litts,

2015) and instantiated canonical approaches to teaching.

DBR as an educational research methodology offered considerable challenges. Barab and

Squire (2004) presented the lofty goal that “design-based research is concerned with using design in the service of developing broad models of how humans, think, know, act, and learn” (p.

5). However, because of its very nature, DBR can become overwhelming for researchers in the number of required iterations, and collection of usable data (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012). This

was especially problematic in this study, where considerable time was needed for the teacher, her students, and myself to develop and conceptualize design ideas. Other concerns related to DBR were problems of scalability and whether connections to theory could actually be made. Though scholars have linked making to sociocultural theories of learning, the increased complexity of the makerspace in formal environments, especially given the constraints presented by expectations of teachers, parents, and the historical context of the school system, provided appreciable challenges.

Given that there has been little research conducted on makerspace implementation using

DBR and that the design needed to be conducted iteratively indicates that DBR presented a rich starting point for analyzing, designing, implementing and studying learning.

Definitions and Terminology

To understand specific terms as they were contextualized in this study, I include the following definitions:

Constructionism. Constructionism builds on the constructivist theories of Jean Piaget in that it “involves two intertwined types of construction: the construction of knowledge in the context of building personally meaningful artifacts” (Kafai & Resnick, 1996, p. 1).

Curriculum. “Curriculum deals with planning and guiding learning in an educational context” (McKenny & Reeves, 2012, p. 69). Though there are many connotations to the word curriculum, in this proposal curriculum refers to the program of study, which includes the topics, concepts, and skills teachers are required to teach.

Learning Environment. The learning environment is “an artefact designed in a historical context, in response to cultural constraints and expectations, which is intended to bring about societally desirable learning outcomes” (Nathan & Sawyer, 2014, p. 27-28). For this

research study, a makerspace in a formal school setting fits this description. However, it is important to note that the space as artefact is one facet of the learning environment. This study will further focus on how learning takes place in activity, in the designing of objects and solutions to problems (Greeno & Engestrom, 2014). The practices, or “regular and recurring patterns of activity” observed in community (Greeno & Engestrom, 2014) also constitute aspects of the learning environment.

Learning space as artefact, learning in activity, and learning in community are all important characteristics of learning environments that will be considered within the study.

Attending to the differing meanings attached to the notion of learning space is critical when designing opportunities for students to engage in meaningful learning through making (Wardrip

& Brahms, 2016).

Maker. Makers are defined as “identities of participation” (Peppler, Halverson, & Kafai,

2016, p. 3), in that inherent in making is a personal approach to ideating and solving problems of interest.

Makerspaces. Makerspaces have been likened to “communities of practice” (Peppler et al., 2016, p. 3) in that learning is situated in a participatory social environment where people of different skill levels work alongside each other.

Making. Making is defined as “a set of designed learning activities” (Peppler et al., 2016, p. 3), where the focus is on designing and constructing ideas with physical, digital, or metaphorical forms.

Research Questions, Purpose of the Study, and Conceptualization

The problem addressed in this research study was understanding how to support the creation of a makerspace in a formal educational setting while taking into account the

curriculum, assessment, and cultural complexities that this type of work entails. Research is called for to yield the design principles necessary for developing a makerspace learning environment that can be successfully implemented in elementary school settings, partly because there is a lack of research on this topic in formal elementary school environments, and partly because such principles can inform how we scaffold teacher professional learning within the context of a standardized curriculum, direct instruction, summative assessment models, and rigid schedules.

The purpose of this design-based research was to explore and articulate the principles required for teachers to design and enact an elementary school makerspace that promotes deep conceptual learning for students. Two research questions framed inquiry in this study.

RQ1: How can teachers be supported in the development of teacher knowledge, pedagogy, and practice within an elementary school makerspace environment?

RQ2: How can teachers support the development of students’ conceptual understanding of disciplinary topics in an elementary school makerspace?

Study Site

The study took place with a grade six teacher and her students in a K-7 rural school in

Alberta, Canada. The school presented an interesting demographic in that the main industry of the town resulted in the recruitment of a significant number of temporary foreign workers to provide a much needed workforce, most commonly in service occupations (Deloitte, 2014).

According to a report authored in 2014, though only 6.5% of the population were considered low income, 18% work second or third jobs (Deloitte, 2014) and housing affordability is a consistent challenge for residents (Deloitte, 2014). The town is considered ethnically diverse (Deloitte,

2014). At the time the study was conducted, according to the school principal, of 423 students,

36% were designated English language learners (ELL). In 2016-2017, the school was ranked 425 out of 819 schools, with a rating of 6.1 out of 10, based on academic performance results in provincial exam testing at grades 3 and 6 (Cowley & Easton, 2018).

Selection of Theoretical Frameworks and Conceptual Framework

Underpinning this research study are the theories of constructionism (Papert & Harel,

1991) and communities of practice (Lave & Wenger. 1991), which will be discussed in more detail in chapters 2 and 3. These theories supported the conceptualization of a research framework that considered three key elements which focused on designing for learning in formal school settings: design, learning environment, and curriculum.

As a manuscript based dissertation, this document contains a detailed literature review and methodology chapter that serve to create “an encompassing narrative that properly introduces and contextualizes the study” (Werklund School of Education, 2017), followed by three findings chapters or manuscripts. Following the three findings chapters is a concluding chapter that presents “an independent and original general discussion . . . that integrates the most significant findings of the thesis into the coherent narrative (Werklund School of Education,

2017).

Each of the three findings chapters relate to teacher and student learning in makerspace environments through one of the key elements outlined in the conceptual framework. Chapter four centers on learning environment and is entitled “A Year at the Improv: Iterating Identity and

Agency in the Figured World of Elementary Makerspace.” Chapter five highlights curriculum and is entitled “How Can I Build a Model if I Don’t Know the Answer to the Question?:

Developing Student and Teacher Sky Science Ontologies Through Making” (Becker & Jacobsen,

2019). Chapter six focuses on design and is entitled, “Supporting Teachers as Designers of

Learning in Elementary School Makerspaces.”

The findings of this design-based research study tell the story of an elementary generalist, who in the process of exploring making for learning in collaboration with a researcher, reflected upon and deepened her understanding of her students, discipline knowledges, innovative pedagogy, and herself as a teacher.

In order to understand this research story as presented, we turn next to what the research literature conveys about learning through making.

Chapter Two

A Review of the Literature

Educational makerspaces are collaborative spaces where students develop conceptual understanding through designing, building, and iterating ideas with physical and digital objects.

Originally developed as community spaces, then moving to informal learning environments such as museums and libraries, supporters have advocated for the introduction of makerspaces to schools. Scholars have purported that making in educational environments has promise (Martin,

2015), in that learning is “deeply embedded in the experience of making” (Sheridan, Halverson,

Litts, Brahms, Jacobs-Priebe, & Owens, 2014, p. 528) and that by making students develop “a sense of personal agency and self-efficacy” (Oxman Ryan, Clapp, Ross, & Tishman, 2016, p.

35).

As a former teacher and teacher librarian, who led the implementation and first iteration of a makerspace connected to an elementary school library, current research confirms my lived experience. There appears to be great promise in making. I have witnessed first hand powerful shifts on the part of teachers in meaningful approaches to task design, curriculum, and assessment in makerspace environments.

However, given my background, important questions remain unanswered, especially when it comes to makerspaces in formal learning environments. And as with many technological innovations in formal education, thoughtful implementation rather than the technology itself is the challenge (Reiser, 2001; Saettler, 1990). In order for practitioners to embrace making as learning, they must push back not only on standardized models of education still prevalent in many schools and practices today but also on makerspace research which does not address adequately deeper questions of epistemology through pragmatic implementation.

This study seeks to develop design principles to support teachers in building knowledge and pedagogy of student learning in disciplinary areas through making. Though there are many aspects of making and makerspaces that connect to foundational concepts in the learning sciences, in order to support the study on making for learning, I limited this review of the extant research literature by focusing on three questions: 1) What are the key learning theories underpinning making for learning?; 2) What themes arise consistently in the literature around making for learning?; and 3) What tensions are being debated in the literature on making and educational makerspaces? Directing the review in this way provided for the development of a conceptual framework supported by key learning theories, while attending to potential encumbrances or obstructions that have arisen in the literature.

Theories Underpinning Making for Learning

In the section that follows, I briefly discuss five theoretical perspectives: constructivism, constructionism, communities of practice, social constructivism, and the Reggio Emilia approach.

The idea of children building understanding through the mobilization and manipulation of objects hearkens back to the end of the 19th and early part of the 20th century. Froebel encouraged the use of objects as tools for learning in early childhood (1885), Dewey advocated for the experience of handling materials to develop thinking (1916), and Montessori (1912) used objects to develop not only students’ physical but mental dexterity.

Constructivism to Constructionism

Piaget (1972) argued that, “in order for a child to understand something, he must construct it himself, he must re-invent it” (p. 27). Seymour Papert, building on extensive work with Piaget and his theory of constructivism, took this idea even further. He experimented with

programming of computers “as objects-to-think-with” (Papert, 1980, p. 23) to explore how children, through the construction of digital objects, developed “powerful, concrete ways to think about problems” (Papert, 1980, p. 22). For some, Seymour Papert is considered the father of the maker movement (Martinez & Stager, 2013; Wardrip & Brahms, 2015) because his theory of constructionism is manifested in the building of artifacts, whether physical or digital, as models of conceptual thinking.

Papert’s theory of constructionism moves beyond learning as the transfer of hierarchical knowledge, a traditional epistemology which “gives a privileged position to knowledge that is abstract, impersonal, and detached from the knower,” (Papert & Harel, 1991, p.10) to construction of knowledge that is concrete, technical, and highly personal. This shift impacts the context of learning and thus engagement, in that children want to learn because it assists them in constructing objects of intimate importance (Papert & Harel, 1991).

Papert regarded learning, particularly with computers, as “a cultural process” involving ideas, discourses, and social attitudes manifested in the ways they are creatively “constructed, used, and represented” (Papert, 1987, p. 29). He envisioned new possibilities for the way school subjects are learned in that objects and tools as cultural elements could channel attitudes and change thinking about school in its traditional forms (Papert, 1987).

Inherent in the theory of constructionism is the importance of personal engagement through affective design, the exchange and sharing of knowledge with others, and the deep structure of knowledge that develops through constructivist experience (Papert, 1987). Though

Papert’s research focused primarily on idea formation through digital forms, the essence of constructionism is embodied in all forms of making (Papert, 1987). While Papert regarded the social aspect of constructionism as critical to learning, it was not the central theme in his theory,

as it is in Lave and Wenger’s communities of practice theory, which is discussed later in this chapter.

An early practical enactment and direct link from Papert’s theory of constructionism was the Computer Clubhouse program, originally a 1993 partnership between MIT Media Lab and the Computer Museum, which provided a space for children to create and invent with mentors

(Kafai, Peppler, & Chapman, 2009). The core principles guiding the program underpin much of the current thinking on makerspaces: children working in a respectful environment, building on personal interests by pursuing design projects, engaging in participatory and nurturing learning communities for all. These “Computer Clubhouses,” conceptualized as informal learning spaces, though each unique in design, have spread across the globe, and maintain connections, both physically and virtually, even today. The learning model that arose from this work continues to develop and transform as researchers study its implications (Kafai et al., 2009).

Communities of Practice

The notion of communities of practice has also emerged in the makerspace literature

(Fourie & Meyer, 2015; MakerEd, 2015; Sheridan, et al. 2014; Willett, 2016). Derived from the work of Lave and Wenger (1991), who asserted that understanding develops in connecting through communities of practice, they suggested that engaging in these communities makes for effective learning. In essence, learning involves the complete person, not only as related to a task or activity, but as to participation in a learning community (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Researchers have suggested that in makerspaces, members “call upon salient practices and ways of being that are learned in that community” (Barton, Tan, & Greenberg, 2016), thereby situating the learning in a personal, situational, contextual experience.

In communities of practice, learning activities have patterns, which correspond to making. These patterns include developing strong goals for learning, improvising practice, and generating curriculum that unfolds through engagement (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Important to this view is a shift away from knowledge residing almost completely with the expert (in schools, it is the teacher) to seeing knowledge held in the organization of community (of which the teacher is part). This shift moves the focus away from the teaching of some to learning for all.

The emphasis on a “learning curriculum,” which is “viewed from the perspective of learners,” is contrasted with a teaching curriculum which is “mediated through an instructor’s participation, by an external view of what knowing is about” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 97).

Another important facet of communities of practice, is that members create and use artifacts to mediate learning. This connects to makerspaces, in that members participate in dialogue and information exchanges, while observing, listening, making, iterating, and learning.

An essential component of Lave and Wenger’s (1991) work is the notion of legitimate peripheral participation (LPP) where learning is a fundamental component of engaging in social practice. LPP identifies that learners take part in various participatory perspectives and locations based on their learning path in a community of practice. When learners can partake on the periphery, they have many access points to learning. This means that a community of practice

“has no single core or center” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 36).

Participating as a member of a community of practice may be problematic in school makerspaces due to the conventional organizational configuration of students in grade levels and classes with one teacher at the helm. In communities of practice, newcomers must have access to other members, materials, and resources, and be provided with opportunities to participate. A design challenge for teachers exists when the entire class of students are newcomers to the

community of practice, making it difficult for them to access expert knowledge, as it often only exists in one form – the teacher. This consideration needs to be taken into account and may require innovative thinking when operationalizing makerspace designs in an elementary school.

Connecting Constructivist/Constructionist Theories with Communities of Practice

As is evidenced historically, making for learning adopts cognition and learning principles from the cognitive/rationalist view (Greeno, Collins, Resnick, 1996) in that it involves building with objects in order to transform knowledge that students already possess. On this point,

Papert’s theory of constructionism is central to the literature. However, the making research also leans on the situative pragmatist-sociohistoric view (Greeno et al., 1996) in that knowledge transformation is situated in complex, socio-cultural practices. Lave and Wenger’s theory of communities of practice is cited often in this regard. I posit that both views are of critical weight and importance in makerspace environments and thus have been chosen in support of conceptualizing the present research. There are two other theoretical constructs that are referenced in the making literature and are worth mentioning here.

Social Constructivism

Makerspace researchers (Berland, 2016; Litts & Ramirez, 2014; Niemeyer & Gerber,

2015) referenced Vygotsky’s (1978) theory that human learning and development takes place in social contexts. Researchers argued that social learning happens within the makerspace environment, where opportunities exist for collaborative problem solving, active participation, guidance, and scaffolding between peers and adults of different skill and knowledge levels.

Vygotsky (1978) indicated that there was a difference between the problems a child could complete independently and the problems that children could solve in collaboration with adults or peers. It is inferred that through this collaboration, learners enter the “zone of proximal

development,” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 79), and by engaging in problem solving with assistance from knowledgeable others, students develop, through a process of maturation, their prospective mental capabilities. In other words, what is their proximal development today becomes their actual development in future. Critical to development is the social and cultural situation in which learning happens. The “zone of proximal development” shares similarities to Lave and Wenger’s

“legitimate peripheral participation” in that learning is supported by others in gradual ways through interaction in social contexts.

Influence from Reggio Emilia

Some proponents of the maker movement (Crichton & Carter, 2015; Resnick, 2007;

Stager, 2013, Wardrip & Brahms, 2015) also connect making to the Reggio Emilia approach, which was originally conceived by Loris Malaguzzi, and was greatly influenced by Jean Piaget,

John Dewey, Maria Montessori, and David Hawkins, where the construction of artifacts is integral to the development of cognitive processes. Central to this approach is the atelier or studio, a place for children to experience and research ideas using a variety of materials

(Gandini, Hill, Cadwell, & Schwall, 2005). Further to the studio, the practice of documentation, a process that makes learners’ thinking “visible, and subject to dialogue, interpretation, contestation, and transformation” (Dahlberg, 2012, p. 225) is an integral aspect of learning.

Based on past experience and the research conducted in this study, I found that the objects created become tools for making thinking visible. Each iteration of making invites dialogic moments between participants and can stand as a source of documentation of learning.

The Reggio Emilia approach and Papert’s constructionism are similar in that they both involved the use of tools and physical objects to construct and build ideas. The constructed artifacts serve as a form of feedback for deepening and moving learning forward.

Current Research Themes in Making

In the early 2000’s, makerspaces emerged in private for-pay clubs, community venues, libraries, and museums, where ordinary people could access high tech, expensive digital tools for rapid prototyping of inventive ideas. Initially, much of the research on learning in makerspaces was conducted in informal environments (Bevan, Gutwill, Petrick, & Wilkinson, 2014; Sheridan et al., 2014). Since then, educators have considered the possibilities inherent in makerspaces for formal learning environments and research has begun to emerge to address the need for evidence-based practice (Baroutsis & Woods, 2018; Chan & Blikstein 2018; Stevenson, Bower,

Falloon, Forbes, & Hatzigianni, 2019

In surveying the literature on makerspaces, I identified general research themes arising from that work. The themes include: 1) defining makerspaces, makers, and making, and describing the benefits of making; 2) exploring informal makerspace environments to determine characteristics and mindsets that may apply to formal environments; 3) makerspace implementation; 4) the development of learning frameworks for use in makerspaces; 5) connections to STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math); and 6) general professional development considerations. Each of these themes is explored in more detail in relation to the needs they address and questions they raise.

What Are Makerspaces, Makers, and Making?

Though there have been extensive attempts to precisely define makerspaces and the accompanying terms maker and making, there is currently no comprehensive, agreed upon definition (Martin, 2015; Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014). Further, terms associated with the maker movement such as tinkering, hacking, and fabrication each provide a distinct and nuanced perspective of conceptual construction, and depending on how they are characterized, according

to some, may not be appropriate for formal educational settings. Therein lies the quandary. In part, because the maker movement arose in informal settings, attempts to nail down and illuminate the concept of makerspaces within formal education have become problematic.

Researchers do delineate making, maker, and makerspaces as separate entities. Generally, making is defined as a set of activities; maker an individual who participates in making (Martin,

2015; Halverson & Sheridan, 2014); and makerspaces as communities of practice (Halverson &

Sheridan, 2014; Willett, 2016).

More specifically, “Making is framed as a creative approach and process” (Willett, 2016, p. 323), by which makers design, build, and according to some, tinker (Bevan et al., 2015;

Oxman Ryan et.al., 2016). However, Resnick and Rosenbaum (2013) have considered tinkering, or the ability to play, create, iterate, and revise with materials and ideas over time, as a separate and more important skill than making because of its need for flexibility in disposition. They suggested that tinkering is a particular way of thinking and being and may not be as privileged as other forms of making, particularly in educational contexts, because of its generative approach to problem solving.

Hacking is a type of making that involves modifying products and processes for new purposes (Wardrip & Brahms, 2015). Though some scholars envisioned hacking as part of a maker’s sensibilities (Litts & Ramirez, 2014; Moorefield-Lang, 2015; Oxman Ryan et al., 2016;

Wardrip & Brahms, 2015) not all have seen it as appropriate in school makerspaces. Blikstein &

Worsley (2016) stated that hackers possess a specific set of high-level skills and a mindset that comprises “self-sufficiency, autodidactism, individualism, and competition” (p. 66). Given that, researchers have questioned whether hacking is an appropriate culture to promote in formal educational environments because the individualism representative in hacking does not mesh

with the collaborative culture encouraged in school makerspaces. I have witnessed that hacking can happen collaboratively. Though it may have been seen as an individual, competitive pursuit in the past, hacking is now becoming known for flexibility and openness, within a social collective (Schrock, 2014).

Fabrication laboratories, or FabLabs as they are coined, (Gershenfeld, 2005) emphasized digital tools, which allow for low-cost rapid prototyping of ideas. Found in many universities and community spaces, the focus of a FabLab is on product engineering (Blikstein, 2013), which may be limiting in educational circumstances. Not only are there issues of cost in purchasing tools, there are also safety concerns that must be considered when working with children.

(Barnaskis, 2014; Davee, Regalla, & Chang, 2015).

Makerspaces and Learning

The energy spent on defining terms skirts around what I consider to be a deeper issue in the literature. I problematize the notion of making as activity in that absent from the makerspace research literature is a significant discussion of the epistemological facet. As researchers, we need to look beyond the focus on activity with objects, to studying underlying ways of knowing, which may present themselves in making environments.

DiSessa (2001) articulated an intrinsic kind of knowing when describing the formation of his own intuitive knowledge of electronics, which he believed led to his learning of physics concepts through the use of technical and material literacies. He described his personal, individual experience within a generative cluster of activities that directed him to “ownership, personal connection and competence” (p. 83). However, DiSessa’s is the story of one individual’s learning and does not connect to the socio-cultural aspect inherent in makerspaces.

The predicament for teachers is creating environments that enable learning, within a community, for all students.

Turkle and Papert (1990) compared learners who comprehend abstract knowledge through a formal, canonical approach, to bricoleurs who construct theories “by arranging and rearranging, by negotiating and renegotiating with a set of well-known materials” (p. 136).

Bricolage as learning pathway does lend itself to the creative, emergent aspect of makerspaces, however, it may not be the selected access point for all students. Jacobsen and Friesen (2011) advocated for learning environments that provide for all “groups of learners with diverse strengths, expertise, and skills around shared interests, to work on common goals, to create ideas, and to build and cultivate community knowledge” (para. 9).

This links to Scardamalia and Bereiter’s (2014) notion of knowledge building, where idea improvement and development of knowledge in community is central to the learning community.

Collaborating on the development and improvement of ideas leads to the advancement of knowledge, which also results in developing and improving learning competencies. But what if, as was the case with DiSessa, not all learners wish to learn in community? Is it possible for them to co-exist with learners who do? The situative, pragmatic, sociocultural perspective implies that knowledge is distributed among makers, tools, and the artifacts they construct (Greeno, Collins,

& Resnick, (1996). It appears to be important that educators remain open to the many ways that knowledge can be shared and appropriated within a makerspace environment.

Designing for multiple ways of knowing (Turkle and Papert, 1990) confounds teachers in learning environments. I submit that research is needed to determine if and how both canonical and non-canonical thinking might co-exist in formal makerspaces and if and how teachers can design spaces that promote learning within a fabric of activities (DiSessa, 2001), through

multiple entry points of interest, with students who possess distinct aptitudes, and who may choose to work individually or collaboratively.

Though researchers have stated, “learning is deeply embedded in making” (Sheridan et al., 2014, pp.), details in the makerspace literature that manifest this statement are few.

Perceiving this gap, I question whether it is possible for researchers, teachers, and even students to co-design a theoretical makerspace model of design principles that can support and make visible the construction of knowledge by all types of learners. These principles will need to address epistemic questions of knowing, learning and transfer, and engagement, but also practical considerations of learning environment design, curricular implementation, and assessment (Greeno et al., 1996).

Oxman Ryan et al. (2016), rather than attempting to define what this type of space might look like, revealed a set of characteristics commonly found in making spaces. They referenced 1) an ambiance of creative collaboration; 2) flexibility in the use of materials, methodologies, and approaches for problem solving; and 3) environmental design features that promote sharing and easy access to both digital and physical tools. It is one thing to describe characteristics. It is another to enact these characteristics within the context of a formal curricular space that incentivizes the ability to “know” and apply an educational syllabus. There is a need for the present makerspace research to include the design of metacognitive strategies that encourage students to notice and articulate epistemological insights into their own ways of building theories about the world and applying the knowledge in multiple situations.

However, given that there is no ideally agreed upon portrait of maker environments, and that makerspaces tend to exist in a variety of settings both public and private, child and adult, formal and informal, educators need to explore and play with design conceptualizations. This in

itself is risky, in that tinkering with the creation of a makerspace can take considerable time and involve failure. In essence, I purport that in developing a makerspace at school, educators are themselves employing the “maker mindset” a term first coined outside the academy (Dougherty,

2013) but now adopted in much of the makerspace literature.

A Making Mindset

The notion of mindset appears often in makerspace literature and first originated out of

Dweck’s (2006) research on two mindsets: growth and fixed. Dweck purports that people demonstrate either a fixed mindset, where they feel their abilities are immovable and set, or a growth mindset, where personal qualities can be nurtured, refined, and developed. The “growth mindset” and the “maker mindset” are similar in that they both tend to embrace failure as a learning opportunity, nurture personal learning and intellectual growth, and promote potential ideas through iteration (Martin, 2014).

Scholars contend that developing a maker mindset is a critical aspect of makerspace environments and must be cultivated in school makerspaces (Davee et al., 2015; Lynn, Quek,

Bhangaonkar, Ging, & Sridharamurthy, 2015; Martin, 2015). Researchers also suggest that the maker mindset empowers students in developing their own abilities to think, problem solve, and persevere (Oxman Ryan et al., 2016; Cermack-Sassenrath & Mollenbach, 2014; Litts & Ramirez,

2014; Paganelli, Cribbs, Huang, Pereira, Huss, Chandler, & Paganelli, 2016; Peppler & Bender,

2013) and is of as much importance to the identity of learners, as the acquisition of skills and knowledge (Lynn et al., 2015). However, I question whether a focus on mindset and making as activity diminish attention to discipline knowledge and deep conceptual understanding. The focus in the research literature tends to be more heavily oriented to habits of mind and ways of being, those “soft skills” that are articulated in curriculum documents, but are not easily

measurable, as compared to the more efficiently quantified, product-oriented displays of concept knowledge.

Further to that, one can argue that in order for makerspace environments to be successful in schools, this reticulation of mindset, making, and knowing must also be developed in teachers.

I regard the maker teacher’s mindset as critical to implementation, but similarly question how it could be developed. Oxman Ryan et al. (2016) speak of a “dispositional shift in behaviour” (p.

36) in maker centred environments, leading to “maker empowerment’ (p. 36). They articulate that this shift happens with the consolidation of ability, motivation, and sensitivity, with a lack of sensitivity to the “saliency of cues in the environment,” (p. 36) the attribute that is most wanting for beginning makers. Though not explicitly stated, could this attention to environmental cues reference the epistemological aspect of making? Selected materials, whether they be physical or digital as environmental learning mechanisms, can prompt the testing and evolution of conceptual ideas. An additional cue presents itself in the form of the dialogic moments that happen in the context of making.

It may be that attending to environmental signs in makerspaces is not only critical for students, but also for teachers. But developing a sensitivity to cues could take considerable time, and as DiSessa (2001) stated in describing the learning that happened in his hobby, it was often

“subtle and easy to miss” (p. 78) in that “committed learning is not the same as efficient learning” (p. 85). Do teachers and educational leaders possess the patience and time required for maker teacher sensitivity to mature and flourish?

A complicating factor is the notion of identity. Scholars have seen that “learning and identity work [are] always tangled up among making practices” (Barton et al. 2016, p. 8). It would seem that this is true for both students and teachers. Litts (2015) affirms that facilitators’

identities link to their ways of knowing and being within their specific discipline area of knowledge. Feelings of expertise, whether they be scientific, mathematical, or artistic, impact approaches to making, and can directly affect a facilitator’s comfort level in guiding learners.

Particularly in so called “academic” subject areas, traditional, canonical approaches to learning

(Turkle & Papert, 1990) are the norm. Litts (2015) observed that, “facilitators ability to support making activities was severely limited by their own maker identity” (p. 349). Therefore, it is important for teachers to recognize, reveal, and reflect on the implications of teacher identity when they are developing makerspaces and designing making activities.

Makerspace Implementation

Considerable documentation of makerspace implementation in libraries, museums, community spaces and universities has emerged in the research literature (Dugmore, Lindop, &

Jacob, 2014; Gierdowski & Reis, 2015; Moorefield-Lang, 2014; Sheridan et al., 2014; Slatter &

Howard, 2013). For example, Sheridan et al. (2014), in conducting a case study of three informal community makerspaces, compared types of learning arrangements, tools, participants, learning foci, and product sharing. Using a specific pedagogical structure for data collection, they discovered that in each of the makerspace implementations there were diversified pathways to environment, organizational approaches, and project work.

Implementation of mobile and pop-up makerspaces has also surfaced in libraries (as an offshoot of book mobiles), in schools, museums, and even hospitals (Gierdowski & Ries, 2015;

McKay & Glazewski, 2016; Moorefield-Lang, 2015). Reasons for developing a mobile approach include: 1) to provide a transition to a permanent makerspace (Litts, 2015); 2) to address space constraints; 3) to offer access for users in rural and out-of-the-way locations, and, 4) as in the case of hospitals, to afford on-the-ground access to materials and tools in an effort to address

specific, immediate needs in the working environment. Though there is flexibility in mobile making, issues with management of materials, leadership, and professional learning have surfaced (Wardrip & Brahms, 2016). Wardrip and Brahms (2016) suggested that though further research on the topic is needed, having a dedicated makerspace in which to work accommodates learning for both students and teachers, by providing a “central reference point around which to associate and participate in making” (p. 104). As well, they have submitted it makes visible for all, the varied implementation, teaching, and learning methodologies employed by individual staff. The notion of making learning visible for teachers is as critical as it is for students.

The multiple and varied implementation possibilities within the constraints of formal school settings present challenges to educators. Wardrip & Brahms (2016), in preliminary research findings, identified three factors that influence implementation: school leadership, determining spaces for learning, and professional development, including curricular integration.

These factors need to be examined deeply in preparation for implementation. I argue that though all three of these factors are important, ongoing professional development is the most critical.

And, problematically, the implementation literature tends to focus on descriptions of arrangements, with brief references to learning from a pedagogical standpoint, leading to a focus on how and why particular practices are employed rather than deeper questions of epistemology.

Learning and Teaching Frameworks

According to researchers, makerspace studies in informal environments such as libraries and museums have been conducted primarily to explore how learning through making happens, and reveal tensions between the accountability required in standardized education models and the rich, self-directed learning found in community locations (Sheridan et al., 2014). Much of the research on learning and facilitation frameworks has taken place in informal environments, with

the consideration that these might be adapted for use in schools. Additionally, the frameworks referenced target habits of mind, engagement, and thinking strategies, as opposed to approaches for deepening discipline knowledge.

Bevan et al. (2014) conducted extensive research in a museum setting, producing a

Learning Dimensions Framework that scaffolds practitioners in attending to key indicators of learning. The learning dimensions include engagement, initiative and intentionality, social scaffolding, and development of understanding (Bevan et al., 2014). Gutwill, Hido, & Sindorf

(2015), working in the same museum and building on that same research, created a Facilitation

Framework (p. 161) which involved a series of moves for facilitators encouraging them to 1)

Spark interest through the introduction of tools; 2) Sustain interest through the introduction of new tools and ideas and; 3) Deepen interest by connecting big ideas to student interests.

Wardrip & Brahms, (2015), in order to establish a common language, developed a framework of learning practices with the assistance of Teaching Artists in a museum setting.

These learning practices, which include illustrative examples, describe what makers do in order to learn as opposed to how makers learn. The researchers noted that makers inquire, tinker, seek and share resources, hack and repurpose, express intentions, develop fluency, and simplify in order to complexify.

Sheridan et al. (2014) conducted three comparative case studies, one in a museum space, one in a primarily-for-adults member space, and the third in a neighbourhood community space.

They used four art “studio structures” of “demonstration-lectures, students-at-work, critiques, and exhibitions” (Hetland, Winner, Veenema, & Sheridan, 2014), as a framework for observing activities within all three makerspaces. Features observed throughout the three spaces included

1) multidisciplinary practices; 2) a blend of learning arrangements that ranged from direct

instruction to demonstration, to individual feedback to online forums; 3) learning deeply nested within making.

In order to promote agency within makers, researchers with Agency by Design, Project

Zero, Harvard University, have identified three capacities, “looking closely, exploring complexity, and finding opportunity,” and provided a series of thinking routines to be used in formal settings to develop these capacities. An example of a routine that encourages looking closely is “Parts, Purposes, Complexities” (Agency by Design, n.d.). This thinking routine guides students in looking closely at an object or system to determine its parts, the purposes for each part, and its complexities in relationship to those parts and purposes. These thinking routines allow students to observe closely at the micro and macro level and encourage conscious attention to the way the pieces of systems work together.

McKay and Glazewski (2016) recommended at least two teaching dimensions to guide learners: 1) with tools and materials to ensure safe ease of use; and 2) connecting disciplinary knowledge to the making activity. They suggest these two types of teaching may be achieved by stimulating reflection, through coaching, or direction instruction.

A scaffold that has been connected to makerspaces is design thinking (Latta & Crichton,

2014; Oliver, 2016). Buchanan (1992) referred to design thinking as the “liberal art of technological culture” (p. 19), in that it provides a process for approaching and reaching iterative resolutions to complex human dilemmas, often referred to as “wicked problems” (Rittel, 1973), by navigating imaginatively through the use of interconnected disciplinary knowledge and the specific ways of thinking in a discipline.

Design thinking has been applied in the business world (Dunne & Martin, 2006), to address social innovation (Brown & Wyatt, 2010), and its advocates are calling for it in

education (Carroll, Goldman, Britos, Koh, Royalty, & Horstein, 2010; Scheer, Noweski, &

Meinel, 2012). Thinking like a designer involves an iterative process of understanding and empathizing, ideating, followed by building and testing. Design thinking links to makerspaces in that much of the design work conducted there is interdisciplinary, involves the use of skills and competencies needed in the makerspace, and provides a pedagogical framework to scaffold practitioners when approaching wicked problems. However, current research in design thinking in education has focused on tools, frameworks, and processes for implementation, rather than on learning (Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford, IDEO, 2012).

Koh, Chai, Wong, and Hong (2015) acknowledged that challenges exist in applying design thinking within educational environments. These include connecting curriculum content within a design thinking framework, developing a design thinking language for use in classrooms, and scaffolding design work for both students and teachers. However, design thinking is worth pursuing as a scaffold in makerspace environments because it mimics the complexity inherent in this type of learning space and provides a structure for approaching complex problems that are worth investigating.

Attempts to integrate teaching and learning frameworks into formal makerspaces have provided a structure in settings that could otherwise be deemed uncontrolled and lacking in focus. It is reasonable to expect that continued iterations of these frameworks will emerge as teachers and researchers enact and study them in real school settings. In fact, in putting them to use, researchers and teachers may tinker, hack, and play with previously conceived frameworks in order to construct tools and routines that are appropriate for their own context. Having said that, though many of the dispositions outlined in the frameworks are delineated as desired attributes in provincial curriculum documents (Alberta Education, 1996), teachers will continue

to be challenged to move away from long held patterns of teaching and reporting on knowledge of content as they embrace makerspaces at school. Further, as novice maker teachers, they may require significant scaffolding to envision non-canonical methods for enacting and reporting on curricular outcomes in makerspaces. Not only that, the frameworks, though purporting to explore how learning through making happens, tend to converge on how teaching through making happens, which may promote the role of teacher as central to the learning space.

Assessment in the Makerspace

The purpose of assessment, particularly in formal learning settings, is to support and improve learning (Pellegrino, 2014) and to report on learning. Though there has been significant study in the area of assessment over the past three decades to promote profound shifts in thinking and practice (Earl, 2014; William, 2006), research on assessment in unique makerspace environments is in the beginning stages (Agency by Design, 2014; Stager, 2017). Because of the individual, wide-ranging, interdisciplinary, iterative nature of learning that can take place in makerspaces, it is a complex challenge for teachers to develop assessment models that provide authentic information about and for their students, but also informs their own learning as practitioners. In a makerspace, it is not just about shifting how assessment should take place: scholars are also questioning what should be assessed. For example, in a recent study conducted by Petrich, Wilkinson, & Bevan (2014) within an informal makerspace environment, research focused less on assessing knowledge of disciplinary content and more on learning practices and habits of mind that lead to incrementally developing complexity of understanding. This in itself is problematic. Though learning practices are explicitly stated in curriculum documents, teaching and reporting on content knowledge is also required (Alberta Education, 1996).

Some research has been conducted in order to develop educational assessment tools for specific making activities. Examples include assessment of 1) computational thinking concepts and practices as used in the visual programming language Scratch (Brennan & Resnick, 2012;

Moreno-Leon, Robles, & Roman-Gonzalez, 2015); 2) cognitive and social aspects of learning with robotics (Bers, 2010), and 3) technical and curricular aspects of digital storytelling (Sadik,

2008), but these are highly specialized and geared to distinct types of making. There is a need for an overarching practical assessment framework for use in a makerspace environment (Lock,

Redmond, & Becker, 2018) that can be customized to fit the needs of the maker and the making activity.

Staff at the Exploratorium in San Francisco examined not only scientific practices as evidence of learning but also four indicators of learning: “engagement, intentionality, innovation, and solidarity” (Petrich et al., 2014, p. 66). In attempting to determine whether “making matters,” Barron & Martin (2016) studied “constructive, social, and critical dispositions” (p. 59) important to 21st century citizenship. Blikstein, Kabayadondo, Martin, & Fields (2017), created the first iteration of an assessment tool to measure confidence and familiarity with technology in the makerspace. Bridging the current expectations for teachers around reporting on student learning needs to be an integral part of any school makerspace plan.

As participants are designing and creating in the makerspace, invitations to engage in and practice formative feedback, that is, information provided to a learner to improve learning (Black

& Wiliam, 2010; Shute, 2008), happen repeatedly (Barton et al. 2016; Kafai, Fields, & Searle,

2014; Martin, 2015; Peppler & Bender, 2013). Because of the iterative and ongoing nature of makerspace activity, it is possible that with appropriate scaffolding, teachers and learners will experience a continued maturation of formative assessment strategies, which include improving

not only final products, but processes leading to that product. Following that, Blikstein and

Worsley (2016) have advocated a shift from assessing product to assessing process, with a focus on what are important characteristics related to successful outcomes in a makerspace environment, such as collaboration and risk-taking.

A formative approach to assessment still does not address the more difficult challenge of summative reporting, or assessment of learning (Harlen, 2005). It begs the question, in a makerspace environment, should and if so how does one report reliably on achievement? Given the digital tools available today, building in student responsibility for documentation of learning may be the most empowering response (Greeno et al., 1996). As Falk and Darling-Hammond

(2010) state, documentation “is part of a broader view of education that sees learning as a negotiated experience between learners and their environments” (p. 74). Another possibility is the use of performance assessments, based on complex, extended tasks (Greeno et al., 1996).

Reporting on student achievement to parents, school and district bodies, and post- secondary institutions is still a requirement of most formal school environments. Accurate, constructive ongoing assessment continues to be a considerable challenge for educators in complex environments where learning is not easily measured.

Professional Development for Makerspace Educators

The majority of learning frameworks that have been developed and adopted by researchers converge on pedagogy: how teachers might design, scaffold and assess students’ making. Papert (1996) suggests that in naming the art of teaching “pedagogy,” but giving no name to the art of learning, we have privileged the former over the latter. Could this be happening in makerspace research? I advocate that a subtle but profound shift in professional development is required, with a focus away from teacher pedagogy to student learning in

makerspaces. I am not campaigning for a spotlight on student learning to replace pedagogy.

Rather, I am suggesting that targeting student learning in professional development will provide a throughway to pedagogy.

Canadian researchers have developed an online “makerday” guide for professional development to ensure teachers encounter “innovating, tinkering, and making something new before they can comfortably invite their students to these activities” (Crichton & Carter, 2016, p.

11). The professional makerday experience, as outlined in the guide, focuses on teacher intentionality – in design, facilitation, and reflection. During a makerday, teachers learn about design challenges, design thinking, and presentation and reflection through a design charrette.

Crichton and Carter (2015), the authors of the toolkit, stated that this professional development opportunity will not provide the complete picture in terms of teacher professional development.

They suggested that the makerday and the toolkit does offer teachers the chance to see theory and practice in action together. However, research data to substantiate these claims has not been released. In addition, there is no mention of long term study into the enduring benefits of this one day maker event. Crichton and Carter’s notion that in order to be a maker teacher, one needs to experience making may have merit, but the emphasis in their work appeared to be on teacher experience and learning. The authors have engaged in followup research connecting the full day immersive experiences to the creation of online spaces where teachers can reflect, connect, and create together (Crichton & Childs, 2016). However, they have presented little evidence that the learning that happens as a maker and the learning that happens as a maker teacher are one and the same.

Given that successful educational makerspace implementation appears to require a specific mindset, and a significant shift in thinking for teachers, a framework that serves to

transform the maker teacher is required. This may involve the use of teachers questioning how learning manifests itself through making. Further, McKay and Glazewski (2016) suggested that teachers need to be supported in remaining open to possibilities, especially considering the idiosyncratic nature of individual makerspaces, in that they need to “account for the various situational nuances within their own contexts” (p. 169).

From a practical point of view, in order to develop the confidence, knowledge, and hands-on expertise required of a maker teacher, professional development that happens within the making environment is probably the most effective. This is confirmed by Oliver (2015), who asserts that professional development is best served over the long term and within the context of an authentic makerspace environment.

Tensions in the Field

Learning from the original emergence of the Maker Movement in informal private and public settings offers opportunities for schools because of its evolving grassroots nature, but also presents challenges because of the required shift from the inherent serendipitous flexibility in informal spaces to the structured bureaucratic constraints of formal schooling. Many educators and researchers have questioned, “whether learning through making is a fad,” or just another rehash of attempts to integrate technology within a factory style system of education (Halverson

& Sheridan, 2014, p. 500). In particular, issues around pedagogy and equity and access continue to drive discussions in this field.

Tools vs Pedagogy

Concerns have been expressed in the literature over the tendency to focus on tools and environment instead of pedagogy in school makerspaces (Fourie & Meyer, 2014; Martin, 2014;

Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014). Indeed, because of recent advances in the production of affordable,

digital tools for rapid prototyping of ideas, and a trial and error approach to problem solving that lends itself to digitized invention, much of the furor involving makerspaces surrounds tools and technologies (ASEE, 2016; Blikstein & Krannich, 2013; Martin, 2015). Martin (2015) stated there is, “a seductive but fatally flawed conceptualization of the Maker Movement that assumes its power lies primarily in its revolutionary tool set, and that these tools hold the power to catalyze transformations in education” (p. 37). It is realistic to assume that a focus on tool over pedagogy may sound the death knell for makerspaces in education, as with many past technological innovations (Cuban, 2013,) where the emphasis has remained on teacher-centred instruction (Jacobsen & Friesen, 2010).

Over-Emphasis on STEM

Researchers expressed concerns that particularly in formal contexts, there is an over- exaggerated focus by government and the media on the development of skills and STEM

(science, engineering, technology and math) competencies as the prime purpose for making

(ASEE, 2016; Bevan, Gutwill, Petrich, & Wilkinson, 2015; Martin, 2015; Schon, Ebner, Kumar,

2014). This means-to-an-end thinking, where the focus is on product, which is to say, citizens to fill societal employment needs, has been criticized.

In fact, Brahms and Crowley (2016) have found no evidence that making leads to the cultivation of STEM skills. Blikstein and Worsley (2016) proposed moving away from a “jobs culture to a culture of literacy” (p. 72), citing that a focus on the need for engineers to shore up the job market may be short-sighted. In interviewing a broad spectrum of educators who worked in makerspace contexts, Oxman Ryan et al. (2016) noticed that most comments they collected tended to focus on the broader dispositional benefits of making, with STEM skills mentioned occasionally as an added benefit. Though educational and government institutions may

recommend the creation of makerspaces as a way to promote STEM skills and competencies, one would be ill-advised to emphasize job creation over learning in that the notion of learning through making may be lost.

Equity and Access

The challenge of equity and access to tools, expertise, and makerspace environments arises in the literature (Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014) with early research showing that white male participants appear to dominate making culture (Barton et al., 2016; Halverson & Sheridan,

2014; Kafai et al., 2014). Kafai et al. (2014) purported that engaging a significant part of the female population in making may involve rethinking how they enter this learning space by introducing makers, both male and female, to coding, circuitry and computational thinking through e-textiles.

Barton et al. (2016) described the complexity inherent in issues of equity and access through a framework of “critical, connected, and collective engagement” (p. 23). They suggested that in order to ensure equity in the makerspace, practitioners must engage issues of importance to the students while honouring their sociocultural histories and collective needs that carry “deep meanings of race, power, oppression, and danger” (p. 25). Encumbrances in implementation include teachers’ inadequate knowledge of the discipline and tools to support learning, learner challenges in crossing the boundary into the makerspace, whether real or figurative, insufficient time for play and development of expertise, and a lack of cultural role models in STEM fields

(Barton et al., 2016). In designing an implementation framework for use in schools, attention to equity and access must be at the forefront.

Importance of Aesthetics in Making

Researchers have proposed that an excellent entry and sticking point into making is through aesthetic experience (Bevan, Gutwill, Petrich, & Wilkinson, 2014; Clapp & Jimenez,

2016; Gutwill et al., 2015; Kafai et al., 2014) and indeed, some even submitted that aesthetic engagement is what sets making apart from other inquiry driven activities (Vossoughi & Bevan,

2014). Opportunities for personal engagement, creativity, and expression provide a mechanism for learning about topics of study while exposing students to a variety of tools, both physical and digital, and allowing for play and experimentation with curricular ideas (Bevan et al., 2014;

Clapp & Jimenez, 2016; Vossoughi & Bevan, 2015). As well, the constraints that appear in the creative process add an additional dimension of complexity to the learning process (Bevan et al.,

2014). Though currently in the early stages of research on this topic, Clapp and Jimenez (2016) suggested the “maker aesthetic” (p. 7) they witnessed is different than what they themselves experienced as artists. Clapp and Jimenez advocated an “intentional, integrated, and explicit incorporation of the arts in maker-centred learning” (p. 9), arguing that this intention adds to student engagement, empowerment, and depth of thinking. The aesthetic particular to making is described as “the ability to notice design – but also with the ability to find beauty in the way that things work” (Clapp, 2017, p. 79). Ongoing research on the notion of the unique characteristics of the maker aesthetic and how aesthetic experiences in making engage thinking (Clapp, 2017;

Clapp & Jimenez, 2016; Clapp & Jimenez, 2016; May & Clapp, 2017) may build on Dewey’s

(1934) notion of (a)esthetic experience.

The embedded nature of aesthetics in experience and knowing is, according to Dewey

(1934), central to the human condition. He described this when he stated, “The essential thing

(a)esthetically is our own mental activity of starting, travelling, returning to a starting point,

holding on to the past, carrying it along; the movement of attention backwards and forwards, as these acts are executed by the mechanism of motor imagery” (p. 106). Dewey’s (a)esthetic experience is more than an “intentional, integrated, explicit incorporation of the arts” (Clapp &

Jimenez, 2016, p. 9). It speaks to the intellectual, interdisciplinary, human-centred nature of learning.

This has been documented by Resnick, Berg, & Eisenberg (2000) who noted that learners, in considering not just functionality but aesthetics when designing and building their own scientific instruments, connected more deeply and critically to scientific issues. In addition,

Farris and Sengupta (2016) demonstrated that children, through aesthetic experience, entered into “a new kind of science, where the mundane is reimagined and (re)represented as complex”

(p. 295). When Dewey (1934) articulated how a person can “convert objective material into material of an intense and clear experience” (p. 68), he described making. Awareness of aesthetic experience is an integral feature of making and knowing and should be a central consideration when designing for learning in makerspaces.

Bringing the Literature to Life

Given the key discussions arising from the literature, the upcoming chapters present a description of how the study was conceptualized and enacted, followed by the conclusions that emerged from the data. Chapter three describes in detail, the conceptual framework and methodological decision making that went into designing the research study. Chapters four, five, and six present the findings based on an interpretation of the conceptual framework. Chapter seven provides the key overall conclusions and design principles emerging from the study.

Chapter Three

Methodology

In this chapter, I present the conceptual framework guiding the study followed by the background and rationale for selecting the research methodology. An explanation of the research design, including setting, participants, timeline, data collection, analysis, and synthesis procedures, follows the conceptual framework. Finally, considerations of trustworthiness, ethics, limitations and delimitations of the study are discussed.

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework I developed for this study (see Figure 1) employed the metaphor of a physical structure to characterize the research study and the particular learning space in which the makerspace work was housed. Foundational to the study as depicted by blocks, were the theories of constructionism emanating from social constructivism, and communities of practice. These theories are the theoretical underpinnings for this study, and supported the conceptualization, design, testing, and redesign of the learning space. The image of the table serves to highlight the collaboration that happened between students, researcher, and teacher. Note that teacher is displayed in larger font to indicate the predominant role played in the research. Three considerations of critical importance, as portrayed by placemats, guided the implementation: design, learning environment, and curriculum. Attending to these considerations over several iterations led to the development of preliminary school makerspace design principles, flowing from the chimney, that can be translated beyond the local context into broader elementary school settings. The theories underpinning the study, constructionism and communities of practice, are central to contributing to the development of fundamental theoretical understandings (McKenney & Reeves, 2012), a core goal of design-based research.

The considerations, learning environment, design, and curriculum, are core in developing “an intervention that solves a problem in practice” (McKenney & Reeves, p. 31).

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of design-based research study

Design was interwoven throughout the study in a myriad of ways. Inherent in makerspace work is the notion of designing solutions using objects. Design-based research served the study methodologically. Design considerations enacted through learning environments and curriculum, core concepts of educational practice, guided the research. These are addressed in more detail later in this chapter.

The methodological approach chosen for this study emanates from design. Brown’s

(1992) articulation of her “attempts to engage in design experiments intended to transform classrooms” (p. 174) came about because of the failure of experimental and correlational educational research methodologies to affect change in the complexity of school settings.

Design-based research as methodology creates the potential for practical, yet transformative design solutions in practice and can yield design principles that translate beyond the local context. The concept of design was embedded and interwoven throughout the study because it was key not only to the enactment of the research, but also to the establishment of a set of pragmatic, usable design principles to inform practice.

Design-Based Research as Methodological Choice

The process of designing and enacting a makerspace within the complexity of a formal school setting lends itself to a participatory educational research methodology, where learning takes place through inquiry in a community of practice (Lincoln, Lynham & Guba, 2011). A community of practice allows for knowledge to be socially co-constructed in a cyclical process of active engagement and reflection resulting in a “congruence of experiential, presentational, propositional, and practical knowing” (Lincoln et al., 2011, p. 101). It was my intention to regard all participants who entered the makerspace as co-researchers with a critical subjectivity, who observed the potential for creating new knowledge through the application of already existing

experience (Lincoln et al., 2011). Underpinning participatory research methodologies, is the notion that “knowledge(s) are plural,” (Brydon-Miller, Kral, Maguire, Noffke, & Sabhlok, 2011, p. 389) and those who are most affected by the research, in this case the teacher and her students, should be actively involved in bringing their knowledge, experience, and reflective capabilities to the research table.

In particular, design-based research (DBR), a signature participatory educational research methodology in the learning sciences (Barab, 2014), was selected because of its pragmatic approach to implementation, while remaining intentionally focused on theory development.

Wang and Hannafin (2005) offered a comprehensive definition of this methodology in stating,

DBR is a “systematic but flexible methodology aimed to improve educational practices through iterative analysis, design, development, and implementation, based on collaboration among researchers and practitioners in real-world settings, and leading to contextually-sensitive design principles and theories.” (p. 7). All aspects of this definition connected deeply to the study and the makerspace work we carried out in the elementary school setting.

Along with the benefit of studying complex learning in a specific context, DBR provided opportunities for participants in research settings to improve their own learning (Barab, 2014).

Having said that, while the study took place at the micro level, there was an intentional consciousness associated with the possibilities of scaling up the research in order to “maximize the variables shown to increase rates of adoption” (Zaritsky, 2003). This collaborative intertwining of micro and macro (McKenney & Reeves, 2014), design and research, (Wang &

Hannafin, 2005) and theory and action (Barab, 2014) is what sets DBR apart from other methodologies. DBR is powerful in that it “involves disruptive, innovative design solutions

and/or interventions in practice” (Jacobsen, 2014, para. 20), and grounds and develops useful, theoretical constructs within real-world environments (DiSessa & Cobb, 2004).

Inherent in DBR and in makerspaces are “continuous cycles of design, analysis, enactment, and redesign” (Design-Based Research Collective, 2003, p. 5). As Zaritsky (2003) stated, this is not a “random process” (p. 33), but there is potential for the design to shift course unexpectedly. That is why the systematic, intentional research conceptualization had to be balanced with creative, responsive application of insights gleaned, guided by theory and participant expertise throughout the process (McKenney & Reeves, 2012). There is a delicate juxtaposition in DBR between the participants’ creative capacities for imagined, innovative solutions, and the need for analytical practice (McKenney & Reeves, 2012). As well, the requirement that the educator and the researcher work within the requisite structured system bureaucracies can add to the discomfiture. Having acknowledged these influences, the sense of unease in blending structure with fecundity, unknowing with insight, and obscurity with clarity, is precisely what also drives making, as a journey from problem finding to solution generation.

The design thinking process, conducted by design-based researchers, makers, and maker- teachers bear striking similarities to each other.

Therefore, the intentional selection of DBR was critical in that aspects of the research methodology mirror the pedagogical character of the makerspace. Both DBR and the work conducted in makerspaces require collaborative, responsive, flexible, iterative, and practical approaches with the intent of developing usable knowledge (McKenney & Reeves, 2012). Both making and conducting design-based research can also be messy, complex, risky, and fragile undertakings (Barab & Squire, 2004).

Because of the intricacies involved, critics often questioned both the credibility and generalizability of DBR. While generalizability is a gold standard for experimental and correlational approaches to research, a key value of design-based research is its relevance for practice (McKenney and Reeves, 2012). I argue that an important aspect of design-based research lies in both its ecological validity and its usefulness (Barab & Squire, 2004). Design- based research takes place in the authenticity and complexity of real world settings, and as such, the findings can have increased credibility with potential maker teachers.

There is potential for researcher bias in all forms of educational research; however, proponents of design research suggested that the involvement of the researcher with practitioners adds more than it detracts from the work (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012; Brown, 1992). By conducting research informed, interventionist research in a complex social environment, the researcher brings a bias for changes in practice, therefore, such bias should be factored into the research story. It was important for all research participants, including me as researcher in the study, to acknowledge not only biases, but also the fears and the risks we all bring to the work from the outset. This is an important aspect of the maker mindset (Cermak-Sassenrath &

Mollenbach, 2014; Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014) and recognizing these perceptions is an important part of design and design thinking (Scheer et al., 2012; Sharples et al., 2016).

Another criticism from researchers was that the study cannot be replicated (Barab &

Squire, 2004). Barab & Squire (2004) stated this is not the goal of DBR. Rather, it is to “lay open and problematize the completed design and resultant implementation in a way that provides insight into the local dynamics” (p. 8) A challenging, but important aspect of this was to be able to communicate the findings in such a way that others can imagine a recontextualization of the study in their own situation (Barab, 2014). Further, it was important to consider instantiating “the

theory of change” that emerged, informed by previous research and theoretical assumptions

(Barab, 2014, p. 159). This was key in addressing a common criticism of DBR, that of scalability. In unpacking the inner workings of making in an elementary setting, “one transforms the local story into an argument that has generalizable value to others who care about the underlying lessons” (Barab, 2014, p. 162).

This particular study was not without practical challenges. A fair criticism of DBR was the time required to conduct the research and deal with the amount of data that was produced

(Anderson & Shattuck, 2012). Data collection detailed later in the chapter, outlines specifics with a focus on interviews at the end of each meso cycle and researcher observations. Zeroing in on specific types of data helped alleviate this dilemma.

Research Design

Like other participatory research methodologies, design-based research draws upon theories of learning and knowledge that presume meaning is co-created and co-constructed by researchers, practitioners and participants in authentic and rich social, political, and cultural contexts (Jacobsen, 2014). Though makerspaces as interventions in formal learning environments are becoming increasingly popular and may even be considered a fad by some

(Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Kafai et al., 2014), implementation that requires significant time to allow for teacher learning within a system that still places a heavy emphasis on curriculum coverage and outcomes-based education proved to be a challenge. Therefore, the generative nature and attention to curriculum as framework for understanding within a DBR methodology, provided a bridge between conventional and maker pedagogies, not only for teachers but also for the researcher, resulting in the cultivation of interconnected, innovative design ideas for use in the learning environment (McKenney & Reeves, 2012).

Curricular Considerations

Attention to curriculum for this research study is critical because of its interconnection to

DBR, and the pragmatic design of formal learning experiences and spaces. McKenney and

Reeves (2012) edify the link suggesting that the “field of curriculum, which historically emphasizes the aims and content of learning as well as the social, cultural, and political characteristics of the context in question, helps us position the interventions . . .” (McKenney &

Reeves, p. 70). I contend the development of makerspaces in schools is a response to cultural and political calls for learning environments where 21st century competencies can be developed and curriculum can be enacted in student centred work. One challenge in this study was to develop, use, and adapt a framework that celebrated the makerspace culture, that is, one that is flexible, student-driven, and promotes risk-taking, while honouring curricula that remain a critical aspect of teaching and learning.

Van den Akker, Gravemeijer, McKenney, and Nieveen (2006) have suggested that design research can be approached from different perspectives including a learning design perspective, a technology perspective, or a curriculum perspective. My design for teacher learning in a formal school makerspace setting adopted a curriculum perspective coupled with a learning environment and design perspective.

Teachers work under the guidance and constraints of a provincially mandated program of studies; therefore the research design must take the curriculum into account. In fact, in iterating and testing makerspace activities, curriculum documents can and should serve as scaffolds for maker teachers and researchers.

My choice to select a curriculum and learning environment perspective over technology has as much to do with dilemmas related to technology as it does to curriculum and learning

environment. Makerspace researchers cited tensions related to an excessive focus on tools and technology over pedagogy (Martin, 2014). Since the aim of this research was to develop design principles for teachers, framing the research around a technology perspective may have been counter productive in that the focus may have proceeded in that direction.

A learning design perspective placed teachers in a proactive role in that they “establish the desired classroom culture” (Gravemeijer & Cobb, 2006, p. 22). The makerspace culture was established not only through the collaborative design of making activities, but also in attending to mindset, and providing the time needed for iterating and learning through failure.

A Model for Curriculum

A model of curriculum components (Figure 2), conceived by van den Akker (2013), visually presents the interrelationships of these components, using the metaphor of spider web to highlight the reliance each component has on the other. The use of the spider web (p. 59) speaks to the interconnected strength, complexity, and vulnerability of curriculum, in that all curriculum components must “devote attention to balance and linkages” (McKenney, Nieveen, & van den

Akker, (2006, p. 68) between them. Too much focus on one component “will pull the entirety out of alignment” causing “the system to break” (McKenney et al., 2006, p. 68).

Figure 2. van den Akker's curriculum spider web (2013). Used with permission.

Adapting this model for use in co-designing makerspace activities with the teacher provided a design scaffold, and also served as a priori framework for scrutinizing curricular implementations over multiple iterations, while we attended to notions of proportion and harmony between components.

Additionally, van den Akker (2013) stated that in planning for learning, curriculum concerns may be addressed at various levels: supra (international, comparative), macro

(system/society/nation/state), meso (school/institution), and micro (classroom/learner).

Considering influences from the various curriculum levels informed makerspace activity design and reflection.

Van den Akker also provided a typology of curriculum (Figure 3), which is helpful in envisioning and operationalizing curriculum as lived experience.

Figure 3. van den Akker's curriculum typology (2013). Used with permission.

These additional aspects of curriculum afforded structures for dialogic moments between researcher and teacher and provided systems for analysis of alternative perceptions of curriculum as implemented. Tensions between levels surfaced, and aspects of the intended, implemented, and attained curriculum served to highlight unique and different understandings between research participants. For example, questions that guided reflection included: How is the vision and formalization of curriculum realized in the makerspace for teachers, and researchers? How is curriculum interpreted and operationalized in the study? Do curriculum experiences and learning mesh, and if so, how is it made known?

Learning Environment Considerations

Though the use of provincial curriculum documents assisted in framing the research design, attention to the design of the learning environment was also of importance, given that approaches to curriculum design in a makerspace required rethinking. Collins (1993) articulated a series of design issues for learning environments, which are important considerations because of the impact they may have on curriculum implementation. Figure 5 presents a snapshot of

Collins’ design considerations, which I have employed as a framework for bounding design considerations in a school makerspace. Collins (1993) presented opposing aspects of learning environment design issues under the subheadings learning goals, learning styles, sequences, and teaching methods. I countered these with design considerations in makerspace settings. These facets provided avenues for thought when we designed making activities through curriculum and were used in designing, iterating, and analyzing phases of the research study. Note: For the purposes of this study, given the contested discourse associated with the term “learning styles”

(Kirshner, 2017), I have replaced Collins’ (1993) term “learning styles” with “learning approaches.”

Design Issues (Collins, 1993) Makerspace Design Considerations Learning Goals Whole Tasks Component Skills -scaffold whole tasks, while building in skills practice -meaningful, but can be -can seem pointless as needed overwhelming Thoughtfulness Memorization -build in significant time for thinking, as well as time -develop flexible thinking -frees the mind, but takes for development of automaticity, particularly with practice tools Depth of Knowledge Breadth of Knowledge -encourage individual students to become specialists in -pursue topics of deep -exposed to many ideas, different areas of study interest leading to novel insights Diverse Experience Uniform Experience -use different technologies to construct meaning, -pursue interests, but lose -easier to plan for and allowing for diverse approaches to uniform curriculum shared knowledge measure learning Access Understanding -promote dialogic moments, highlighting how tools -powerful tools allow a -limited to ideas, but not work along with their specific affordances focus on learning ideas how tools work Physical Fidelity Cognitive Fidelity -start with cognitive fidelity, either digitally or on -allows for real world, -easier to see the whole, paper, and then move to physical fidelity. complex understanding but focus on parts Learning Approaches Interactive Active -provide a mix of interactive and active opportunities -immediate feedback and -thoughtful development testing of ideas of ideas Incidental Direct -design for incidental learning, with direct teaching -incidental learning -task designed specifically introduced at time of need happens through task to teach Fun Serious -design meaningful, engaging tasks -reach pupils, but don’t -create meaningful, remember or challenge engaging tasks

Natural Efficient -provide time to focus on natural learning, accepting -functional, high success, -learn counterproductive that some of it will be inefficient though inefficient strategies Learner Control Teacher Control -provide students information to assist them in making -study interesting, -knowledge of domain good learning decisions based on pedagogy challenging topics and how we learn Sequence Grounded Abstract -design contextual experiences that ground -memorable experience -abstract from many abstractions within them grounds abstractions contextual experiences Structured Exploratory -start with more structure, leading to less structure -scaffolds learning as -more engaged in finding skills are mastered and solving problems Systematic Problems Diverse Problems -start with systematic variation, moving to more -induction and learning -learn when a strategy is diverse problems more efficient appropriate Simple Tasks Complex Tasks -conduct assessments to determine starting and -more success, but more -optimum complexity scaffolding needs boring and meaningless with scaffolding Teaching Methods Model -model physical and -model in ‘just in time’ manner -integrate what and why, thought processes see invisible processes -passive activity so may not engage Scaffold -design and iterate scaffolds with use -help accomplish difficult -students come to depend tasks on scaffold Coach -may invest coaching from others and can be a range, -provide focused help at -costly, but fades as including providing ideas, hints, scaffolds, feedback, critical times learners become expert challenge, encouragement, structure Articulate - use technology to assist in articulation and -help formulate ideas, -discriminates against the documentation of process and learning make knowledge explicit less articulate Reflect -use technology and scaffolding to assist in reflection, -new ways of seeing and -can be tedious and is placing ownership with student talking about process overused

Figure 4. Design considerations for makerspaces. A comparison of Collins' (1993) design issues for learning environments.

These environmental design considerations were combined with provincial curriculum documents and van den Akker’s (2013) curriculum components, when designing, enacting, and reflecting during the research study.

Research Study Phases

The research problem addressed in this study was the gap, and therefore, need for research informed, usable design principles that enable teachers to successfully implement learning activities in an elementary school makerspace. In order to address this need, a research approach that engaged iterative and flexible design cycles (Kelly, 2006) was required.

Therefore, along with the teacher I co-designed, enacted, and evaluated three makerspace activities connected to different aspects of curriculum.

The study aligns with McKenney and Reeves’ (2012) model for educational design research, which includes three micro cycles, each within three meso cycles, within one macro cycle as shown in Figure 5. The particular actions in the cyclical micro cycles are Analysis and

Exploration, Design and Construction, and Evaluation and Reflection. Each micro cycle had its own series of decisions and actions based on literature and practice, while contributing to the data that arose as a whole within the meso cycle. The learning developed through data collection in previous meso cycles was taken forward into the next meso cycle. Both the analysis and exploration phase and the evaluation and reflection phase had data analysis as an important component, and therefore were more empirical in structure and intent (McKenney & Reeves,

2012). The design and implementation phase was more generative in approach, in that both researcher and practitioner while “informed by the findings from the other phases as well as literature and interaction with practice” (McKenney & Reeves, 2012, p. 78), required interventionist decision-making on the ground.

Analyze Design and Evaluate Analyze and Design and Evaluate Analyze and Design and Evaluate and Implement and Reflect Explore Implement and Reflect Explore Making Implement and Explore Makerspace on Making- Making Makerspace on Making- Practices Makerspace Reflect on Making Activities as-learning Practices Activities as-learning Activities Making- Practices as-learning

Micro Micro Micro Micro Micro Micro Micro Micro Micro

Meso Meso Meso

Macro Figure 5. Research model. Adapted from McKenney and Reeves' generic model for DBR (2012).

Phase I – Analysis and Exploration.

The analysis and exploration phase took place as a micro cycle at the beginning of each meso cycle. During this phase, theoretical and practical questions were considered collaboratively between the researcher and the practitioner in relation to the problem, the focus of the study, and the local context. A critical review of the literature included the search for similar makerspace enactments in order to generate design ideas and decisions, consider boundary conditions, opportunities, and roadblocks.

Key contextual factors for this study included determining stakeholders, both direct and indirect, becoming familiar with the background and relevant skills of the target group, gathering information about the physical facilities and infrastructure, and learning about the explicit and implicit organizational policies and procedures that could enhance or threaten the viability of change in the setting (McKenney & Reeves, 2012). Given that this study was carried out with a teacher and students in an elementary school, the researcher planned to document the key

contextual factors related to and impacting the design solutions as part of the analysis and exploration of the local context.

McKenney and Reeves (2012) recommended the use of three strategies conducted together to compare and analyze the operationalization of curriculum with formalized curriculum and lived perceptions of curriculum. These strategies, labelled “policy analysis, field portrait, perception poll” (McKenney & Reeves, 2012, p. 94) helped in understanding “the formal mechanisms that steer teaching and learning in a particular context” (McKenney & Reeves,

2012, p. 95), “stakeholder perceptions of the problem” (McKenney & Reeves, 2012, p. 95), and what is actually happening in the context. In this study, contextual data was gathered through the examination of policy and curriculum documents, the use of interviews, and researcher observations to determine how the formal curriculum lived in the learning environment. This information was used to determine initial design goals and conceptions.

Phase II – Design and Construction.

The design and construction phases of the study were “systematic and intentional, but they also included inventive creativity, application of emerging insights, and openness to serendipity” (McKenney & Reeves, 2012, p. 109). During the design aspect of this phase the researcher and teacher imagined and mapped out making activities, while in the construction phase they initiated those activities, made revisions and improvements as required, and responded to how students embraced the activities. McKenney and Reeves (2012) advocated for documentation of idea generation and sharing, which created opportunities for connecting and building on original solutions. Therefore, documentation was carried out in the form of researcher notes so that previous thinking could be referenced, bridging to new ideas.

Phase III – Evaluation and Reflection.

McKenny and Reeves (2012) stated this stage in the research provides the opportunity to ask, “What do we need to know now?” (p. 136). The different representations of curriculum mentioned earlier in the proposal, that is the intended, implemented, and attained curriculum

(van den Akker, 2013), were used to focus the evaluation (McKenney & Reeves, 2012). Further, after each mesocycle, van den Akker’s model of curriculum components (2013), and Collins’

(1993) design considerations were used to evaluate how the intended curriculum was implemented, and if it was attained.

Reflection promoted “connections between existing ideas” that led “to new ones”

(McKenney & Reeves, 2012, p. 152). This study provided opportunities for both organic and structured reflection. The structured reflection relied on the scaffold provided by the curriculum model (van den Akker, 2013), curriculum documents, and design considerations (Collins, 1996) and took place during predetermined reflective interviews. In the design, unstructured time during each mesocycle allowed for more organic reflection on the part of all participants.

Implementation and Spread.

McKenney and Reeves (2012) stated that successful implementation and spread of interventions is the result of specific attributes found in the interventions. They were: 1) Value- added. It was important for the teacher to both believe and experience making as a worthwhile, engaging enterprise leading to deep learning. 2) Clear. The teacher and students had to “easily envision their involvement” in makerspaces as learning environments, because the intervention is

“clear and easy to grasp” (McKenney & Reeves, 2012, p. 165). 3) Compatible. Making as a rich learning opportunity had to work within the system, values, and beliefs in which the teacher currently operates. 4) Tolerant. The design principles developed within the study had to be

tolerant to variation in different contexts, with different materials, and differing levels of expertise. Considering these attributes when designing, enacting, and evaluating through each micro, meso, and macro cycle of the research study was critical for successful implementation and spread of the intervention.

Research Timeline

This design-based research took place over the course of one year with one group of students and their teacher. Each micro and meso cycle was continuously analyzed as an independent unit, and each cycle informed future work. Synthesis of data began almost immediately upon starting the study and continued throughout the entire design-based research process.

Sample Population and Research Setting

The purposeful selection of participant-teacher was critical in this DBR study. Given the high level of collaboration, participation, and reflection required, I approached and recruited one teacher-participant. Though thought was given to selecting multiple teacher-participants, the decision to conduct the study with one teacher-participant and accompanying students was made for several reasons: 1) Time. Because of the time required to complete three iterations of makerspace activities, working closely with one teacher ensured that each iteration was well thought out, that there was ample time for discussion and reflection, and that there was time during and between each makerspace activity for data collection and analysis. 2) Depth.

Working with one teacher-participant allowed for depth of planning, discussion, and data analysis. 3) Manageability. The amount of data collected with one teacher-participant was extensive, and the ability to manage all aspects of the study given the time frame, was taken in to

account. However, because of the flexibility built into the methodology, adjustments to this plan were made according to the needs of the teacher, her students, and the researcher.

Site

The site for the study was a K-7 school that was open to the possibility of enacting a makerspace onsite. Though the school was in the process of reconstruction, the staff had designated a space with some materials for making activities.

Participants

A key participant was the elementary teacher who represented the norm (Bloomberg &

Volpe, p. 2012), was interested in exploring makerspaces as learning environments, could commit to the time needed for the work, and was willing to engage in the study. Other important participants included the students for whom the making activities were designed, school administration, and other teaching and support staff in the school.

Overview of Information Needed

The information required to address the research question was important (Bloomberg &

Volpe, 2012) in that this data provided a contextual backdrop for the development of makerspace design principles. Demographic and perceptual information was gathered from the teacher in an interview. This included personal history, background (age, gender, ethnicity), teaching experience, and education, as well as the teacher’s perceptions related to teaching, learning, and makerspaces as learning environments. Contextual information related to the teacher’s class, school, and school division provided knowledge about the organization’s history, vision, and leadership as it related to makerspace implementation. Theoretical information, including curriculum and learning environment design remained front and centre in order to support the design decisions, analysis, and interpretations of the emerging data.

Methods of Data Collection

In design-based research studies, multiple, qualitative, theoretically relevant data sources are recommended, including field observations, interviews, and document analysis in order to inform evolving theories (Barab, 2014). Upon this recommendation, the proposed study used several data sources, some of which were employed as a primary source for development of research themes and others as a secondary sources to promote discussion and design developments between the teacher-participant and the researcher.

Primary Data Sources

Given the generative nature of this research, data collection served not only to inform the development of design principles, but also to inform makerspace design decisions in each cycle.

The use of multiple sources of data was critical to capturing a rigorous, broad, and deep understanding of teacher learning in a makerspace setting.

Observations and field notes. Field notes provided an opportunity for me to record what

I saw and heard, my feelings about the dynamics in a situation, as well as ideas and questions for further thought and analysis (Arthur & Nazroo, 2003).

Dialogic opportunities. It was anticipated that dialogic opportunities between the teacher and myself would emerge before, during, and after making activities. After each making session

I completed reflective notes to serve as a reference for future iterative decision making, and to link recurring design themes as they arose, as well as to guide me in developing interview questions for each design cycle. The decision to opt for researcher notes as opposed to recorded ongoing reflective conversations between the teacher and the researcher lies with the time the teacher was able to provide and challenges with managing large amounts of data. Although originally considered, given the number of making sessions conducted over three iterations,

dealing with the amount of data collected would have been overwhelming. This meant that I completed daily written reflections about observations, comments, discussions, feelings, and impressions that were noted before, during and after entering the makerspace.

Interviews. I conducted and audio-taped semi-structured, open-ended interviews with the teacher-participant prior to and after each mesocycle, based on the data that arose through secondary data sources, dialogic opportunities, and observations. This allowed me to drill down into teacher insights that took place as part of the design and enactment of the makerspace activities. The interviews were meant to combine structure with flexibility (Legard, Keegan, &

Ward, 2000), therefore a list of guiding questions was developed. (Appendix B). The interviews involved content mapping “to identify the dimensions or issues that are relevant to the participant” and content mining, “to generate an in-depth understanding from the interviewees point of view” (Legard et al., 2000, p. 148). During the post-making interviews, we also discussed student and teacher behaviour and activities related to attention to aspects of curriculum (van den Akker, 2013) and learning environment design (Collins, 1993).

The interview questions were revised after each mesocycle, based on the work that arose during that cycle. These interviews were transcribed verbatim, and included attached notes from myself, as researcher.

An interview was also conducted with the school principal and vice principal, prior to beginning the research and with the principal alone at the completion of the research study, using the same considerations. A list of guiding questions was developed and is provided in Appendix

Though interviews are an important part of the primary source data in that they provide in-depth descriptions and the opportunity for clarification, it is important to remember that the

quality of the interview may have been influenced by my skill as the interviewer, the ability of the interviewee to perceive and articulate insights, and the subjectivity of both interviewer and interviewee (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2012).

Secondary Data Sources

Unit plans, maker planning tools, assessments, and student artifacts. Co-created teacher and researcher planning and research documents, as well as student work shared digitally not only provided opportunities to assess student learning, and determine courses of action in future design cycles, they also contributed to teacher learning and reflection around questions of discipline knowledge, assessment, and paths for teacher learning.

Emails and text messages. Emails and text messages between the teacher and me included organizational considerations such as scheduling and meeting arrangements, celebratory messages along with photos and videos of student work, sharing of links to online resources, and questions initiating clarification related to face to face conversations.

Telephone conversations. Sometimes design and planning required additional phone conversations. These were not recorded, but notes were taken to document the discussion. Table

3 provides a detailed description of the number of documented data items that were collected during the study, including data arising from contact with the teacher in year two, after the data collection in the school setting was completed.

Table 3

Inventory of Data Sources Collected During the Study Data Type Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Post Study

Teacher Interviews 4 2 2 1

Principal Interviews 1 0 0 1

Field Notes 14 days 7 days 6 days 0

Telephone Discussions 2 2 1 1

Emails 16 5 10 3

Text Messages 82 60 51 107

Photos 15 14 14 12

Videos 5 14 11 6

Teacher Design Documents 12 6 4 0

Data Analysis

Data collection and analysis in a design-based research study is an ongoing, cyclical process of collection, analysis, refinement, and implementation (Herrington, McKenny, Reeves,

& Oliver, 2007). The analysis, as recommended by Miles, Huberman, and Saldana (2014) took place concurrently with data collection. This allowed for the data to inform iterative changes to the makerspace implementation, design, and evaluation. In order to meet triangulation criteria, the design took into account varying data sources (time, activity, and participants), and varying data collection methods (observations, research notes, interviews, student artifacts) (Herrington et al., 2007). Because the data analysis was “framed, directly or indirectly, by design propositions” (McKenney & Reeves, 2012, p. 150), the constructs of curriculum, learning environment, and design drove initial analysis. I selected a two-stage coding process to promote

“reflection, and thus deep analysis, and interpretation of the data’s meanings.” (Miles et al.,

2014, p. 72).

Prior to beginning the work in the school, a provisional list of deductive codes (Miles et al., 2014) was developed, based on the conceptual framework and literature review. These coding methods were descriptive, process, emotion, and values coding (Miles et al., 2014) as related to curriculum implementation, learning environment, and teacher experience. These methods were developed to centre on the learning environment (descriptive), what took place

(process), how the teacher participant felt (emotion), and what attitudes and beliefs guided decision making (values). However, as patterns began to emerge, general first cycle inductive themes were developed through ongoing wrangling with the data.

Once the major themes of design, curriculum, and learning environment emerged, a further exploration of the literature related to each major theme revealed new potential codes.

Using hand coding and coding software (Nvivo 11, QSR International Pty Ltd.), available through the University of Calgary library, the data was coded (second cycle coding) to group the data into new categories related to the three themes of design, learning environment, and curriculum (Miles et al., 2014). Detailed explanations of second cycle coding related to each theme are presented separately in each findings chapter (4, 5, and 6).

Data analysis took place within micro-cycles and meso-cycles and across micro-cycles and meso-cycles. In considering notions of scale, connections in the data between meso-cycles were especially sought out and considered.

Ethical Considerations

Given the emergent nature of this study, it was important to assume that even with ethics approval from the University of Calgary Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board, and from the

school jurisdiction, there may be issues of an ethical nature arising throughout the study

(Bloomberg & Volpe, 2012). As researcher it was my responsibility to remain steadfast throughout all research cycles in protecting participants from harm, while ensuring their right to confidentiality, and informed consent. As well, I needed to remain cognizant of the researcher- participant relationship and the power dynamics inherent in these positions. Though the main participant in the study was the teacher, makerspace implementation involved in-depth interaction with children, who are particularly vulnerable in power relationships. Central to research ethics is respect for human dignity expressed through three core principles: 1) respect for persons, in this case, individuals involved directly as participants; 2) concern for welfare, particularly privacy, as well as physical and mental well being and; 3) justice, where all people are treated fairly and equitably (TCPS 2: Core, 2010). These principles were front and centre throughout all cycles of design, enactment, and reflection during the research process.

Issues of Trustworthiness

In arguing for credibility in qualitative research, that is, “whether the participant’s perceptions match up with the researcher’s portrayal of them” (p. 112), Bloomberg and Volpe

(2012) suggested multiple ways to provide evidence of credibility, including perceiving and stating researcher biases up front, engaging in substantive time in the field, collecting multiple sources of data using multiple methods, presenting negative and contradictory findings, and using peer debriefings. These considerations guided the research work with debriefings conducted regularly with my supervisor and committee.

To build dependability, providing detailed, thorough explanations of data collection and interpretation while gathering supervisor assistance when coding helped to establish inter-rater reliability (Barab, 2014; Bloomberg & Volpe, 2012). In considering transferability to other

locations I was cognizant of the necessity of sharing clearly and through the use of rich description a realistic picture of the experience (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2012).

Research Limitations and Delimitations

Limitations

There were limitations and significant challenges in using DBR. Implementing innovations within the current education system can be challenging, especially if a shift in thinking is required (Wang & Hannafin, 2005). As well, the time required for implementation can result in the collection of copious amounts of data (Collins, Joseph, & Bielaczyc, 2004).

Finding ways to manage and mobilize the data that result in relevant findings and the development of theories that are applicable to different contextual situations can be demanding

(Barab, 2014, Wang & Hannafin, 2005). Adding to this, Barab (2014) also has suggested there is danger in focusing on theory building “at the expense of scalable and sustainable impact” (p.

159).

As researcher and a participant in the research process, it was important to acknowledge the intricacies of the researcher role in managing tensions between myself as practitioner and as theoretician. Inherent in DBR are the dual roles of advocate and critic (Design-Based Research

Collective, 2003; McKenney & Reeves, 2012), which I endeavored to keep at the forefront during the study. McKenney and Reeves (2012) suggested negotiating the desire for advocacy through deep understanding of the research findings; and the need for criticality through clear understanding of the intentions of the design. These were important considerations as I worked to balance differing roles within my researcher self.

I had also to be aware of participant contributions to the process, and how subjectivities and interpretation played a role in implementation (Design-Based Research Collective, 2003).

Though some proponents of DBR suggested there may be issues related to the Hawthorne Effect

(McKenney & Reeves, 2012), Brown (1992) stated, “the “Hawthorne effect is what I want” (p.

167) and in this case, a change of behaviour, particularly on the part of the teacher, was beneficial in order to ensure successful implementation.

However, considerations of dissemination and scalability had to remain intact so that advancement of design principles could impact broader contexts, which is a goal of DBR. This meant that I could not lose sight of my “primary role as researcher” (Plomp, 2013, p. 43), keeping in the forefront the importance of intention and broader significance of the research study.

Delimitations

There were four delimitations in this study. Firstly, data collection took place in three meso cycles over a 12 month period from November, 2017 to November, 2018. Secondly, the study took place in an elementary school in Alberta, Canada. Thirdly, the teacher-participant in this study was not randomly selected, but was invited to take part and to consent to being a long term collaborator in the study. Finally, the interview questions were open-ended and arose out of each meso cycle. Keeping the questions open-ended allowed for the building of thoughtful, generative design principles that to this day remain open to possibilities, ideas, and iterations.

This offered potential uncertainty in terms of ensuring a rich data set, but was in keeping with the open-ended iterative nature of making.

Manuscript-Based Thesis Format

I have prepared the research findings as a manuscript-based thesis, a format that contains a series of three manuscripts ready for or submitted to peer reviewed journals. The manuscripts can stand alone, but together provide a coherent narration of the research findings. Within the

thesis document, the manuscripts are linked by a discussion that integrates the key findings of the entire study (Werklund School of Education, 2016). My original thoughts were that the theme of each research article could relate to one mesocycle of making. However, after data analysis was complete, the findings revealed a more cogent relationship to the three key considerations outlined in the conceptual framework: learning environment, curriculum, and design. Therefore, the three findings chapters, presented next as three manuscripts, each focus on one of these considerations.

The next section details the findings that emerged through this generative work. Chapter four examines the makerspace as learning environment, chapter five presents an ontological approach to enacting curriculum, and chapter six explores the role of teacher as designer.

Chapter Four

Learning Environment

A Year at the Improv: Iterating Identity and Agency Through Making in an

Elementary Makerspace

In the past decade, there has been important research focused on learning in school makerspaces. Highlighted as an important trend in educational technology, makerspaces as learning environments enable students to design, prototype, and create ideas and solutions using a range of low tech materials and high tech digital tools (Adams Becker et al., 2018).

Opportunities to make “potentially teach content, practices and mindsets that are not strongly encouraged or covered in school settings” (Barton, et al., 2016, p. 5). Not only can students develop competency in the collaborative processes necessary to innovate and creatively solve problems (Martin, 2015), in becoming active makers, they can develop a sense of agency

(Hughes & Morrison, 2018; Oxman Ryan et al., 2016). “The maker mindset” (Dougherty, 2013), or “maker empowerment” (Oxman Ryan et al., 2016, p. 36) described as an ontological shift in how students see themselves cognitively and dispositionally, can empower them to be thoughtful citizens who have the power to make change in the world (Oxman Ryan, et al., 2016).

Two questions framed the inquiry outlined in this chapter: How can teachers be supported in the development of teacher knowledge, pedagogy, and practice within an elementary school makerspace environment? and How can teachers support the development of students’ conceptual understanding of disciplinary topics in an elementary school makerspace?

In analyzing the data, I noted the way in which the teacher, Riley1, and her students moved from figured world of traditional classroom to figured world of makerspace. Figured worlds, conceptualized by Holland, Lachiotte Jr., Skinner, and Cain (1998), have been used in educational research to study concepts related to identity and agency (Kangas, Seitnamaa-

Hakkarainen, & Hakkarainen, 2013). Described as “the way cultural norms and individual agency interact” (Rush & Fecho, 2008, p. 124), the notion of figured worlds values both institutional culture and individual agency because it is through the cultural norms that individual agency develops. What is valued plays out in the figured worlds that people inhabit. For example, the figured world of the makerspace in this study was explicitly designed to value creativity, risk-taking, iterative problem solving, and meaning making through collaboration.

This chapter begins by exploring the literature on figured worlds, particularly as this concept has been used to investigate educational contexts. Next is a delineation of the methodological process used in conducting the research, including the data analysis techniques.

A presentation of the findings demonstrates how the teacher and three of the students navigated within and between the figured worlds of classroom and makerspace and the learning that took place for all of them. The discussion presents key considerations for teachers and researchers when enacting making in schools. Finally, in the conclusion, recommendations for future research in the context of makerspaces in formal school settings are offered.

1 Pseudonym

How Does Learning ‘Figure’ in Figured Worlds

Holland et al. (1998) defined a figured world as “a socially and culturally constructed realm of interpretation in which particular characters and actors are recognized, significance is assigned to certain acts, and particular outcomes are valued over others” (p. 52). In suggesting the convertability of human identities as individuals locate themselves in unique social and material environments, Holland et al. (1998) advance the notion that positionality is an important aspect of identity formation. In addition, identities in figured worlds are formed not only in relation to cultural positionality, but also improvisationally and situationally in day-to-day interactions over time (Holland et al., 1998). Positionality as described by Holland et al. (1998) refers to the actions of persons taking place within an ordered and interconnected cultural environment of power relationships and social positions. Holland et al. (1998) affirm that instead of thinking of cultural positionality as a bounded entity, “people are exposed to competing and differentially powerful and authoritative discourses and practices of the self” (p. 29). In figured worlds, the situative occasions that arise for individuals to improvise with artifacts and discourses in these social and material environments can promote agency on the part of participants.

Rush and Fecho (2008) stated, “We are never part of just one figured world, but slide among them constantly” (p. 127). They also argued that the collision of figured worlds offers possibilities for improvisation (Rush & Fecho, 2008). This collision and subsequent improvisation ensures the unpredictable evolution, yet bounded connection, of inhabited worlds

(Robinson, 2007) because participants carry with them ways of being from one world into another. Further, within the improvisations themselves lie opportunities to conventionalize ways of being or to make them into culture (Holland et al., 1998).

Improvisations in makerspace environments could then be conventionalized into a formal elementary classroom culture, leading to the development of agency and identity for students and their teacher in both the figured worlds of classroom and of makerspace.

Urietta (2007) identified four different areas of study related to figured worlds in education: 1) identity production; 2) particular educational contexts; 3) larger sociocultural constructs in education; and 4) making worlds of possibility. Each of these areas is addressed in the present study, which 1) investigates the identities of a teacher and three of her students; 2) contextualizes a makerspace in a particular educational context: an elementary school in western

Canada; 3) adds to dialogue in the larger sociocultural construct, that is makerspaces as learning environments in educational settings; and 4) promotes worlds of possibility because it offers unique possibilities for participating in curricular activities (Jurow, 2005; Kangas et al., 2011;

Urietta, 2007).

The research presented here endeavors to add to the current dialogue surrounding figured worlds in educational settings by suggesting that the very nature of improvisational figuring inherent in making adds to the study of teacher and student agency and identity.

It is important to consider the pre-existing teacher and researcher identities in this study.

Riley, the teacher participant, who holds degrees in psychology and education, does not possess the STEM background often associated with makers and maker culture (Kalil, 2013). As a former elementary teacher and teacher-librarian and now educational researcher, I present a generalist teaching perspective with a background in literacy. Even though “a figured world is embedded in the social practices of an expert culture . . .” (Kangas et al., 2011, p. 428) the learning designs enacted in the study are not those of discipline experts in STEM fields. The intent of the research was to explore how teachers, skilled in designing conditions for student

learning, might connect curricular programs of study with the principles, pedagogies, and practices found in elementary makerspace environments. In designing the study, it was assumed that many elementary teachers do not enter teaching with a strong background in STEM

(Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Goodnough, Pelech, & Stordy, 2014; Nadelson, Callahan,

Pyke, Hay, Dance, & Pfiester, 2013). I anticipated that elementary teachers can engage, similarly to their students, in improvisational figuring (Kangas et al., 2011) in a makerspace environment in order to promote learning for not only their students, but also for themselves.

The concept of legitimate peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991), as an improvisational position in the makerspace, is worth considering here. According to Lave and

Wenger (1991), legitimate peripheral participation is the nucleus of situative practice in that it is through legitimate peripheral participation that learning happens. In situative learning spaces, such as makerspaces, where legitimate peripheral participation takes place, learning – not teaching – is a key element. In the classroom, teaching is the essential component, and what is learned “is mediated by the instructor’s participation, by an external view of what knowing is about” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 97). According to Lave and Wenger (1991), the teaching curriculum found in the classroom, restricts, whereas the learning curriculum, found more so in the makerspace, evolves as to the needs of the learner. “The ambiguous potentialities of legitimate peripherality reflect the concept’s pivotal role in providing access to a nexus of relations otherwise not perceived as connected” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 36). The makerspace as learning space provides opportunities for participants to observe and engage in unique and unforeseen connections.

Therefore, it stands that the teacher, engaging in legitimate peripheral participation in the makerspace environment, has opportunities to focus on learning, more so than teaching because

the work in the makerspace is situated from a learning perspective. Furthermore, conducting this work iteratively with the researcher created a “community of practice” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 98), where “participation at multiple levels” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 98) and through multiple entry points allowed for the teacher to engage in learning alongside her students and the researcher.

The notion of peripherality has also been explored by Vygotsky (1978), in his concept

“the zone of proximal development” (p. 79). Entering the makerspace with her students and with support from the researcher allowed the teacher to develop and practice her capabilities in designing for making in a social and culturally situated experience. The design-based research methodology in this study promoted active participation in testing out design ideas while collaboratively solving design issues that arose in the context of the learning, and actively collecting data and intentionally reflecting upon learning throughout the process. In so doing, the teacher was able to reside in a “zone of proximal development” where she was scaffolded until she felt competent to step forward on her own.

The study took place in a rural town of approximately 8000 people in Alberta, Canada.

Approximately 35% of the students at the school were English language learners. Riley, the teacher participant in the town’s only K-7 school, was invited to participate in the research and readily agreed. The study was approved by the Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board

(CFREB) at the University of Calgary. Both she, and her 27 students, along with their parents, as pursuant to the university ethics approval process, consented to be part of the study.

Methodology

Design-based research (DBR) was chosen as the methodological approach in this study in order to develop solutions in response to the practical, yet complex problem (McKenney &

Reeves, 2012) of designing for learning in a school makerspace. Factors that influenced the design solution include constraints such as classroom and grade scheduling, interpretations of the required curriculum, and formative and summative assessment cycles. The selection of DBR hinged on the following principles of this methodology: the research was theoretically oriented, interventionist in nature, iterative, collaborative, and responsively grounded (McKenney &

Reeves, 2012). Additionally, with Riley and me iteratively co-designing, co-enacting, and co- reflecting on three distinct cycles of making, each round of research informed future designs for us and the students.

Collaboratively Riley and I determined the key curriculum topics to address in each round of making, though much of the work eventually took on an interdisciplinary pathway. In round one, we chose to focus on sky science; round two, mathematical transformations, and; round three, a study of democracy in social studies.

Data sources used in the analysis include researcher field notes collected daily during the research study, interviews with the teacher conducted prior to and after each making cycle, photographs and video recordings of students engaged in pre, during, and post making activities, and student and teacher artifacts created pre, during, and post making.

After a review of first cycle coding methods, it was determined that the use of versus coding would assist in identifying systems, phenomena, and processes that took place in the classroom vs the makerspace (Saldana, 2013). Versus coding helps to identify “strong conflicts or competing goals within, among, and between participants” (Saldana, 2013, p. 115). The suggestion to categorize data under the headings of 1) stakeholders; 2) perceptions/actions, and

3) issues (Saldana, 2013), provided a frame in which to ground initial coding in actual observable conflicts. An additional fourth code, learning environment, was added to pinpoint the

instances that related specifically to either classroom or makerspace. Following these choices, the identification of subcodes for the first three codes took place (see Figure 1). Subcodes for the issues code emerged throughout and following the data collection and analysis period. As researcher I identified in my notes evidence of obstacles, which presented themselves routinely in the day to day lives of the teacher and her students. Van den Akker’s (2013) curriculum spider web provided a subcode schema for the perceptions/actions code.

At times, perceptions/actions overlapped with issues. For example, both the perceptions/actions code and the issues code establish assessment as a subcode. This overlap enabled me to problematize not only how the notion of assessment was perceived and acted upon, but also the extent to which it served as an issue to impact the positionality of various stakeholders in the classroom and makerspace.

An itemization of codes and subcodes is presented in Figure 6.

Stakeholders Perceptions/Actions Issues Environment (van den Akker, 2013)

Teacher Aims and Objectives - Technology Classroom Towards which goals challenges are they learning? Student Content -What are they Teacher Makerspace learning? knowledge of the discipline Researcher Learning Activities - Scheduling time How are they learning? for learning

Teacher Role - How is Provincial exam the teacher facilitating pressures their learning? Materials and Resources Outside -With what are they interruptions learning? Grouping - With whom Ensuring are they learning? curriculum coverage Location - Where are Designing with they learning? other teachers

Time - When are they Designing for learning? individual student learning Assessment - How is Designing for their learning assessed? interdisciplinary learning Assessing and reporting

Figure 6. Codes and subcodes used in analyzing data to compare the makerspace and classroom as learning environment.

Throughout the study, a substantive amount of reflective dialogue between Riley and me centred around the ways in which specific students’ engagement shifted in and between the figured worlds (Jurow, 2005) of classroom and makerspace. This ongoing teacher-researcher

dialogue, chronicled in researcher notes and recorded and transcribed in one-on-one interviews served to document and track our observations and insights related to how specific students and the class in general were engaging in various figured worlds. Additional corroboration was at times also sought and collected by me in email and text message correspondence with Riley.

Findings

The findings from this study show that the teacher, the students, and the researcher occupied various positions within the figured worlds of classroom and makerspace and that over the course of participating in three making activities, all of the participants’ abilities to improvise in both figured worlds appeared to have shifted. As well, in analyzing the data, it became clear that power relationships altered within and between the two figured worlds.

This section begins with a general description of the shift followed by a specific focus on four individual participants, three students, John, Josh, and Emmy, and their teacher, Riley.

In the makerspace, the students took the lead in improvising solutions to problems they encountered. For example, students designed, constructed, and iterated models of understanding using a range of materials of their choosing. In the classroom, the teacher was wholly responsible for addressing challenges, often of a bureaucratic nature imposed from external sources. For instance, Riley determined which students demonstrated knowledge of curriculum outcomes and where they were ranked in terms of that knowledge. Figure 7 identifies challenges that the research participants faced in the two figured worlds. Though participants appeared to move effortlessly between the learning spaces as indicated by the two-way arrow, over time they took aspects of positionality from one figured world into the other. This was especially true when moving from makerspace to classroom container.

Classroom (Teacher Led) Makerspace (Student Led) • Tools and tech challenges • Provincial exam pressures the wobble • Tools and tech challenges • Outside interruptions (Fecho et al.) • Iterative design work • Curriculum coverage • Personal inquiry • Scheduling time for learning • Interdisciplinary learning • Working with colleagues • Assessing and reporting • Scaffolding student needs • Assessing and reporting

Figure 7. Challenges identified in the figured worlds of classroom and makerspace.

In the classroom, the distribution of power, and the ranking and ordering of participants was ‘figured’ somewhat by the participants (Robinson, 2007), but was often pre-set and locked in by external bureaucratic demands. For example, student results on tests often determined who in the classroom was “smart.” In the makerspace the distribution of power was less obvious and more flexible. Many participants came to see themselves as capable creators and problem solvers, a mindset they carried with them across figured worlds (Urietta, 2007). For example, some students whose standing on tests and assignments in the classroom often limited their sense of themselves as learners, came to understand that they could conduct important research and creatively model complex ideas in the makerspace. Success in the makerspace provided many students with confidence as learners that carried through to the classroom.

The students, in conducting iterative design work to address inquiry topics of a personal interest in the makerspace, were observed to demonstrate agency in interdisciplinary learning in an emergent way that required continual technological innovation, self-assessment, and the gathering of feedback in order to develop solutions. For example, students went into the

makerspace with a design idea, and notions of which materials might be most effective in carrying out the design. Often, students also had to make adjustments to designs based on challenges related to conceptualization, or the materials, or to a specific technology. Thinking about and solving the problems that emerged gave the students confidence in their abilities as learners. Riley indicated that she observed the students becoming more adept and agential over time in both figured worlds through their positioning in the makerspace. She developed improvisational work-arounds in the classroom in order to support student evolvement.

This transformation can be made more more explicit through the chronicling of four individual narratives, that of the teacher, Riley, and three of her students, John, Josh, and Emmy.

The students highlighted in this chapter were selected because of their different backgrounds and responses to the maker work. According to Riley, prior to the study all three presented themselves as average students. Riley indicated that over the course of Josh’s schooling history, he was an underachiever and had at times exhibited minor behavioural difficulties. Including

Riley’s growth as a maker teacher was important because seeing her students adopt maker identities contributed to her own identity as a teacher and a maker.

The Forming of Maker Identities

John.2 Riley described John as “a student who in September was really hard to motivate.” From the start of the maker research, John appeared to be engaged in learning. He asked questions, demonstrated curiosity about his maker work both inside and outside school, and embraced and adopted feedback for use in his maker projects.

2 Pseudonym

In the first project, focusing on the curriculum topic of sky science, John expressed interest in exploring whether aliens could survive in a black hole. He wanted to model a black hole digitally and asked us if he could do this as a google slide presentation. Given our technological limitations, we could not offer students access to high end 3D modelling programs, but we wanted to push the students to imagine new ways of exploring their topics of inquiry. I asked John, “Have you thought of Minecraft?” He had not. He responded by asking, “How would I do it?” I replied, “I don’t know, but you probably need to learn more about black holes before you can start.” Together we located some suitable resources that helped John understand the scientific thinking about black holes. He asked, “Can I work on this at home?” With this short interaction, John entered the figured world of makerspace, where he attempted to make sense of the nature of black holes through iterative design work. In so doing, he took responsibility for the tools and tech challenges and sought out feedback to move his thinking forward. Not only was he improvising with materials, but he was also figuring himself in the makerspace by adopting the role of questioner.

John was away from school when Riley and I introduced the next task, which was making a stop animation to tell a story depicting the use of the Cartesian plane. John’s original idea was to create a flip book centred on the topic of basketball. I saw him struggling with the materials and asked if he had considered making a digital animation using Lego. We discussed the pros and cons of analog and digital making and I suggested he think about the options before continuing. I wanted John to see that if he chose the digital option he could easily make changes to his animation without having to start from the beginning. When I returned to check in a while later, he was building a scene using the available Lego.

One of the goals of the second making project was to have the students to see how mathematics is used in solving everyday problems. I mentioned to John that I had recently read an article about how professional basketball teams used mathematics to improve free throw percentages. I asked John if he was interested in reading the article. When he acknowledged that he was, I offered to send it to his teacher Riley who forwarded it on to him.

Riley asked the students to conduct a self-reflection at the end of this round of making.

John stated, “The most interesting learning I had was taking ideas and modifying them. I’m proud of my project. It took a lot of hard work and persistence. Next time I’d modify the angle of my project because I want to make it 3D.” What is interesting about John’s self-assessment is that for the most part, his focus was not on the end result, but on the dispositions he displayed while making.

The third round of making focused on social studies and the curriculum topic of democracy in society. Each student chose a concept, such as equity and constructed an object that would serve as a metaphor for that concept. We talked to the class about the upcoming maker task, and offered choice as to materials, including the use of Tinkercad to design an object for the 3D printer or Easel for the CNC router. We informed them, that we were not experts on the use of Tinkercad and Easel and that they would probably find the work challenging but they were welcome to try it themselves. Before the making actually started, John came into the classroom and informed Riley that he knew exactly what he wanted to do. It was obvious to her that he had been thinking about this maker project outside school.

Riley noted an important change in John over the course of the year and related at least some of the change to his identity as a maker. At the beginning of the school year, Riley often had to provide seemingly simple instructions over and over to John and even then, he did not

appear to “get it.” His mother expressed concerns that he was not completing homework, even though Riley sent home a weekly email outlining the tasks for the week. After the third round of making Riley remarked, “Now he’s doing research at home to try and figure out how to do certain things on Tinkercad. Or watching, looking at different videos about equity.”

Leander, Philips and Taylor (2010) in writing about the changing social spaces of learning described the “classroom as the epitome of immobility” (p. 332), whereby teachers, students, and even researchers are often held captive in classroom containers by the systemic conventions thrust upon them. For John, he appeared to be trapped in the way he ‘figured’ himself. Entering the makerspace allowed him to cross between in-school makerspace and out- of-school boundaries (Leander et al., 2010). Becoming a maker meant that he did not situate himself in a space-time container, but actively networked ideas across space-time (Leander et al.,

2010). Ideation, that is, the generation of ideas and solutions to problems, for him took place in the makerspace, in observations and dialogue with fellow makers, at home, on-line, and through email correspondence between his teacher and himself. Through making, John developed a sense of agency to map his own learning trajectory (Leander et al., 2010) which allowed Riley to see him in ways that she may not have seen him in the classroom. Observing the visible changes in

John’s behaviour and engagement as a learner contributed to her teacher identity, in that she came to see herself more as a designer for learning, as opposed to a manager of learning. Riley witnessed that in setting the right conditions for John to be a learner (that is, engaging him in rich content and learning tasks and allowing him choice in how he approached his learning), was more important than ensuring coverage of curriculum topics, which prior to making had been the dominant culture in the classroom.

Compared to the classroom container where “a dominant culture gets privileged” (Rush

& Fecho, 2008, p. 134), in the figured world of the makerspace the distribution of power shifted

(Robinson, 2007) toward the students. John carried this sense of power and agency with him from the makerspace into other parts of his schooling and into the outside world. In that way, he taught Riley to consider a different way to approach learning.

Josh3. Riley stated on more than one occasion that she thought the makerspace learning environment would be a perfect fit for Josh. According to her, Josh “enjoyed doing hands-on tasks, and being in control of his learning.” However, over the course of the three making activities, Riley was surprised to observe that Josh, of all the students in the class, did not embrace making the way others did. Throughout the year in multiple conversations, Riley and I problematized why:

S: Josh is a real puzzle. R: I think there’s that piece of effort and time and I almost think that his brain has been, “Let me get this down as quick as I can, and with as little effort as possible.” So I think there’s gonna take more to switch that. S: I think too with him, he has all these ideas in his head. Like in the sky science one he had the idea. R: It was a great idea. S: And he could see it. He told me, “I can see how it’s gonna go”. But then actually, physically making that happen is harder. R: And I think that’s the effort piece. Right? He does encounter a problem or can’t find the material that he’s envisioning, and instead of persisting, he gives up and totally changes his project or an easier question. S: That’s something to work on with him. R: Mmm hmm. And we’ve been doing that all year, but it’s been, um . . . I think it’s like years of erasing that.

3 Pseudonym

For Josh, the makerspace became “a contested space, a space of struggle” (Holland et al.,1998, p. 282). We wondered if his history of being given a task or series of tasks in the classroom, completing those tasks quickly and efficiently, and receiving feedback in the form of the number correct and the number incorrect positioned him so strongly that he was unable to take the risk of figuring himself. In those cases, the feedback he received was straight forward, unequivocal, and absolute. It appeared he relied on characters outside himself, specifically the teacher, or the grades on the page, to lay claim to his position and sense of self as learner. Riley described how Josh “rushed through in order to be finished.” Completion signaled to Josh success, as opposed to a messy and complicated process of self-directed learning, with cycles of continual iteration, which calls for the continual improvement of ideas.

During the second round of making, Riley and I introduced the stop animation activity.

My notes state: “Josh is very pumped. He has done some personal research on how transformations are used in movies.”

For the next two days Riley was away due to outside meetings. I along with a substitute teacher led the class in making. My notes indicated a frustration on my part:

Josh and Matt4 were unproductive. Their story plan has narration. I said to them, “I’m not sure how narration will work with a flip book.” Then Josh said, “It doesn’t really need narration.” We then talked about how to include mathematics in the flipbook . . . I’m not sure Josh’s story plan actually fits a flipbook. I told him he always comes up with complex ideas but they are often difficult to bring to life. I’m not sure what is up with Josh– I believe he needs challenge, but he seems unable or unwilling to follow through on the actual physical making . . . perhaps his work needs to be more in his head? . . . He was the leader today and Matt followed. They did very little work, then decided that they wanted to build a musical instrument to “play” along with their flip book.

4 Pseudonym

Josh said he was going to make the flip book at home. He said, I’ve made tons of them . . . so my question is, why do this again? Perhaps the uncertainty is uncomfortable? He is afraid that his work will not be good so he does a poor job and goofs around as a way of avoiding failure?

Josh’s immediate choice to remove narration following my feedback indicated to me his reliance on the authority figure to establish his position.

I discussed with Riley the lack of engagement on the part of Josh and Matt while she was away, and how all the other students had responded well to feedback, even without her there. My notes read:

Riley was back today (she has been away for two days). She told me she actually was kind of glad she was away because she was interested in seeing how the kids did without her. She communicated to me that she was amazed at their work.

Later in the post making interview, Riley commented on the overall growth of her students. In particular, she mentioned Josh and how well he had worked when she returned.

I think seeing, seeing their mindsets change. And I don’t know if it’s maturity. But I do feel like a lot of them have become a lot more reflective about their work and are not just settling to be the first one done just to say that it’s done and over with, you know. Like I do have a group of kids that rush through certain things, just to finish. And I’d say, we had one. And, towards the end, the days that you weren’t there, like Josh actually worked amazingly.

In carrying the dominant culture (Rush & Fecho) into the makerspace with him, Josh’s

“assumptions, blinders, and comfort of the worlds” (Fecho, Graham, & Hudson-Ross 2005, p.

178) traveled with him. Rather than positioning himself in the figured world of makerspace, it appeared that Josh waited for Riley, the teacher, to do it. It was her expectations for him that determined his figuring. When Riley was not there, Josh seemed to struggle to find where he fit in terms of positionality.

Riley witnessed the beginnings of a shift in Josh in the third round of making. Though many of the students chose a digital platform to create a metaphor based on a democratic concept, Josh designed a motif that he painted on a rock. Riley observed the developing maker identities in her students, when she commented to me, “This time we have them all.”

Josh’s ideation however, still seemed to require validation from what he perceived as the authority figure. My notes confirm this:

Josh drew an interesting motif with an anchor and an attached balloon floating up to represent freedom. He came up to me later and had erased that and then had drawn a person, a book and a pencil. I asked him why he erased the first idea. He said, “I don’t like my anchor.” I told him that I preferred it to his current metaphor, which I said, “in order to work would need to have the hand holding the pencil.” “But I don’t know how to do that,” he said. He came back later and had gone back to his original idea.

For Josh, “rather than having the agency to figure or refigure one’s self, the individual is

‘figured’ or ‘positioned’ within that world” (Robinson, 2007, p. 194). When I stated that I preferred Josh’s first design I positioned him within the figured world. My notes indicate that even after three making activities, Josh was still waiting for us to position him:

Natalie mentioned to the students they could enter their work in the community juried art show. Mac said, “Should I Sandra? Should I enter?” I nodded. Then he said again, “Really should I?” I am coming to see that maybe Mac really needs that extraneous affirmation – could this be his challenge in the makerspace, even given his intellectual abilities?

As Natalie stated in an earlier conversation, “I think it’s like, years of erasing that.”

Though we did see growth in Josh’s ability to figure himself, he still relied on outside validation as a maker. We wondered about our role in his figuring. I asked myself, How might we have approached and supported his entry into making so that he could figure his way differently and agentially? Josh remained a puzzle for both of us as we problematized and sought to understand the development of his identity in the makerspace.

Emmy.5 At the end of the school year, Emmy’s mother thanked Riley for “allowing her to grow.” Emmy, a very capable student, entered the figured world of makerspace and immediately positioned herself as a maker. For Emmy, this positioning did not rely on feedback from others, though that is not to say she did not act on suggestions provided to her by others in the makerspace. But the opportunities to iterate and play with provocations provided Emmy the forum to wrestle with questions and ideas she wondered about.

In the sky science activity, Emmy designed and built a cardboard spiral model that replicated the shape of a black hole. Along with this, she created a slide show that spelled out the key ideas that were important for her understanding of black holes. The slide show was not something that was asked for or required, and it was not shared with the rest of the class. It appeared that for Emmy, the creative tasks she engaged in assisted her in sense making about a topic that fascinated her. Emmy’s willingness to embrace opportunities to probe deeply into the ideas presented to her indicated the ease with which she traversed the figured worlds of classroom and makerspace.

For the stop animation, Emmy created a film that partnered the growth and movement of flowers on the Cartesian plane with a message about friendship and inclusion. When the film was screened for the class, there were audible sighs at the end. Emmy’s simple film, sketched on a plastic lid with dry erase markers, captured the imagination of all the students.

Oxman Ryan et al. (2016) have understood maker empowerment to include sensitivity, inclination, and capacity. For Emmy, she appeared to already possess the inclination and the

5 Pseudonym

capacity for making. The figured world of makerspace provided her “the sensitivity to appropriate occasions” (Oxman Ryan et al., 2016, p. 37) to make and craft the ideas in forms that were important to her.

In the final round of making, when the students were exploring concepts of democracy through metaphor, Emmy came to school and, in a way similar to John’s approach, told Riley, “I already know what I’m doing.” She showed us her sketch book with a fist raised high in the sky, and related it to the strong Canadian women suffragists who, as she stated, through “peaceful campaigning” fought for the right to vote. She included the following statement as part of the written documentation that went along with her metaphor. “Then we thrived as we grew, free as birds even though we were already soaring.” For us, Emmy’s metaphor served as a metaphor for her maker work. Though she was able to soar in both figured worlds, it was the opportunity to make that, as her mother said, “allowed her to grow.”

Riley. Riley, when engaged in this study was in her third year of teaching. She presented herself as a very competent teacher, and willingly volunteered to participate in the makerspace research. She and another colleague had taken on leadership roles at their school in setting up a maker lab in an unused room attached to the library. Riley spent time locating and organizing materials and even created a Christmas maker activity for teachers in the school to introduce them to the makerspace and making.

When we began our initial planning for the first maker activity focused on sky science, we both expressed apprehension. Our learning design asked the students to develop their own sky science deep thinking questions, and to build a model that would help them answer their question. Riley stated, “And I think for them that is really difficult because that’s not what

they’re used to school being like.” For many of the students, school was a place where they were told what they had to learn and the ways in which they were to engage in learning.

Though Riley referenced difficulties for students, this process was also destabilizing for us as ““the wobble,” that authored space of uncertainty that lies between and among figured worlds” (Fecho et al., 2005, p. 175), forced us to engage with the uncertainty that comes with improvisational approaches to teaching.

The expectations and forces of classroom and schooling tugged at Riley as well. Fecho et al. (2005) suggested that “centripetal forces” (p. 197) in teaching lives create a unique type of wobble that limits agential approaches. For Riley, these forces were incessant, time-consuming, and energy draining. They included 1) provincial exam pressures; 2) technology challenges, ranging from not being able to access technology for her students, to not possessing the privileges to purchase apps and extensions required for her students to do their work, as well as

3) outside scheduling and interruptions. These extraneous forces were coupled with the day-today demands of attending to curricular outcomes, designing learning for the specific needs of individual students, developing knowledge and understanding of disciplines and technology, assessing and reporting on student learning, not to mention the additional professional duties outside the classroom. An example from my notes:

It was very hot today - high 20s. Riley had running club at lunch and one of the students had a nosebleed. She had to stop along the trail and help the student, meaning she got back with very little time. She was gobbling down her lunch at bell time when I came into the classroom.

Fecho et al. (2005) referenced a juggler managing multiple spinning plates all at the same time. This is an apt description of Riley’s figured classroom world in this study. Therefore, due to what seemed like ever increasing centripetal pressures, as we got closer to the end of the year,

the time negotiated for makerspace activities became shorter and shorter. I noted this unspoken tension in May:

Riley seems very overwhelmed these days with upcoming PATs and the fact that she has not covered curriculum topics. We discussed that she is working on two science topics, and also has another topic to address before provincial exams. On Wednesday the grade 6 students have been asked to look after the grade ones. Last week the students had concert practice, Friday they will be off school. There are many interruptions to deal with - I get the feeling Natalie would rather not be doing this - it is one more thing on her plate. But she said to me today, almost wistfully, I love doing this stuff.

The tension between classroom and makerspace figured worlds heightened as the school year progressed. Toward the end of the year, given the forces inherent in the figured world of classroom, it was difficult to determine what learning Riley would take with her from the research experience into her future teaching.

Ironically, once Riley physically entered the makerspace with her students, for those short periods, the centripetal pressures appeared to diminish, and even the centrifugal forces of open-ended destabilization inherent in planning for making lessened. It was as if her notion of the culturally constructed world (Holland et al., 1998) of makerspace immediately shifted the ways in which she figured herself into that world. Riley cited giving up control and allowing student expertise to emerge as pivotal.

The shift was evidenced by several anecdotes that Riley shared about how she was approaching teaching with her new class the following year. She described excitedly to me her learning with Makey Makey, an electronic circuitry tool that she had recently been exposed to in a workshop:

“Now, one thing that I was doing, is I was actually drawing arrows to the buttons. And, I don’t . . . because that’s what the guy was doing in the workshop. And during, it was the first day of doing this, one of my boys came up to me and said, “You know I don’t, . . . why do we have to draw the arrows? Wouldn’t it work without the arrows because the brads are conductive?” And I thought, “Oh, maybe . . . I don’t, I don’t really know. Do

you want to try it?” And he said, “Okay.” So he tried it. And it worked. So then we announced to the whole class, “You don’t actually have to do this. I made the mistake.””

Riley also described her comfort with presenting herself as a learner to her students while introducing the visual coding language Scratch to her students:

The final sentence speaks to Riley’s journey into the precarious unknown with me in her previous year of teaching. Acknowledging the not knowing figured her position with her students as a learner alongside them, rather than keeper of the knowledge which she acknowledged she carried with her previously:

I never wanted to say I didn’t know what they were talking about. But there were times that I didn’t. And we all have been in that situation. But I also don’t think that that’s . . . cause for me that’s a sign of weakness and a sign of you know, she’s not a good teacher because she doesn’t know what we’re talking about. Or she’s never done this or whatever.

For Riley “coming to an appreciation of this unsettling state of vertigo creates opportunities for examining practice in ways that might not otherwise occur” (Fecho et al., 2005, p. 175). In articulating for herself her transformation Riley indicated what she had come to value in the figured world of makerspace:

They couldn’t get three buttons to work and didn’t know why. Everything was hooked up when you pressed them on the computer it worked. So they had asked me and I didn’t really know either. So again, I ask the class, a couple of kids come over. The next thing you know, it’s fixed. And no one really knew what they did, but it’s just that sense of community, right? And also the sense that I’m not the only person in the room that knows what we’re doing. And that I really really like. I think the kids grow a lot more when you have that and that’s definitely how I’ve changed. Giving them the power . . .

Not only does Riley reference how making developed agency in her students, her mention of community speaks to how her class as a whole improvised their culturally

constructed world (Holland et al., 1998). Another important insight Riley achieved was the importance of not only allowing herself to try and fail, but at the same time also respecting her students’ agency to do the same. She shared this example of her learning:

“I need a paper clip.” And right away, I was about to say, a paper clips not going to hold up blankets, because I’m thinking of the traditional use. But I stopped myself. And of course I had one in my pocket, so I pulled it out, and I gave it to him and he says, “This is great! Thanks!” And he runs away and I go over to look and he has taken it apart so it’s now like a straight line of metal, and he has poked it through one of the blankets and then twisted up another one and wrapped it so that it would hold two blankets together. But here I was about to say, “No, a paper clips not going to work.” And so there’s another thing that I’m trying really hard to not put my ideas because we all have certain ideas about why things aren’t going to work. And I shared that with the kids, when we were debriefing after, and I said, “No. I almost said no.” Because my idea wouldn’t have worked but his idea worked.

In stopping herself from intervening and acknowledging that inaction to her students, she demonstrated a growing respect for the agency her students had within themselves to creatively solve problems while modeling for them her development as a learner and a teacher.

Riley also reflected on her own ability as a designer of learning. In so doing, I realized that along with her students, Riley herself had became a maker. Through her experience in the figured world of makerspace she developed a sensitivity, inclination, and capacity “to shape one’s world through building, tinkering, re/designing or hacking” (Oxman Ryan et al., 2016, p.

36). The cues offered in the makerspace, and enacted through the actions of her students, developed in herself a sense of maker empowerment (Oxman Ryan et al., 2016):

I feel after everything that we’ve done . . . last year it was kind of, sometimes with you it was I don’t know how we’re going to make a project about this. How are we going to do it in social? How are we going to do it in LA? Science, easy. But this year, things come to me where I’m not even really thinking hard about it.

Riley became sensitive to the learning opportunities presented to her and her students. As she articulated, she began to be open to possibilities for learning that presented themselves.

All of these changes as articulated by Riley in interviews, reflective conversations, and debrief sessions after making sessions, whether it be presenting herself as a learner to her students, creating opportunities for her students to design and test solutions, and developing her own stance as a maker, were part of her figuring her own way in the makerspace.

Discussion

For the three students, John, Josh, and Emmy, each ‘figured’ their way in the makerspace differently. John, with invitations and feedback from multiple sources, both inside and outside the makerspace and classroom, developed a maker identity as a result of the culture inherent in making. Josh brought with him the cultural constraints and safety nets of the classroom, thus requiring constant affirmation of his making practice. Emmy, when provided opportunities to make, found new ways to explore learning that extended and enriched her thinking. For all three students, their maker identities evolved based on how they saw themselves as learners. Oxman

Ryan et al., (2016) stated “that the most salient benefits of maker-centred learning have more to do with helping young people realize their capacity to shape the designed dimensions of their worlds – that they have the inclination, motivation, and wherewithal to effect change” (p. 42).

John, Josh, and Emmy occupied different locations on the maker continuum, determined by how they figured themselves in the classroom. Therefore, their ability to see themselves as change agents also existed on a continuum.

Riley as the teacher, participating in a makerspace context, as well as in design-based research, also moved along the continuum. She had an opportunity to observe and learn from her students and from ongoing interactions with me. Her ability to relinquish control, meant that she was able to engage in improvisational acts with her students leading to the formation of new identities for everyone. Her opportunities to co-plan, and to discuss and reflect on practice with a

researcher enabled her to engage in legitimate peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991) as a learning event, rather than a teaching event.

Furthermore, my background impacted Riley’s learning. I also entered the makerspace as learner. If I had come into the study as an expert in STEM, Riley may have deferred to me as the knowledge expert. The research design, methodology, and selected participants meant that Riley and I engaged in risktaking together, and we both came to learn more deeply about the disciplines of science, mathematics, and the social sciences together.

In comparing the figured worlds of classroom and makerspace using the characteristics outlined in van den Akker’s (2013) curriculum spider web, and considering our research question, I posit that the defining transformational feature that was key to agency and identity formation for both Riley and her students was the teacher role. As indicated on Table 4, though

Riley was ultimately responsible for all aspects of curriculum implementation when entering the makerspace, many of the elements were shared. As students gained agency in the learning setting, they took on more responsibility for developing the learning activities, adopting their own teaching roles, determining what resources and materials they would need, assessing their work through iterative feedback loops, exploring ideas in multiple learning locations, and identifying grouping options that worked best for their needs.

Table 4

Estimations of Teacher and Student Responsibility for Roles in Enacting Curriculum

Curricular Spider Classroom Makerspace Web Elements (van den Akker, 2013) Teacher Student Shared Teacher Student Shared Aims/Objectives ✓ ✓ Content ✓ ✓ Learning Activities ✓ ✓ Teacher Role ✓ ✓ Materials/Resources ✓ ✓ Grouping ✓ ✓ Location ✓ ✓ Time ✓ ✓ Assessment ✓ ✓ ✓

In the classroom, “hegemony over resources for learning and alienation from full participation” characterized “the shaping of the legitimacy and peripherality of participation”

(Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 42). In the makerspace, Riley offered her students opportunities to improvise with artifacts and ideas and was able to see a shift in how they approached their own learning. Observing student improvisations, and engaging in conversation and reflection with a researcher, empowered Riley to improvise her teaching and to engage in legitimate peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Both the students and Riley carried their improvisational ways of being, their ability to learn and ‘figure’ as makers into the classroom figured world.

Results from this DBR study demonstrate that: 1) addressing curriculum topics in the makerspace can lead to new developments in agency and identity on the part of students and their teacher; 2) students and their teacher, while attending to their position and the discourses of power implicit in specific learning environments, can be observed over time to conventionalize specific improvisations developed in makerspace environments (Holland et al., 1998); 3) there is

potential for students and teachers, over time, to embody improvisations developed in makerspace environments incrementally within the context of a formal elementary classroom, and; 4) engaging in design-based research as methodology supported and influenced teacher practice. The makerspace as a figured world, “led by hope, desperation, or even playfulness,”

(Holland et al., 1998, p. 7) was found to promote a movement from one socially and culturally formed identity as learner to another.

However, just as the students required scaffolding in ‘figuring’ their role in the makerspace, I would argue that so did the teacher. Though the work in the makerspace transformed Riley’s teaching, she required support in order to engage in the risk taking necessary to design, enact, and improvise curricular learning experiences in the makerspace. Co- researching, designing, and reflecting with a researcher served as an integral part of Riley’s learning in the study because it allowed her to enter into legitimate peripheral participation while participating in a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). The situated experience of designing for and enacting learning opportunities within the makerspace became more about learning and less about teaching for Riley. Because the makerspace as figured world was essentially a learning space, Riley deepened her understanding not only about pedagogy, but also about the disciplines of science and mathematics.

Conclusion

There is evidence to suggest that learning in makerspace environments helps to develop agency and identity on the part of students (Hughes & Morrison, 2018; Oxman Ryan et al.,

2016). This study affirms that notion and takes the idea further by substantiating not only the development of agency and identity of students but also the agency and identity of the teacher in relation to her ability to develop maker pedagogy and practice that empowers learning. In

addition, findings suggest that participants, in moving back and forth between the figured worlds of classroom and makerspace, embarked on a gradual shift from teacher directed learning, in which the teacher is sole keeper of knowledge, to student promoted inquiry, in which knowledge is democratized, while evolving a sense of agency, along with new identities as competent, engaged learners.

The next chapter focuses on curriculum, by describing in detail the learning that took place for Riley and me as we explored possibilities for enactment through the topic of sky science.

100

Chapter Five

Curriculum

“How Can I Build a Model if I Don’t Know the Answer to the Question?”:

Developing Student and Teacher Sky Scientist Ontologies Through Making

As has been mentioned previously, in the past decade there has been significant advocacy in education for the implementation of makerspaces as design-based learning environments in K-

12 school settings (Freeman, Adams Becker, Cummins, Davis & Hall Giesinger, 2017; Martin,

2015). Research has suggested that making provides opportunities for learners to practice 21st century skills such as collaboration, problem solving, innovating, and learning from failure

(Bevan, Gutwill, Petrich, & Wilkinson, 2014; Oxman Ryan et al., 2016). Drawing on the work of

Seymour Papert and his theory of constructionism (Papert & Harel, 1991), research on makerspaces purported that students are able to build knowledge and ideas through the construction of the physical and digital artifacts that they create in the makerspace. Proponents have submitted that work conducted in makerspaces not only develops discipline knowledge, but also the habits of mind necessary for creative competence in a knowledge economy (Vossoughi

& Bevan, 2014). This paper argues that making promotes knowledge building (Holbert, 2016) and a maker mindset (Chu, Quek, Bhangaonkar, Ging, & Sridharamurthy, 2015), and that makerspaces can also provide an opportunity for students to explore ontologically what it means to be a scientist.

This design-based research study involved a sixth grade teacher, Riley, and her students’ exploration of interdisciplinary making within a sky science context. Two over-arching research questions for the study were: 1) How can teachers be supported in the development of teacher knowledge, pedagogy, and practice within an elementary school makerspace environment? And,

101

2) How can teachers support the development of students’ conceptual understanding of disciplinary topics in an elementary school makerspace? As part of the participatory design process enacted in the makerspace, Riley and I invited students to make scientific models based on a question they had about the night sky.

The first section of this chapter reviews literature on topics of making and makerspaces, science inquiry, and the nature of science in education. The review is followed by an explanation of the purpose of the selected research methodology, as well as a detailed description of the research setting, participants and data collection methods. Next, study findings are presented as these emerged via pre, during and post making sessions. Following that, an analysis and explanation of the results is presented. Finally, the limitations of the research are discussed and and recommendations for future studies are outlined.

Learning Through Making

Though makerspaces have roots in grassroots community organizations (Martin, 2015;

Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014), there have been efforts to envison and study making in K-12 education (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Martin, 2015). Described as “physical environments that foster opportunities for hands-on learning and creation, often enabled by emerging technologies,” (Freeman et al., 2017, p. 40) makerspaces are seen as learning environments in which students can learn to innovate, problem solve, and test ideas. In makerspaces, students use materials, both high and low tech, to innovate solutions to problems of personal interest. The literature on making has argued that learning is deeply embedded in making (Martin, 2015;

Sheridan, Halverson, Litts, Brahms, Jacobs-Priebe, Owens, 2014), and that making is linked to the development of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) skills (Bevan, 2017;

Freeman, et al., 2017), improved self efficacy and identity as a learner (Chu et al., 2017; Martin,

102

2015), while promoting a growth mindset (Martin, 2015). Given these learning outcomes, there exists potential for making to offer a natural approach to scientific inquiry.

Teacher Knowledge of the Nature of Science and Science Inquiry

Research suggests that the majority of science lessons conducted in classrooms do not relate to the legitimate work of scientists. Chinn and Malholtra (2002) state that scientific classroom activity “is antithetical to the epistemology of authentic science” (p. 175). This gap is exemplified by traditional science teaching approaches whereby all students complete the same standardized tasks and defer to the teacher’s knowledge and authority as dispenser of information (Anderson, 2002). This approach is due in part, to a lack of understanding by teachers, even those with science backgrounds, about the nature of science (NOS) and science inquiry (SI). Studies have found that even students with advanced degrees have had little opportunity to experience authentic scientific inquiry and therefore have limited understanding of the work scientists do (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Schwartz, Lederman, &

Crawford, 2004).

Researchers have asserted that simply having students and their teachers conduct science inquiry (SI) will not promote understanding of SI or the nature of science (NOS) for either students or teachers (Lederman, Lederman, & Antink, 2013; Schwartz et al., 2004; Williams,

Ma, Prejean, Ford, & Lai, 2007). Rather, explicit teaching is required for students to learn about the NOS and SI (Peters, 2012; Peters & Kitsantas, 2010; Stone, 2014). There is some evidence to suggest that participation in authentic science endeavors assists students in science achievement.

Students who are engaged in units of inquiry that more closely resemble authentic tasks benefit on test scores (Geier, Blumenfeld, Marx, Krajcik, Fishman, Soloway, & Clay-Chambers, 2008).

103

The methods of inquiry conducted by working scientists can include building models, conducting experiments, and using observation and comparison to develop theories (Nehring,

Nowak, zu Belzen, & Tiemann, 2015). In contrast, the inquiry methods used in classrooms are oversimplified as compared to authentic SI (Chinn & Malholtra, 2002). There is a need for students and their teachers to participate in authentic, rich SI, coupled with explicit teaching on the NOS to build on their extant knowledge. However, designing for authentic science experiences is often compounded in elementary classrooms with teachers’ lack of preparation and insecurity with science content.

Elementary Teachers’ Scientific Knowledge

Elementary school teachers tend to lack confidence in the subject area of science, which is linked to limited understanding of science content knowledge (Bransford et al., 2000;

Appleton, 2006). In fact, “several studies have demonstrated that primary teachers may often lack a personal scientific background on which to draw and that, indeed, many may themselves hold misconceptions of current scientific ideas” (Parker & Heywood, 2000, p. 90). This often leads to a preference for teaching of non-science subjects (Appleton, 2006). Harlen (1997) identified coping strategies teachers use to address confidence issues when teaching science.

These include avoidance of certain topics, most notably in the physical sciences, while relying on prescriptive, teacher directed pedagogical approaches to instruction. There remains a significant challenge for elementary teachers in building their pedagogy, conceptual knowledge, and confidence when it comes to the teaching of science.

Developing Effective Teaching Practices Through Inquiry

The school district in which this study took place had for the previous five years enlisted in a partnership with the Galileo Network, an educational organization that promotes innovative

104

professional learning practices (www.galileo.org). The network was recognized in 2017 by the

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Centre for Educational

Research and Innovation (CERI) because of its use of innovative pedagogies in powerful learning networks. The collaborative work initiated by the Galileo Network, on the practice of authentic inquiry, continues today in the school district with a focus on developing instructional excellence through the use of the Teaching Effectiveness Framework (Friesen, 2009). The

Framework outlines five core principles that are foundational for teaching and learning to address the complex skillset required for living in a knowledge society, with the first principle being “teachers are designers of learning” (Friesen, p. 4). Friesen (2009), in the accompanying

Effective Teaching Practices Rubric, explained that as part of this core principle, the “teacher designs learning experiences that engage the students in doing work that requires distinct ways of thinking about and acting in the world that particular disciplines embody” (p. 7). Prior to this study, though the teacher participant had engaged in collaborative experiences with colleagues to develop and refine her practice, she had not yet made the connections or found ways to design learning activities so that students could enact and embody different disciplines of study.

Methodology

Design-based research (DBR) was selected as methodology for this study given the alignment between this research approach and the processes found in making. While collaborative in nature, both DBR and making juxtapose structure with creative iteration, and risk-taking with systematic support while developing solutions to an identified need. In order to develop usable knowledge (McKenney & Reeves, 2012) and give credibility to research findings, it was important that the study take place in the emergent complexity of a classroom.

Acknowledging criticism that DBR studies may not be replicable, and therefore may not be

105

scalable, the aim here is to present findings in such a way that readers can take a local story of impact pedagogy and learning, and generalize principles to their own situation, while attending to the theoretical constructs underpinning the narrative (Barab, 2014).

Research Participants and Setting

The makerspace was enacted in a typical grade six classroom with a diverse set of students. I worked collaboratively with a grade six teacher, Riley and her students in a rural school division in Alberta, Canada. Of the entire K-7 population of 423 students at this school,

36% were designated English language learners (ELL). This diverse school demographic was represented in the selected classroom in which approximately one third of the 27 students were

ELL and three had identified exceptional learning needs. One student who was non-verbal with severe learning needs had full time support with a teaching assistant, and two students presented with mild to moderate learning needs.

Grade six students in the province of Alberta undergo provincial achievement testing

(PATs) in June of each year. Standardized testing in science, mathematics, social studies, and language arts (with separate portions on reading and writing) takes place over several days.

Though the stated goal for the testing is to improve student learning (Alberta Education, 2006), research indicates that the high stakes assessment can have a negative impact on teaching and learning (Burger & Krueger, 2003; Cheng & Couture, 2000; Klinger & Rogers, 2011). In this study, the impending PATs were often mentioned by Riley when considering decisions around curriculum implementation and the required content coverage. For example, in one design session, she remarked, “As long as I get everything in. And unfortunately toward the end of the year it becomes just drilling the content which is not the best solution.” The pressure of high stakes assessment was often forefront in Riley’s mind.

106

The school’s access to high tech tools was limited. The staff had recently replaced an older collection of Chromebooks with 130 new ones. The school also had two sets of iPads (10 per set) housed in different locations. As well, each teacher had an iPad and a Chromebook for their own use.

When Riley was approached by the school principal, she readily volunteered to engage in the study. Riley graduated with a BA in psychology and had completed an after degree in education. Neither Riley nor Sandra had backgrounds in STEM which presented an interesting dynamic with regards to conceptual knowledge, understanding of SI and NOS, and instructor confidence. The implications for this will be addressed later in the article.

With three years of teaching experience, Riley had already emerged as a leader among staff in terms of her willingness to explore and test out innovative ideas. Prior to the study, Riley participated in a district professional learning community that was exploring making and makerspaces as innovative learning environments in schools. As part of that community, she visited a makerspace in a charter school in a large urban centre within an hour’s drive of where she teaches. Above and beyond regular classroom teaching duties, Riley had spent considerable time organizing materials, designing activities, and advancing the potential of makerspaces to teaching staff.

According to the school principal, the initiation of a makerspace in the school was a grassroots movement promoted by several educators on staff. There were three primary ways in which the makerspace had been used prior to this study: 1) Interested teachers offered noon hour makerspace clubs separately for grades 1 – 3 and 4 – 6; 2) Some teachers took their students to the makerspace to participate in one-off STEM activities; 3) Riley developed and organized a

Christmas maker challenge for grades 1-3 and 4-6, which included the creation and development

107

of a step-by-step lesson plan and the provision of materials. Other than Riley’s teaching partner and herself, no other classes engaged in the challenge.

Over the course of the year, Riley and I designed and enacted three making cycles based on specific curriculum topics in science, mathematics, and the humanities. The results presented in this article focus on making in science, though the teacher learning from this work carried through to the other two design cycles. Each cycle followed a similar pattern: 1) Explore and analyze making practices; 2) Design and implement makerspace activities; 3) Evaluate and reflect on making as learning, with the second and third aspects taking up most of the collaborative work time.

Data Sources

Qualitative data was collected in the form of pre and post interviews with Riley, artifacts that included student models, short videos of students articulating their thinking around the model design, and researcher field notes based on daily work conducted in the makerspace, as well as follow-up discussions with Riley hinging upon individual observations.

Data Analysis

The analysis of data took place concurrently in order to inform iterative changes to the design and implementation. For example, in the initial planning between Riley and me, the data indicated a convergence on technology over pedagogy. Noting this focus led me to take a more intentional stance on pedagogy over technology. All sources of data were also triangulated to analyze and distill overarching themes about learning. Key moments of learning for Riley and her students were identified as themes in first cycle coding. For example, a pivotal theme of students becoming sky scientists arose prominently in the data. Second cycle coding followed in order to determine causes related to cycle one themes. In this case, second cycle coding indicated

108

that students selecting questions that they did not have answers to presented a key insight into how they experienced SI and the NOS.

Findings

Pre-Making: Designing for making as an iterative learning process

Riley and I met over three sessions to design the first round of making. Initially, pedagogical discussion focused on finding a technological tool that would be compatible with

Chromebooks and that the students could use to digitally model something in space. Ideas ranged from modelling the solar system, creating a solar system, or modeling a recently discovered solar system that had been featured in news reports (Brennan, 2017, February 23). Riley and I believed it was important to use technology that had mass application and transferability. In retrospect, we regarded this first design as not true to the maker philosophy in that it was teacher directed with little student choice in the use of tool.

As part of this initial planning, there was considerable discussion about learning outcomes, particularly as these related to the solar system. Riley disclosed that in the two previous years, her students made a model of the solar system, with smaller groups of students learning about one planet and presenting what they learned. About this process, Riley remarked,

“The kids had fun building with papier mache and making the Powerpoints, but can they really remember? If you asked them to tell you any fact about their planet, they couldn’t do it. The work was superficial.” During the design phase, some of our discussions focused on how to create designs that required students to delve more deeply into understanding. For example, not just “recognizing that the moon’s phases are regular and predictable,” (Alberta Education, 1996) but promoting student understanding of how we know that and why it is important.

109

As Riley and I explored ideas about the night sky, such as how scientists use orbits and mathematical modeling to predict the existence of planets, and how early astronomers used tools to try to answer questions, we began to shift our own design to thinking more about how we might allow students to make sense of the questions they had about sky science. This shift was heightened by our inability to find a digital modelling technology that suited our needs, due in part to the lack of robust technological hardware at the school, and our own limited knowledge in using the software tools.

The design that emerged consisted of an introduction and four main parts. We began by introducing the notion that scientists cultivate certain characteristics in the way they approach their work. Together, we wrote and discussed what we thought were the important characteristics of a scientist:

• Scientists are curious and they are always observing the natural world. • Scientists develop scientific ideas by building on previous theories and understandings. • Scientists often build models to help them understand complex ideas that they are not completely sure about. • Scientists work in communities that are constantly asking questions, seeking answers, and disputing ideas.

We posted the scientist characteristics in the classroom and referred to them regularly when discussing maker projects with individual students and the class as a whole. The use of these scientist characteristics within the design of the project became a crucial element in the outcome of the work for both the students and Riley.

Our plan was to build background knowledge in part 1, provide examples of 2D, 3D, and digital models in part 2, present current sky science questions that are being addressed by scientists in part 3, and then have students make their own model in part 4. It should be mentioned that because of the Riley’s concern regarding preparation for PATs, she also

110

addressed each of the stated content outcomes from the Program of Study (Alberta Education,

1996) before, during, and after making. Some of these involved completing assigned homework for class discussion (eg. observing the moon phases), and explicit teaching lessons focused on required content (eg. recognizing which heavenly bodies emit or reflect light).

Riley expressed two concerns about our design for sky science: 1) whether students would be able to come up with their own substantive questions, and 2) whether students would be able to envision and build models on their own. When I suggested that Riley needed to tell the students that they wouldn’t have “all the answers,” she replied, “I think for them that is really difficult because that’s not what they’re used to school being like.” Riley reiterated her worries about the students’ abilities further into the planning: “So they’re going to come up with their question, and I think the biggest challenge for them is what can they do because I don’t think they’ve been given the opportunity. . .” I later confirmed these emotions by stating, “This could be a tough one, could be tough for us, and it could be tough for the kids too, because like you said, it’s really stretching all of us. You know, we’re doing things in ways we’re not comfortable.” Later in the discussion, Riley’s own anxieties about SI and NOS were surfaced with regard to model making: “Some of the kids were even asking deep thinking questions, and I was thinking, oh my, I don’t even know how you would go about doing anything with that.” This apprehension about how scientists carry out their work, specifically determining questions and ways to model understanding, was clearly felt by Riley and me before starting.

The challenge of coming up with their own questions and developing models to answer those questions was also felt by the students. Once students had chosen their question, the teacher introduced a maker planning sheet she had designed to scaffold preliminary ideas about how students would make their model. During a class discussion one of the students asked in

111

earnestness, “But how can I build a model if I don’t know the answer to the question?” This led to a weighty discussion about scientific inquiry, how scientists conduct their work, how they do not have the answers to questions, and how they sometimes make models to help them build on existing or observable knowledge. The learning moment was a perfect segue for the teacher to refer back to the four scientist characteristics posted in the classroom.

Riley and I developed ways to scaffold the question finding process. Earlier in the year,

Riley had conducted some work with the students on the notion of surface level questions and deep thinking questions. We built on this background to help students develop questions that were more complex, such as moving from “How many planets are there in the solar system?” to

“How could we find out and prove there is another planet in the solar system?”. As students brainstormed possible questions to pursue, we provided feedback as to whether they were deep thinking or surface level, and assisted students in framing their questions so that they became deep thinking.

Additionally, when introducing the topic of sky science, Riley asked each student to bring in an article that was of interest to them. The class watched videos about sky science phenomena, and we shared web links with individual students related to questions they were raising in class. Themes began to emerge as students talked about what they were seeing and reading. In particular, the entire class appeared very interested in the nature and behaviour of black holes, the possibility of new solar systems and planets, and the controversy over whether

Pluto is or is not a planet. Though some students required support in creating their questions, by providing these scaffolds and piggybacking on the energy in the class, all students went into the makerspace with a question. Once the making began, some of the students refined and tightened their questions to be more deep thinking.

112

An important aspect of the design was an assessment tool, the scientist’s log book, developed by Riley. At the end of each making session, and based on the four scientist characteristics, students were asked to record how they exemplified the role of a scientist that day. Comments in their log book might reference new questions they were asking, peers they collaborated with, and theories they were considering. The scientist log book was introduced prior to going into the makerspace, but once there, the students needed support for this task.

Therefore, when we saw a student embodying one of the characteristics, we often brought it to the awareness of the class, so that they could see in themselves and others how we were becoming a scientific community.

During Making: Deepening Understanding of What It Means to Be a Scientist

Riley’s concerns during the design phase regarding the students’ ability to question and design thinking models were put to rest once the student work began in the makerspace. In particular, we noted levels of student engagement, and emergent opportunities for differentiated learning. Part of this related to the design work the students completed prior to making. For example, one student was very interested in finding out more about the gravitational pull on earth. Originally on his planning sheet, he thought of adopting a basketball as a model for earth.

When asked about how to model gravitational pull, he seemed perplexed as to what material might serve the purpose. As ideas surfaced in discussion, such as the use of magnets for modeling gravity, the student realized that a basketball would not be a practical object for the idea he was trying to interpret. He then brainstormed other possibilities, including a baseball or a tiny, rubber bouncy ball.

113

The pre-planning work on the part of students led to a smooth transition to the makerspace. As Riley indicated, students entered with a focused question, a design plan, and material ideas for making.

I think the biggest surprise was how engaged everyone was from the start. And you know after building those questions, and scaffolding the project at the beginning, when we actually got into the maker lab, it was pretty seamless. We didn’t have to instruct for the most part what the students should be doing. I was able to take a step back a couple of days and listen and you could just hear the conversations, actually hear the building process so that was really, that was more than I expected it was gonna be.

In retrospect, investing time with the students to scaffold the question development and design plan was a key aspect of making. We were able to see how the design and structure of the sky science maker project granted students access to learning in ways that suited them and allowed them to explore the specific aspects of sky science that interested them. The teacher noted the accomplishments of an ELL student. “You know the project with the satellite. That for him, that’s probably the best project he’s ever done, the most research he’s ever done, and also just the vocabulary he learned in that process.” My interaction with this student began with a conversation about possible materials for making the satellite model. Throughout the process, the student and I continued to dialogue. As the student went deeper into the making, more questions emerged. He was interested in knowing all the parts of the satellite, how they worked, and what their purpose was. Learning about the cameras on the satellite led him to question, “How do they send the photos back to earth?” His question resulted in a discussion about digitization of data and how technological innovations have made it possible for scientists to gather specific information they have only been able to access recently.

Riley reflected on the accomplishments of another ELL student who has been in Canada less than a year. Her question related to why it was so cold in Canada and so hot in the country of

114

her birth. “So language is really really difficult, and she was able to, you know, you need to be able to pull a little bit to get her ideas, but she kind of started off with this really big, abstract idea and you chatted with her a couple of times and so did I, and once we narrowed it down a little bit and was able to make the connection bringing in her home country, she was able to understand a little bit about earth’s rotation.” Not only did the model-making assist in helping the student develop a pertinent question related to a key scientific idea, it also provided the opportunity for her to develop the vocabulary needed to articulate those ideas.

Making presented challenges for some of the more capable students; in Riley’s words,

“pushing them out of their comfort zone.” She expressed disappointment that some students she thought would gravitate to making in order to explore their topics, did not. “A couple of kids who I actually thought would have those deeper, great, amazing questions didn’t.” She problematized why this might be the case. “In my opinion, I don’t know why, I’m just assuming

. . . and this has been through conversations, their school careers haven’t been . . .” She imagined a conversation with a student about right answers. ““Okay, pick a question. There doesn’t have to be an answer. You don’t really have to find out. The end product doesn’t have to be the right answer.” . . . I don’t think a lot of them are used to that. I think a lot them, there has to be that answer. You need to truly know to get a good mark on that project. So I think they struggled there.” This excerpt shows how the teacher was coming to see that what constitutes knowing for the students and for her would be challenged in the makerspace.

As observers, we marvelled at the ingenuity of the students in creating and attempting to model ideas in ways that would help them make sense of their questions and come to know about their topic. One student was interested in what happens when something gets sucked into a black hole. To imagine this, he constructed a marble run with multiple tracks in order to explain

115

different possibilities. Another student developed her question based on an article she had read that predicted a collision of two stars in 2022. Noting that there would forces in space that might lead to this, she played with the ways she might enact this within a model. She suspended two spheres within a box using fishing line. By spinning the spheres around each other, she was able to model how the rotating motion drew the two orbs toward each other.

Another ELL student took what seemed at first to be a simplistic approach to modeling.

Using a Google slide, he created a 2D model of the solar system. I learned from Riley that this student’s mathematical knowledge was quite extensive and thought that drawing on this strength would allow him to gain a deeper understanding of the size and scale of the planets and the relative distance between them. I guided him to research the size of the planets and scale them based on their sizes. The student also learned the distances between the planets, but given the limitations of the software, was unable to correctly model this. When presenting his model in video form, he indicated an important learning: Though scientific modelling assists in understanding, there are also limitations to modeling as a way to represent phenomenon. While the model was simplistic, the student’s learning about scientific processes showed deeper understanding.

One student attempted to model the forces that hold heavenly bodies in orbit. Using a piece of plastic tubing, and a small rubber ball, he displayed perseverance in attaching the tube to a cardboard frame in order to set the ball in motion in an orbital path. Challenges with materials

(cardboard, tubing, duct tape, glue) made us question what this student was trying to accomplish.

However, it was when we filmed him discussing the theories behind his model that we developed the insight that, though struggling with materials, he was actively making sense of important scientific concepts such as the forces of gravity and what a theory is.

116

Riley also reflected on the students’ ability to learn from each other. “I think there was a lot of incidental learning too. A lot of kids learning different things because they came across something else. The amount of times I’ve heard that, right?” She reiterated the words of one of the students. “I didn’t know there was another solar system.” Within the maker environment, we observed the students to be engaged in a scientific culture of curiosity and inquiry, which was cultivated through the students’ questions and modeling, and scaffolded through Riley’s enactment of a design approach to pedagogy.

Post Making: Seeing students and teachers as emerging scientists

Throughout the cycle, Riley and I gained specific insights into the way the students-as- scientists conducted their work, which led them to observe a shift in the students’ ontologies as learners. Specifically, students developed an ontological awareness in their making practices related to several characteristics of the NOS as identified by Lederman et al. (2013), including the creative, inventive aspects of science, the subjective theory-laden aspects of science, the changing nature of scientific knowledge, and the distinction between scientific laws and theories.

By experiencing the innovative, yet developmental nature of scientific study, students altered their notions not only of what science is, but also what knowing is. Students also engaged in the science practices of investigating (by asking questions), sensemaking (by constructing models and explanations related to the models) and critiquing (by researching, communicating and participating in dialogue around theories in sky science) (McNeill, Katash-Singer, & Pelletier,

2015).

Emerging scientists as theorists. While early on in the makerspace students were asking

“What is a theory?”, by the time they created their final sharing videos, several of the students were able to articulate possible theories regarding their topics. Riley related a classroom

117

discussion around planets, restating her students’ comments. “We’re having conversations about, well, “it’s hypothetical, it’s a theory still. Why do we think it’s a theory?” Those [conversations] we didn’t have before.” Though students did not present evidence of theory construction, they deepened their understanding about what a theory is and how scientists come to develop and question theories. For example, some students learned through their own research that astronomers, by observing anomalies in the orbits of certain objects, have been able to theorize about the existence of a new planet (NASA, 2018). An important aspect for student learning around scientific theories was coming to understand that scientists look for evidence upon which to build theories, “through theoretical mechanisms that are not directly observable” (Chinn &

Mahaltro, 2002, p. 182)

Emerging scientists as knowledge experts. Riley observed her students probing deeply into topics that interested them. “They’re pursuing their own interests with the same topic using the tools and the real world. Again, it’s the criteria of a scientist.” The four characteristics of a scientist became a central reference point not only for the students but also for Riley when considering how the learning unfolded. “They all had their own thing. It wasn’t one topic that we were working toward. So the students felt like they were the expert instead of them feeling like I was the expert.” Because students were exploring multiple topics at once, it meant that

Riley was unable to keep her traditional role as sole expert and knowledge keeper. The shift from teacher as keeper of knowledge to the emerging student scientists becoming experts in specialized fields contributed to a community of learners. Students shared with each other ideas that they were learning about sky science phenomenon and did not look to Riley as the only expert in the class. “I think the other thing that was beneficial too was explaining that we were learning.” This articulation of teacher-as-learner created an interesting dynamic in that students,

118

in order to build their model, had to seek out knowledge about their topic and could not look to the teacher as dispenser of information. This changed role did prove challenging for Riley in that it became difficult for her to vet all of the information on multiple topics. She expressed concern about a lack of control. “That’s one area that I was very scared at the beginning. Like I don’t know enough about this topic to be able to have the kids just go off in 27 different ways.” Riley’s fear that students’ scientific understanding may have been flawed was a recurring theme in discussions with me.

However, Riley did begin to see herself as a different type of knowledge expert, in that she brought understanding of teaching and learning to the work. When asked to articulate powerful aspects of the project she stated, “Again, interesting, challenging topics. No teacher control. Knowledge of domain. How we learn.” I responded by suggesting that her control existed in a different way. “So in a way, that was the control you had. Your knowledge of the domain of how scientists work.” Riley agreed, and then stated, “But not of a specific topic.”

Making introduced Riley and her students to key aspects of SI. Through the process, they learned that in SI, scientists begin with a question, and that there is no single method with which to answer the question, but rather their procedures are disciplined and guided by the questions they ask (Lederman, Lederman, Bartos, Bartels, Meyer, & Schwartz, 2014). Additionally, they needed to defend decisions made during the making from available evidence (Lederman et al.,

2014).

Emerging scientists guiding their own learning process. Once students began the making process, Riley recognized how they directed their own learning. “I wasn’t facilitating the learning. I don’t feel I was.” When asked to explain more fully how she felt even when her role as facilitator was curtailed, she disclosed that at the beginning she did provide support. “At the

119

beginning. But that faded. It faded once everybody picked their questions, and then I felt that I was there a little bit to help guide them in one direction or another, if needed, or kind of challenge them a bit more, but at the end, there were many days where I felt unneeded.” I pressed Riley by asking, “Do you think that was a good thing or a bad thing?” In her explanation of how students’ experiences as emerging scientists had carried over into other aspects of classroom life, she reflected: “I think it was a good thing. I’m noticing it more in other areas now where the last couple of weeks, the kids have kind of been completely independent. We’re doing an experiment in math. The kids are creating their own experiment and yesterday everybody got ready and I turned around and looked and everybody’s doing exactly what they should be, and that’s new. That’s not something that was happening a couple of months ago.”

When asked if she had any insights into what led to this active engagement, Riley asserted,

I think a bit of it is giving them that freedom to develop their own question of what they’re interested in. Yes, we scaffolded certain steps. And they knew there were clear steps and expectations that had to get done before they were allowed building, but once the building started, you know, some kids would ask for advice on materials, others would just do things like Gavin6. It wasn’t working the way he wanted and I didn’t understand what he was trying to do. So I think that’s probably a huge reason. Cause they all had their own thing.

Gavin’s struggle to make his model work the way he envisioned, demonstrated for the teacher that sometimes she had to let her students flounder with their ideas and come to the learning in their own way.

6 Pseudonym

120

From Ontology of a Scientist to Ontology of a Learner

In reflecting on the maker work, Riley was asked what was more powerful learning, the notion of her students taking on the role of scientists or making the models. She replied, “I think taking on the role of scientist. . . . For me, as well as the students.” This reference to her own learning was crucial. Riley came to realize that for her as well as for her students it was important to understand ontologically what it means to be a scientist. Riley referenced specific aspects of the design that attended to the ontology of a scientist. “You know, having them look at understanding the tools that were used for space . . . . myths . . . observations . . . , I think that was a really big one. We wanted them to know there are all these scientists and all these theories are constantly changing. I don’t think I really realized that, early on when we were planning.” In acknowledging her own deepening appreciation of the work of scientists, she channeled this understanding of SI with her students. Riley’s statements indicate her own growing understanding of NOS in that scientific knowledge, while empirical, is creative in nature and changeable over time (Lederman et al., 2013). By studying with her students astronomers theories such as Copernicus’ heliocentrism (Westman, 2018), or recent controversies over whether Pluto is a planet (Powell, 2018), she and her class came to see science as culturally connected and thereby subjective (Lederman et al., 2013). This allowed them to see that scientists live in a perpetual state of inquiry, and gave all of them, including Riley, permission to enter that state.

As the class moved into planning and designing their models, Riley observed them not only taking on the scientist role, but also saw them becoming scientists. Referring students regularly to the four characteristics of a scientist provided a scaffold. “And just for me it helped

121

with that language. When I’m observing kids doing something, in all subjects, I tell them,

“That’s what a scientist does.””

Riley recognized that this experience was different than in the past stating, “But it’s more.” Riley explained that previously she would bring experts in for different aspects of a project, “and having kids . . . pretend to be these experts but it’s only for the main part. Right, like okay, these kids are thinking like architects because they’re building a bridge right now. But they’re not thinking what they did beforehand. You know? . . . So we actually started that whole process on day one. . . .I think that has been probably the most powerful thing.” Embodying the role of a scientist from the beginning meant that students not only made models, they developed their own questions, engaged in research to find out what was already known, envisioned and created a model that could help them make sense of their questions, and worked in a scientific community to share and test their ideas and also to further their own understanding.

The learning for Riley moved beyond this particular maker experience, when it became a way for her to see teaching as a whole. The maker experience had a measured effect not only in how she saw her students as emerging scientists, but how she saw them as learners. The learning she gained from the experience transformed the way she approaches designs for learning and responsive teaching in that she now promotes the ontology of scientist, as the ontology of a learner. “I use that in all subject areas now where we go back and look and it’s not only scientists, it’s learners. You know, “We as learners do this.””

Discussion

The findings of this study demonstrate that making has the potential to promote learning not only for students, but also for teachers in elementary schools. We posit that creating conditions for Riley and her students to be makers led them to understanding what it means to be

122

a scientist and a learner; it led Riley to understand her role as a designer of learning. There were key components in the project design that we feel provide an explanation for this outcome.

The explicit teaching of the nature of SI in the form of the four scientist characteristics was a crucial aspect of this work (Peters, 2012; Peters & Kitsantas, 2010; Stone, 2014).

Consistently and explicitly referencing student use of the characteristics throughout the project affirmed not only the intellectual and emotional aspects of SI that are critical for scientific work, but also for makers. This meant that participants, in being makers, could become scientists rather than pretend to be scientists.

Making provided a complexity to SI that is often not found in classroom settings (Chinn

& Malhotra, 2002). By challenging students to select their own deep thinking questions, followed by envisioning and prototyping their own model to attempt to answer those questions, students were pushed to engage in SI in more authentic ways.

Participating in the making of scientific models proved transformative for participants in terms of how they saw themselves not only as scientists, but as learners. Riley and the students not only became creators, but also problem solvers, meaning makers, and innovators.

It was not only necessary for students to become scientists, but for Riley to become a scientist as well. Though Riley in this study had been exposed to the idea of embodying the disciplines of science as an effective teaching practice (Friesen, 2009), it was the lived experience with her students that for her, made it a real component of her pedagogy. In reviewing the Effective Teaching Practices Rubric (Friesen, 2009), as a result of this work, I observed Riley moving from an emphasis on subject matter acquisition (stage one), and occasionally bringing in discipline experts (stage two) to designing experiences that required disciplinary ways of thinking and acting (stage four).

123

Neither Riley nor I had a background in STEM which added to our anxiety during implementation. Approaching this work as designers of learning (Friesen, 2009) required us “to enter an iterative cycle of defining, creating, assessing, and redesigning” (Friesen, p. 5) which nudged us into living the ontology of a scientist. Through this experience we not only advanced our understanding of SI and NOS, but also further developed our own conceptual understanding of the big ideas related to sky science.

The selection of DBR as methodology of choice was a crucial element of the study in that it allowed us to address the research question, How can teachers be supported in the development of knowledge, pedagogy and practice within an elementary school makerspace environment?

The continual, reciprocal, collaborative processes of design, implementation, and evaluation created an atmosphere of combined risk-taking and trust, enabling the testing of an innovative intervention within a complex real-world setting (Jacobsen, 2014). The methodology also provided an opportunity for Riley to envision new ways of bringing about making within the context of curriculum, given limited access to high technology, something she would have found challenging were she acting on her own. By enacting the makerspace design, Riley was able to create the conditions for her students to come to understand the discipline of sky science in new ways.

Conclusion

Though the DBR study that took place was in many ways transformative for Riley, there are components of the study that need further consideration and would benefit from further research. Firstly, while the content outcomes listed in the program of study (Alberta Education,

1996) focus more on observable phenomena (e.g.,the moon, the stars, the planets), the students demonstrated a desire, through their choice of questions, to explore more deeply the

124

unobservable forces at work (e.g., gravity). In future, it would be worthwhile to investigate learning designs that focus on the unobservable phenomena in the night sky to determine whether and how these designs can assist students in developing conceptual understanding.

Taking this approach would require teacher support, because elementary teachers may not have the conceptual background or confidence to pursue this direction.

Secondly, Riley made it clear that having an additional support person in the form of a researcher was pivotal to conducting the work. She expressed, on several occasions, how she would not have been able to explore making in this way without someone working side-by-side with her through the research-based process. Envisioning creative ways for teachers to be supported in collaborative learning around making will be critical to the success of these learning designs.

Thirdly, due to concerns related to upcoming PATs, Riley did go back and explicitly address curricular outcomes that she felt were less well understood by students after the work in the makerspace was completed. However, she is also rethinking her learning design for future years in that she would like to more thoughtfully intersperse explicit lessons based on specific outcomes throughout the making, based on the needs of the students at the time.

Fourthly, it was important to examine the program of study as an interpretive document with Riley acting and seeing herself as a designer of learning (Friesen, 2009). This allowed for a more creative approach to an exploration of sky science. Further research on how teachers might grow into this role of teacher as designer in other topic areas and disciplines will be helpful.

Finally, designing for learning can he a highly aesthetic experience, while being fraught with tension related to teacher confidence and student knowledge and achievement. Having

125

teachers recognize and acknowledge the emotional aspects of designing for making, may bring an articulation to the process that alleviates some of the stress.

The results from this study reveal that making has the potential to offer elementary students and their teachers genuine opportunities to explore and question big ideas in science, while experiencing some of the joy and the pitfalls of what it means to be a scientist. In part, this means teachers and students must live with the risk of uncertainty. That in itself will take them part way to advancing their ontological understanding of the nature of science.

While this chapter explored how curriculum might be enacted through making, a great deal of the emphasis was also placed on teacher as designer. The role of design will be investigated in more detail in the next chapter.

126

Chapter Six

Design

Supporting Teachers as Designers of Learning in Elementary Makerspaces

The results in this chapter focus on a key aspect of the study: that is, the importance of design processes leading to learning for Riley as teacher, myself as the researcher, and the students as learners. This chapter zeros in on the design experience, but in telling the design stories, I also demonstrate how we came to utilize design as an opportunity for pedagogical exploration and reflection.

As mentioned earlier in this document, there have been calls within the literature for educators to adopt makerspaces as learning environments in formal school settings (Hira &

Hines, 2018; Martin, 2015). Makerspaces are described as a community space where participants design and fabricate prototypical artifacts to solve a problem or address a topic of interest

(Halverson & Sheridan, 2014). Researchers suggested that not only can making support conceptual understanding, participating in making has the potential to develop those dispositions critical for success in creative collaborative environments, while also building personal agency

(Chu et al, 2015; Hira & Hines, 2018). Emerging research has led us to believe that the makerspace can serve as an effective learning environment for developing the competencies required to live successfully in our highly technological world (Freeman et al., 2017).

Dumont and Benavides (2010) have described an effective learning environment as not only learner-centred and socially and intellectually inclusive, but also well-designed and well- structured. Makerspaces can embody these characteristics, but within the constraints of the complex system that is school, it will not happen without the thoughtful design choices of the

127

teacher. It is critical that teachers design ways for students to engage successfully with complex ideas in order to build domain knowledge (Friesen, Clifford, Francis-Poscente, & Martin, 2008).

Various scholars have suggested that implicit in making are the very processes found in design (Kelly, 2016; Norris, 2014). Through the creation of artifacts using high and low tech materials and tools, students not only develop conceptual and technological understanding, they also learn to problem solve, ideate, reflect, iterate, and collaborate. Making provides an opportunity for both students and teachers to develop a multitude of competencies required for success today.

But as with many technological and educational innovations (Cuban, 2013), implementation within the complex system of school can be a “wicked problem” (Buchanan,

1992; Rittel & Webber, 1973).

This chapter presents further results from the design-based research study enacted with

Riley and her grade six class in a rural school in Alberta, Canada. Riley and I co-designed, co- enacted, and co-reflected on three separate making activities with students in order to explore how one might engage with curriculum in a makerspace learning environment. As mentioned, the study addressed two research questions:

How can teachers be supported in the development of teacher knowledge, pedagogy, and practice within an elementary school makerspace environment?

How can teachers support the development of students’ conceptual understanding of disciplinary topics in an elementary school makerspace?

It is important to reiterate that neither Riley nor I come from STEM backgrounds. This was a risky, yet notable aspect to the study because it is representative of many elementary teachers, who are not willing to admit they lack conceptual understandings implicit in STEM and

128

often do not feel confident in teaching STEM subjects (Bransford et al., 2000). It was important for me to determine how an elementary teacher without a STEM background and without STEM support might enact and support student making in multiple subject areas.

The stories that emerge from this research show that critical to the success of the work was Riley adopting a design stance with my support as researcher. In so doing, she and I were able to explore not only what it might mean to learn through making, but also how Riley and I might design and construct curricular ideas in order to help her students develop conceptual understandings.

The chapter begins with a review of the literature on the design process, particularly the notion of design thinking as compared to designerly thinking; learning through design; and learning in inquiry-based learning contexts. This is followed by an articulation of the methodology and methods of data collection and analysis used in the study. Next, the findings that emerged from the process will be shared, followed by discussion of those findings. Finally, conclusions and suggestions for further study will be presented.

Design as a Way of Knowing

Design scholars have seen the importance of design in the evolution of human culture

(Koh et al., 2015). However, the ways in which these scholars articulated this field of inquiry from a theoretical standpoint vary significantly. From Simon’s positivist spotlight on complex artificial systems (Koh et al., 2015; Simon, 1996), to Schon’s (1983) verbalization of the intuitive reflection inherent in design processes, to Cross’s (2011) determination to convey a design methodology, there is no readily agreed upon theory in the literature on which to express the complexities of design practice. Therefore, it is important when pondering design as a construct in education to consider the ways in which designers conceptualize the design process.

129

Some designers have long suggested that educational curriculum, along with the content areas of sciences and humanities, should entertain a third major area of study, the field of design, which is a key aspect of human activity (Archer, 1979; Cross, 1982). Whereas the sciences study the natural world and the humanities study human experiences, design has focused on the ideation and development of new things. Implicit within each of these disciplines are bodies of knowledge and ways of coming to know about them (Archer, 1979; Cross, 1982; Owen, 2007).

The sciences converge on truth and objectivity; the humanities on justice and subjectivity; and design on empathy, practicality, and ingenuity (Cross, 1982).

Because of its ubiquitousness in the human realm, visually and symbolically, in the objects we use in everyday life, in our daily activities, and in the complex environments in which we live, work, and play (Buchanan, 1992), design surfaces in many fields, including business

(Dunne & Martin, 2006; Martin, 2009), product creation and manufacturing (Norman, 2013;

Norman & Verganti, 2014), and education (Koh et al., 2015; Scheer et al., 2012). In fact,

Buchanan (1992) referred to design as “a new liberal art of technological culture” (p. 5).

Therefore, attempts to make design accessible for practitioners outside the design field have resulted in the development of step-by-step guides and linear descriptions of a robust process (Johannsson-Skoldberg, Woodilla, & Cetinkaya, 2013). Concerns are being raised about the oversimplification of the design process and furthermore, that design thinking processes used in business and education are not based on substantive research (Christensen, Hjorth, Iverson, &

Blikstein, 2016; Johannsson-Skoldberg et al., 2013).

These concerns and issues are not new. Horst Rittel (1973) suggested that a desire by the design field to precisely and linearly model the design process as a way of understanding is contrary to the act of design. Rittel (1973) was among those who defined design problems as

130

“wicked” in that they are indeterminate (Buchanan, 1992; Rittel, 1973. Christensen et al. (2016) put forth that wicked problems embody complex societal problems that involve multiple stakeholders, have many possible and often contradictory solutions, ethical issues, and unintended consequences, and are often found in unfamiliar fields of study.

Norman (2013) purported that the key to design lies in determining the “real problem” (p.

218). This is achieved by countering the temptation to rush to immediate solutions. He stated that good design must “satisfy a large number of constraints and concerns, including shape and form, cost and efficiency, reliability and effectiveness, understandability and usability, the pleasure of the appearance, the pride of ownership, and the joy of actual use” (p. 219). In order to address the multi-faceted nature of the design process, Norman offered tips, techniques, and tools for engaging in design. But his notion of coming to understand precisely what the “real problem” (p.

218) is as key to good design is a critical aspect of the process. Norman’s (2013) notion of determining the problem connects with Dorst’s (2010) thinking about frames.

Dorst (2010) distinguished between design problems and problem solving. He states organizations often problem solve by maintaining their “frame” -- values and ways of being “to create a new ‘something’ that will save the day” (p. 135), whereas designers look for the paradox, that is, opposing views or frames which “requires inventive design solutions” (p. 135).

Working within a frame is very much the case in formal education. For example, though design thinking as learning process and makerspaces as learning environments are being touted as “a new ‘something’ that will save the day” (Dorst, 2010, p. 135), implementation is happening within structures that are firmly entrenched in school systems. However, by acknowledging the wickedness of designing for learning in formal school settings, researchers and teachers may be able to more thoughtfully engage in designing for making.

131

Teachers may also adopt a more “designerly” stance (Cross, 2006; Johansson‐Sköldberg et al., 2013), in that within the theoretical perspectives that frame academic study in design

(Johansson‐Sköldberg et al., 2013) they may be able to construct links to the design processes enacted in the makerspace by both students and teacher. These theoretical perspectives included design as the creation of artifacts (Simon, 1969); design as reflecting on practices in action

(Schon, 1983); design as conducting problem solving activities (Buchanan, 1992; Rittel &

Webber, 1973); and design as sense making (Cross, 2006; Krippendorf, 2005).

But what might this designerly stance look like? Owen (2007) advocated key ways of working that suggest the juxtapositions inherent in designing: designers must be inventive, but also address the practicalities within the context of the environment in which they work; they must be able to work visually and holistically, but also articulate fundamental ideas clearly through multiple languages, including visual, verbal, written, and mathematical; they must be design specialists, but also content generalists; they must be adaptive but also systematic; they must focus on a solution, but also look for multiple returns from the design work; they are partial to making, while also attending to multiple ways of knowing. A designerly way of working involves navigating multiple tensions in accepting and embracing work that is complex, messy, and often contradictory.

In fact, this process is lived out by teachers in classrooms daily, when they “devise courses of action” (Simon, 1969, p. 129) that aim to improve student learning. The challenge for teachers is to create learning designs that engage and help all of their students experiences and authentic practices within disciplines, while also attending to required curricular outcomes

(Laurillard, 2012; Willms, Friesen, & Milton, 2009). Design problems are “usually among the most complex and ill structured kinds of problems that are encountered in practice” (Jonassen,

132

2000, p. 48). A complicating factor in design is that “planners are liable for the consequences of the actions they generate’ (Rittel, 1973, p. 167). This is a very serious ramification for teachers, particularly when testing innovative pedagogies. Designing for the complexity of diverse students’ learning needs in today’s classrooms is indeed a wicked problem.

I posit that because of the complexity in navigating and responding to multiple tensions inherent in design, teachers, instead of approaching their work from a designerly perspective, tend to simplify learning designs with a focus on content knowledge and the skills required to access and articulate that content. However, while the curriculum must include knowledge and skills, it “must also embrace “being” as one of the building blocks” (Laurillard, 2012, p. 16). As they devise courses of action, teachers need to relocate content knowledge and skills as one of the “frames” (Dorst, 2010, p. 135) typically found at the forefront in order to engage in a designerly stance based on learning activities (Beetham & Sharpe, 2007). As well, in order to design inventive solutions, teachers need multiple, iterative opportunities to develop design experience themselves, moving them from novice designer to expert, giving them confidence to adapt their focus on surface features, notably content and skills (Razzouk & Shute, 2012), to deeper epistemological and ontological considerations.

Where novice designers have used trial and error patterns and global strategies based on fixed perspectives, experienced designers used specific localized strategies engaging many different perspectives (Ahmed, Wallace, & Blessing, 2003; Ho, 2000). Newstetter and

McCracken (2001) characterized novice design as a focus on “ideation without substance” (p.

67) as opposed to the informed decision making of experts. Scholars also observed novice designers as linear in approach, unable to envision the context and user, leading to a focus on one solution, even if unfeasible (Christensen et al., 2016; Newstetter & McCracken, 2001).

133

Design work for teachers can have tremendous professional benefit because it bridges theory and practice (Beetham & Sharpe, 2007). “It encompasses both a systematic approach with rules based on evidence, and a set of contextualized practices that are constantly adapting to circumstances. It is a skillful, creative activity that can be improved on reflection and scholarship” (Beetham & Sharpe, 2007, p. 6). However, deeply entrenched ways of working challenge how teachers envision and ideate learning designs for their students.

This is because designing for learning is a complex undertaking. Teachers, when designing must consider 1) design requirements as articulated in curriculum documents; 2) the inclusion of inter and multi-disciplinary perspectives; 3) “a large number of contraints and affordances” (Norman, 2013, p. 2019) inherent in the learning environment, and; 4) their own developmental pathway from novice to expert, which must also relate concurrently to their learning development in other disciplines and areas of focus.

Connecting Design Epistemology to Makerspaces as Inquiry Driven Learning

Environments

The makerspace as learning environment might serve as a different kind of “frame”

(Dorst, 2010, p. 135) that scaffolds teachers in the design process. When enacted as inquiry driven learning environments, makerspaces can enable inquiry in discipline topics, connections to the world, promotion of intellectually stimulating work through opportunities for deep thought and dialogue (Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2010; Willms et al., 2009) all the while building teacher and learner experience in designerly ways of being.

Inquiry driven pathways to learning including project (Barron & Darling-Hammond,

2010; Bell, 2010; Boaler, 1998; Thomas, 2000), problem (Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2010;

Hmelo-Silver, 2004) and design-based approaches (Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2010), connect

134

well to the makerspace as an environment of inquiry. Opportunities for student design, collaboration, and formative feedback (Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2010) and revision of ideas can live out in makerspaces, thereby presenting an already existing scaffold for teachers as novice designers in that the participation structures are in place.

Key to an effective learning environment, is a focus on authentic assessment, whereby what is assessed coincides with the goals for learning (Bransford et al., 2000). In the makerspace, authentic opportunities to give and receive feedback and make revisions based on the feedback

(Bransford et al., 2000; Wiliam, 2010) often happen quite naturally between participants.

Because students are directing their own learning, teachers have the time and opportunity to observe and engage students in conversations as they work, gaining insight into their thinking and conceptual understandings.

The ethos of the makerspace creates conditions for adopting and learning about resources, materials, and tools, whether highly technological or not, on the part of both students and teachers. The key for addressing learning outcomes is the thoughtful design of activities for learning through making. Depending on student need, these activities can range from a focus on linear, predetermined, standardized outcomes to inquiry-based design work on a complex problem with many possible outcomes.

Design principles for learning environments include engaging in idea creation related to disciplines of study (Barab & Duffy 2000; Jacobsen, Lock, & Friesen, 2013) and adopting tasks that are authentic, collaborative, and connect to the world outside school while providing opportunities for expertise and feedback amongst all learners (Jacobsen et al., 2013). Postman and Weingartner (1969) also promoted an inquiry based learning structure that encouraged questioning, risktaking, flexibility, and the ability to problem-solve and live with ambiguity.

135

Though these design principles naturally play out in makerspaces, learning to design in makerspaces within formal school settings and within the context of mandated curriculum and the constraints of standardized testing can be daunting for teachers.

Methodology

Design-based research (DBR) was selected as the study methodology because its implementation within a complex learning space can provide traction for student and especially, teacher learning and reflection (Brown, 1992). Given the makerspace environment, it was important for this research to take place in this complex setting, with multiple dependent variables, and opportunities for flexible and social design revision (Collins et al., 2004) in order to inform the development of principles that are relevant and theoretically rigorous (Argyris &

Schon, 1989). As well, researchers’ ability to use DBR as methodology to respond to “emergent features of the setting” (Design-Based Research Collective, 2003, p. 6) allowed for the stories of flexibility and ingenuity within the design process to be told. One challenge, however, lies in the ability to articulate and characterize the findings in such a way that readers might see “the realizing mechanism” (Barab, 2014, p. 162) in order to develop generalized understandings that assist in transcending the local story (Barab, 2014). The choice to code data from a design perspective was deliberate to assist in addressing this challenge.

Data analysis started with initial descriptive coding (Saldana, 2016) to determine key similarities and differences in the design and outcome of each of the three making activities. In order to develop a deeper understanding of the design process that took place between Riley and me, themes in the design literature were adopted as codes. Teacher interviews and researcher notes were coded according to four descriptions of design practice identified earlier in this article

(Johansson-Skoldberg, et al., 2013): 1) design as artifact (Simon, 1969) where the focus is on

136

artefact creation as opposed to what already exists (Johannson-Skoldberg et al., 2013); 2) design as reflective practice (Schon, 1983) where reflection is an integral part of the practice

(Johannson-Skodberg et al., 2013); 3) design as problem solving (Buchanan, 1992), that is, design interventions in graphic, industrial, organizational or complex system design (Johannson-

Skoldberg et al., 2013); and 4) design as sense making (Krippendorf, 2006) where meaning making is the centre of the design process and artefact creation becomes a tool for communicating understanding (Johannson-Skoldberg et al., 2013). Subcodes were added to codes two and four: design as reflective practice [in-action; on-action] and design as sense making [curriculum; making; assessment].

Under the code, design as reflective practice, relevant data was designated as either reflection-in-action or reflection-on-action. Schon (1992) described reflection-in-action as “central to the “art” by which practitioners sometimes deal well with situations of uncertainty, instability, uniqueness, and value conflict” (p. 50). Where reflection-on-action involves acting on feedback to apply new thinking to predictable and unsurprising data, reflection-in-action involves responding to backtalk in the moment, thereby enabling the ability to see a problem in a completely different way (Munby, 1989; Schon, 1982). Schon (1982) suggested that through reflection-in-action, practitioners can expose and critique those tacit knowledges that develop over time through repeated practical experience.

Findings

The making cycles took place over the course of the school year, with the intent to develop interdisciplinary activities that amplified one aspect of curriculum while attending to the inherent interdisciplinarity in the design challenges. The lead topic in the first activity was sky

137

science, the second, mathematical transformations, and the third, the social studies topic of democracy.

The theoretical constructs that emerged most prominently in the design work conducted by the teacher and researcher were design as reflective practice (Schon, 1983), and design as sensemaking (Krippendorf, 2006). These themes, along with design as problem solving

(Buchanan, 1992) and design as creation of artifacts (Simon, 1969), are discussed in more detail and as related to each of the making activities in subsequent sections of this chapter.

The three subthemes developed within sense making focused on 1) curriculum; 2) making, and; 3) assessment. In coding aspects of the data as sense making, I realized that Riley’s sense making centred on developing meaning of: 1) the notion of curriculum, what it means to know, and what knowing is important; 2) making as a way of coming to know and; 3) assessment or how we come to know what it means to know. These subthemes will also be addressed through the presentation of the findings.

Learning from Research Cycle 1: Designing Science

The first round of making focused on the topic of sky science. The planning, design, enactment, and reflection of this making activity began in late November and concluded in

March of the school year. Collected data included more than three hours of recorded discussion between the teacher and the researcher, as well as ongoing reflections, notes, shared Google docs, and the recording of a follow-up debriefing interview.

Initial design discussions between Riley and me focused on finding a digital tool that could be used for modeling a newly discovered solar system (NASA, 2017). From a theoretical perspective, this approach conceptualized design as artifact (Simon, 1969). However, we faced a significant roadblock in finding a tool that would work within the rather limited technology

138

available at the school while also being robust enough to stretch the students’ learning. We also came to realize that specifying the tool for student use might promote creativity, but it was teacher directed and did not embody the student driven, flexible, iterative nature of making. This stage of design involved reflection-on-action and sense making centred on making practices. The back and forth feedback between us led to question established and predictable ways of working or reconsidering our “frame” (Dorst, 2010, p. 135).

In searching for digital tools, we came across articles about current research and theories that were being explored in the field of astronomy. These discoveries led us into a deeper discussion about the meaning of the outcomes in the science program of study. Sense making and reflection-on-action that centred on curriculum took place in this phase. Riley reflected on her students’ learning from the previous year, where she had them work in groups to research and build a model of one of the planets in the solar system and present a power point about what they learned:

R: But we’re not really getting . .. it’s just surface what we’re getting. I can ask the grade sevens [students from the previous year], tell me about Jupiter . . . I don’t think they’d be able to tell me anything. S: And if you dig deeply into that outcome, what’s the purpose of that outcome? Is it for them to regurgitate Jupiter has this . . . .? R: Exactly. S: Or is it different heavenly bodies are made of different materials, which impacts how they move in space. That’s really to me what . . . N: Well that’s more worthwhile than . . . S: So I think we have to be intentional about the time that is spent and how – that really speaks to that notion of intended curriculum. Because sometimes with the outcomes you have to read between the lines about what it is they are really wanting kids to know and be able to do here. R: Because that was: Here’s a list of characteristics, study it, tell me what they are.

In our dialogue and through our reflection-on-action, we began to shift the design by thinking about asking students how they wished to make sense of sky science topics of interest.

139

We debated how we might go about creating a design that would allow students to follow their interests, while developing the important conceptual understandings in sky science. We both felt it was important to include in the design, opportunities to develop background knowledge through reading, viewing, and discussion.

As we searched out engaging and relevant materials to captivate the students, we discussed between the two of us how humans had always been fascinated with the heavens. We read about the early astronomers and the theories they purported that had been verified or disproven. We discussed Indigenous ways of knowing about the sky and how modern astronomers come to know. We read Einstein’s theories about how space and time are distorted by gravity.

The “backtalk” (Schon, 1982) between Riley and me that was sometimes voiced aloud and sometimes in our heads led us to inquire whether scientists’ ways of being or the ways in which they questioned and theorized about the sky had changed much over the centuries. Rather, we felt the tools and technologies used for modelling had become more sophisticated. Our reflection-in-action as designers of learning made it clear to us that the wondering we engaged in was important for the students to engage in too.

Building our own background knowledge became an important part of the design process for us as teachers, and led us to enact a more designerly stance. This meant that we had to move away from our typical teacher role of “routine expert” (Christensen et al., 2016, p. 128) where we approached problems with a focus on finding answers that were readily available, attainable, and easily solvable (Christensen et al., 2016), towards thinking as designers who approached the problem as “wicked” (Buchanan, 1992; Rittel, 1967). In other words, our own learning about sky science led us to move the students away from regurgitating facts already known, to an

140

exploration of the unknown and all the theoretical, societal, ethical, and cultural dilemmas and complexities inherent in that work.

As part of the student research in preparation for making, we created a shared Google doc where students documented information about well-known early astronomers including who they were, where they came from, the highly contested theories they espoused, and their contributions to the field. Though learning about early astronomers was not a stated outcome in the curriculum, we could see that having a sense of the history of astronomy had assisted us in understanding how astronomers, both historically and in the present day, approached their questions about the night sky. In post making reflection, I asked Riley whether adding this additional content to an already packed curriculum was beneficial:

That’s how scientists work. They’re building models. They’re observing the world, they’re asking questions. Um, they’re working in communities, disputing each other and agreeing. . . I think it was a great way to introduce it, it was a great way to get the kids to think . . . We wanted them to know there were all these scientists and all these theories are constantly changing. I don’t think I really realized that early on when we were planning . . . cause that’s something new for me to do this year. I found that is something that we could refer back to a lot about the different theories.

Riley’s reference to her own coming to know about how sky scientists conduct their work was a key aspect of our development as designers. Novice designers assume they have adequate knowledge of a domain and therefore do not see the need to inquire deeply in order to address the inherently wicked problems in a discipline of study (Ahmed et al., 2003; Christensen et al.,

2016; Cross, 2011, Newstetter & McCracken, 2001). Our discussion, reflection-in-action, and reflection-on-action about the meaning of curriculum and the work scientists do led us to a more designerly stance.

141

Learning from Research Cycle 2: Designing for Mathematics

The curriculum focus in round 2 was on mathematical transformations. The design expanded on work that Riley had completed with her students the previous year in the use of stop animation as a tool for understanding transformations. We discussed plans to implement the design in mid-April over a two week period. At this time, Riley expressed concerns about the time she had left to prepare her students for the upcoming provincial exams. This frame impacted the time made available for the design and enactment phase of the cycle.

Curriculum approaches to the learning of mathematics show that often spatial and numerical reasoning are separated, when in fact, they are deeply connected (Davis & the Spatial

Reasoning Group, 2015). Our goal was to have students create 2D animated representations of

3D objects in motion in order to deepen spatial reasoning through making and subsequent feedback (Davis & the Spatial Reasoning Group, 2015).

To introduce the activity, and following up on our sky science design, I presented some background and history to the students about Rene Descartes and the development of the

Cartesian plane. The design challenge for students was to tell a story that showed translations, rotations, and reflections. We encouraged the students to think of creative ways they might include the Cartesian plane in their animations. We presented multiple examples of materials students could use to make their stop animation videos from post-it notes, to Lego, to fruit, to even using their own bodies. Students then completed a storyboard, with opportunities to present, receive, and act on feedback with their peers and ourselves. Though there was some positive learning that came out of this making activity, we both felt that student learning as it related to the curriculum outcomes was not as successful as the sky science study. Riley noted that some students struggled with performing transformations, particularly reflections, even after

142

they completed their stop animations. As designers, we struggled with how to embed the learning of mathematics into the making activity. Riley stated, “This is the part that I struggle with, right?

Is that there’s all these ideas and they’re great, but it either touches more upon the outcomes or more upon the maker.”

I considered that a key difference between cycle one and cycle two may have been the amount of time Riley and I committed to design work. We were unable to employ the time we had made available in cycle one for sensemaking of the curriculum. Another extenuating circumstance was scheduling. There were several days where Riley or I were absent from school because of external obligations, which meant we were unable to engage in as much dialogic reflection during and after making.

At the same time, Riley recognized that the students were becoming more confident in their own abilities to make. “You know, I felt that I actually really stepped back and I don’t know if it’s because I wasn’t there a couple of days, but I felt like they didn’t need me as much anymore.” Riley also observed that the students’ ability to use feedback and reflect on their own learning showed some growth. “I mean, the feedback piece . . . I think they really got, understood the rubric.” Evidence from my notes detailed how they had improved the assessment design as compared to the first cycle of making, and how they helped the students make sense of the rubric, developed from an online resource (Galileo Network, 2017) by sharing with the class the actions of one student in the makerspace:

We began by going over the rubric, keying in on creativity (video delights audience and is able to tell the story on its own), work ethic (willingness to make the necessary changes and attending to details, big and small), skills (building on what was already known), argumentation

(being able to defend the decisions made). We then shared one student’s video as it is and

143

discussed with the students how he had embodied the maker mindset, as related to the rubric. He listened to all feedback, thought about it, and enacted ideas in his own way. He was willing to do the extra work required to make the animation better.

Though the rubric was an important design artefact (Simon, 1969), where it served learning the most was in sensemaking (Krippendorf, 2006) related to assessment and making.

The rubric as artefact became a tool for communicating understanding (Johannson-Skoldberg et al., 2013) not only with the students, but also with ourselves as to what aspects of the design and learning process we deemed valuable.

During this second round of making, we scaffolded the students learning by providing a series of prompts resulting in comments that were “meaningful and very personal.” Riley stated that having fewer learning outcomes also “helped to develop that focus and for me it actually helped because everyone was working on the same concept.” This second making cycle led us to reflect on our actions in cycle one, and make specific changes to aspects we felt did not address in meaningful ways the needs of the children. For instance, while storyboarding, we focused on scaffolding the feedback process so that students were not only responsible for offering feedback to their peers, but also needed to justify whether or not they acted upon feedback given to them.

However, connecting the mathematics concepts to the design provided a significant challenge. Part of it stemmed from Riley and Sandra’s admission that they struggled with deep knowledge of the discipline:

R: This is a unit where I feel I personally don’t understand why they need to learn these things, so I have a hard time making it a bit more realistic for them . . . . I do think that was beneficial at the beginning to take a step back and really talk to them, especially for those kids that really struggle in math, having them understand where this is coming from, because it is kind of just thrown in [mathematical transformations] where everything else is mathematical.

144

S: And I mean, that speaks to the research, that there’s a huge disconnect they say in research from elementary to secondary. All of a sudden they have all these algebraic equations and there’s nothing to hook that learning onto. R: And that’s where I got lost. Personally, as a kid. S: Oh, and I had no idea there was a connection. R: No. I didn’t until three weeks ago. (both laugh).

Riley’s comment regarding what is “mathematical” suggests an understanding of mathematics as related to what she experienced in school, with a central focus on numerical development (Davis et al., 2015). Given the limited time for design in this instance, we were unable to engage in the sense making in the discipline of mathematics that was required to address this wicked problem. As designers, we could be characterized as novice as opposed to expert in that our work in this making cycle involved trial and error, as opposed to an evaluation of our design prior to implementation, followed by further integration of knowledge (Ahmed et al., 2003; Cross, 2004). Future iterations could present deeper learning opportunities for developing knowledge of the discipline and making connections between the spatial skills needed to support mathematical learning for students moving into secondary school.

Learning from Research Cycle 3: Designing for Humanities

By the time we got to the third making activity, Riley became more fixated on time, which included dealing with curricular outcomes that had not been addressed, the pressure of the upcoming provincial exams, and end of the year responsibilities. Riley had not yet had time to introduce specific topic areas to her students, particularly in science and mathematics, in preparation for the exams. Earlier in the year, we planned to invite the students to design and build an updated government house to espouse the core aspects of democracy the class was learning about through studies of Ancient Greece, consensus building in the Iroquois nation, and in present-day parliamentary systems of government. Given time constraints we had to abandon

145

the idea. Instead, we planned four making sessions over the course of four consecutive days during which the students would conceptualize, design, and make an object that would serve as a metaphor for one concept they deemed key to democracy. Concepts included freedom, identity, respect, equality, truth, and equity. Though the negotiated time for this activity was restricted,

Sandra wanted Riley to see how she might use making to deepen understanding in the humanities and she also wanted Riley to explore how she might incorporate digital making into her practice.

Opportunities to meet to develop the learning design were also limited, given Riley’s external professional and personal commitments. As in the previous two cycles, students were given the choice to use physical or digital tools to express their learning. We introduced two new digital tools: Tinkercad, which would allow students to design and 3D print; and Easel, which students could use to design and carve tiles on a CNC machine. Given the time factor, neither

Riley nor I had significant time to practice using the tools. When we presented the options to the students, we informed them that we were not well versed in either program, but we invited them to consider them as potential tools for this project.

Additionally, because Riley did not have access to a 3D printer or CNC machine in the school, I arranged to have the designs printed and milled at a nearby university makerspace. As in the previous two cycles of making Riley noted the mindset and agency the students displayed while making:

I thought this was the best round, not in terms of the products, although I was quite impressed with those too, but more in terms of the attitude of the students. I found all of them they really worked on the programs that they were using. I’d say the majority of them chose something out of their comfort zone. Riley also identified students’ ability to engage meaningfully in making tasks inside and outside school, to take risks, and to give, receive, and apply feedback:

146

R: So that’s something that I did see as really the most valuable and again seeing those specific kids change throughout the first one, through the last one. And I’ve seen a lot of growth. More than I have in the last two years and I don’t know if it’s this. I don’t know if it’s me, it’s now my third year, I don’t know if it’s the group. There’s a lot of other factors but this is the first year I can actually say I’ve seen positive growth in you know, a lot of the kids so . . . S: In terms of kind of that maker mindset that you’re talking about? R: Ya. To see the effort and S: Willingness to risk and R: Taking the feedback, and you know it just makes my heart so happy when the kids come back and they have figured something out and when I ask how did they do that, “Oh I watched videos on it last night.” You know, so to me, they are loving it. They love to learn, right? S: Right, because they’re going home and thinking about the work . . . N: Right, even though it’s not a requirement. So that’s pretty amazing to me that they can do that.

Riley also acknowledged how our “not knowing” may have contributed to the agency of the students:

R: So, in some ways, that actually was a plus. S: The not knowing. R: Yes, and even that we shared that with them. That we don’t really know, so if you’re choosing to do this, you’re going to need to be figuring things out on your own. So they knew that going into it, and I still liked how some of the kids still chose to do it instead of not. Which our first round, a lot of them probably wouldn’t.

In terms of curriculum outcomes, Riley indicated that all the students, in creating their own metaphors, were able to demonstrate understanding of what is meant by the notion of metaphor. She also observed that creating a metaphor appeared to help students understand more deeply the big concepts around democracy. “I think that word and having them truly dig into what that means was, and then like you said create a model or something to represent, I think that definitely added to social for sure.”

This reflection-on-action offered another opportunity for the teacher’s sense making.

Asking Riley to articulate the aspects of making that she found most meaningful, facilitated

147

rumination not only about the content students were learning, but also the students’ learning processes.

As the year progressed, I sensed that the end-of-year stresses were becoming more pronounced for Riley. My researcher notes indicate this:

Riley seems very overwhelmed these days with upcoming PATs and the fact that she has not covered curriculum topics. We discussed that she is working on two science topics, and also has another topic to address. On Wednesday the grade 6 students have been asked to look after the grade ones. Last week the students had concert practice, Friday they will be off school. There are many interruptions to deal with - I get the feeling Riley would rather not be doing this - it is one more thing on her plate. She said to me today, almost wistfully, I love doing this stuff. However, it feels like she just wants to get this over with, so she can focus on preparations for PATs and finishing up the year.

Prior to beginning the study, I wondered if a teacher who was supported in experiencing curriculum through making would then feel confident to enact making activities on her own. I left at the end of the school year extremely unsure of this. At times, it felt as if our work together added another burden to an otherwise already formidable assignment. The question remained for me as researcher, how would Riley’s experiences as a novice maker teacher within a design- based research setting carry forward into her own design work the following year? How might she take her own sense making, reflections, and learning forward?

Follow-up in Year Two: Maker Teacher as Learning Designer

Riley and I met in the fall of 2018 to see how and if the previous year’s study had impacted her teaching practice and how and if her designs for learning had changed. During the followup interview, Riley did most of the talking. Part of it was her excitement in sharing what she was doing with her students, but I also posited that some of it arose out of her growing agency as a maker teacher. In the previous instructional year’s cycles, our design dialogue took

148

place in a back and forth manner, but this time, Riley spoke confidently about her learning as a maker teacher.

Early in this new year, Riley had already begun work on several making activities in multiple subject areas, such as mathematics, language arts, social studies, and science. She also described how she was attempting to implement designs using a more interdisciplinary approach.

Immediately, Riley identified some key changes in the way she was approaching the design work:

From last year, I would have been hesitant to step out of my comfort zone in teaching the kids something that I wasn’t necessarily, wasn’t an expert in. But this year, so you know, I was kind of becoming an expert after going to that workshop with using the Makey Makey. And then I just thought, let’s jump in.”

Riley referenced the scaffolding we built into ideation prior to entering the makerspace the previous year so that when her students began working with digital tools, they could place their focus on the making: “I created a little template with a script that they kind of had to follow so, kind of like we had done in some of ours?”

A key aspect of her designs was accepting that she was not a technology expert and that the knowledge of technology was distributed amongst the makers. Her willingness to introduce coding activities using the visual coding language Scratch, and interactive posters using Makey

Makey, a tool for creating circuitry, demonstrated the growth in her own risktaking abilities:

I showed them a little bit how to use the coding on Scratch but I also wasn’t very familiar with it and I expressed that to the kids straight away, and a lot of them were shocked when I said, I don’t really know what we’re doing. Which was neat to see that, because that’s what we went through last year, right? And again, four years ago, I don’t know if I would have felt confident enough saying that to my kids because I’d be worried that they would go home and tell their parents or that would get around and then I would be an incompetent teacher, right? “Our teacher doesn’t know what she’s doing. So I taught the kids a little bit, probably about 20 minutes . . . and I said “Who feels comfortable enough that they could play around and kind of figure it out on their own?”

149

Riley’s willingness to relinquish control was further confirmed by a learning moment that took place between an individual student and herself. Riley had recently attended a workshop where she learned about Makey Makey. In the workshop she had followed the leader’s instructions to the letter, but was open to her students questioning specific methods and ways of working:

One of my boys came up to me and said, “You know I don’t . . . why do we have to draw the arrows? Wouldn’t it work without the arrows because the brads are conductive?” And I thought, “Oh, maybe . . . I don’t, I don’t really know. Do you want to try it?” And he said, “Okay.” So he tried it. And it worked. So then we announced to the whole class, “You don’t actually have to do this. I made the mistake.” So that was really neat that we did that together and then just seeing the environment was, was really neat.

From her standpoint, changing the teacher’s role in the teaching and learning process was a significant part of her maker designs and contributed to what she deemed was a different culture within the class. She articulated this:

But it’s just that sense of community, right? And also, the sense that I’m not the only person in the room that knows what we’re doing. And that, I really, really like. I think the kids grow a lot more when you have that and that’s definitely how I’ve changed. Giving them the power . . .

Riley also referenced the critical ways in which she was viewing curriculum and how that criticality was leading to changes in how she approached and designed making for curriculum topics:

We’ve also changed our whole math curriculum. Instead of starting in one unit we’ve started in something different. So we started with measurement. Which is a little bit more concrete for the kids we found. S: So was that the thinking behind that? You wanted to start with something more concrete or . . . R: Cause typically, and I just did it because my partner teacher did it. There was no real reason. We started with number patterns and kind of algebra, which is tricky for some kids.

150

Riley’s willingness “to engage in critical exchanges with external authorities,” (Davis et al., 2015, p. 99) that is, writers of curriculum documents and textbooks (Davis et al., 2015), and a more experienced teacher speaks to a shift within her teaching practice and a growing sense of agency. It also relates to the design as sense making that Riley had engaged in the previous year.

In year two, she was using making to explore more deeply not only her students’ learning but also her own learning. “I even think just the idea that’s changed our class is that we are all learning. That’s been something that’s been powerful for the kids and for myself. And then how I look at projects.”

Riley also articulated her growing confidence in ideating for making. “Last year it was kind of, sometimes with you it was I don’t know how we’re going to make a project about this.

How are we going to do it in social? How are we going to do it in LA? Science, easy. But this year, things come to me where I’m not even really thinking hard about it.”

For Riley, her knowledge of designing for making appeared to be becoming more intuitive, contextualized, and tacit. She described a community building activity she conducted with her students where they were asked to design and build a blanket fort that could hold 28 people.

Riley indicated that in the spur of the moment, she implemented the ideation process that had been part of our three making cycles from the previous year. She asked her students to work in groups to sketch out possible designs for the fort. In this way, though she structured the making activity, her ability to take risks allowed her to be open to generative possibilities.

After the fort had been constructed and deconstructed, a reflective dialogue of the process helped Riley and her students articulate their learning. “And then so afterwards we debriefed and we talked about what were the successes. Well we actually made a fort, we made compromises,

151

we worked together, we followed a plan, we adjusted the design. And this is what the kids said. I didn’t say this.”

It appeared that in discussions with Riley that the more designs she enacted with her students, the more abundant her ideas became. She described her year-long plans to include making in social studies, culminating in the activity we were unable to complete in the previous year, that is, having the students design and build a model of a new conceptualization of government house. She mentioned that students would again build models in sky science. She also described a making activity that she had recently conducted with her students on Halloween

Day.

Riley’s enthusiasm for implementing making with her students in various ways and curriculum areas speaks to the effect the previous making experiences with a researcher had on her as teacher. More importantly, she is now able to more authentically engage as a learner with her students. “I also think if something doesn’t work out for me, with the class and everybody is aware of it, there’s learning too, right?”

Discussion

Some key learnings, challenges, and celebrations emerged from using a design-based research approach to exploring making with one teacher and her class on three separate occasions. In all three instances, Riley indicated that she was impressed with the ways in which her students approached the open-ended aspects of the making challenges and the ways in which they conducted themselves and their work in the makerspace.

Designing for making became a way for Riley to come to know more about the nature of, and knowledge within disciplines, the meaning of curriculum, and her own students as learners.

152

The design work we participated in prior to making allowed us to spend time observing the students once they entered the makerspace.

With each making cycle Riley felt we became more effective at enacting designs and the students became more effective at engaging in making. Though some aspects of the timing of the three cycles was associated with outside influences, each cycle offered opportunities for significant learning and reflection for both Riley and her students in shorter and shorter amounts of time (Table 5).

Table 5

Time Used for Design, Enactment, and Reflection in Three Making Cycles

Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Sky Science Math Transformations Social Studies Design 3 hours 1 ½ hours ½ hour Enact 6 weeks 2 weeks 4 days Reflect Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing

However, with growth in student efficiency and confidence in the makerspace, teachers should focus more of their attention on the design work which will benefit learning for their students and themselves. For Riley and me, the time we spent designing in cycles two and three was much less robust than in cycle one, which I contend led to a less robust understanding of possibilities for learning on the part of the students and ourselves.

That said, there are key takeaways related to design as a process for learning that I would like to turn our attention to now. Using the codes as articulated in the data analysis, I explore how each interpretation of design led to learning for Riley and me.

153

Interpretations of the Design Process

Design as Artifact

In the initial data analysis, designing and making artifacts did not emerge as an important aspect of our design work. However, in retrospect, I have come to appreciate how artifact design underpinned and connected to design as a process of meaning making. The “knowledge that resides in objects” (Cross, 2006, p. 9), led us to insights not just about our topics of study, but also about ourselves epistemologically and ontologically.

For Riley and me, the design, construction, and use of learning artifacts (e.g. unit planning tools, student scaffolding devices such as maker planning sheets, and assessments, including feedback scaffolds, rubrics, and reflections) inspired us to engage in dialogue leading to reflection and sense making not only in regards to student designs, processes, and learning, but also our own.

Considering the makerspace as design artifact, “as a meeting point, an “interface””

(Simon, 1996, p. 6), where the “”inner” environment, the substance and organization of the artifact itself, and an “outer” environment, the surroundings in which it operates” (Simon, 1996, p. 6) that is, expectations from the school, the school division, the provincially mandated curriculum, and standardized testing expectations, the artifact can “serve its’ intended purpose”

(Simon, 1996, p. 6) because it adapts to the outer environment, while remaining true to its’ own goals (Simon, 1996). As we went about the messy business of designing for curricular learning in a makerspace, we discovered first hand that “Design strategies that go against the ecological wisdom of a culture are likely to fail” (Krippendorf, 2006, p. 205). One of the key design strategies I identified was the importance of time for reflection and sensemaking related to our makerspace designs. When Riley and I were unable to engage in substantive time for reflection

154

and sensemaking as in the mathematics activity, I felt our designs did not allow for deep learning for the students or for us.

Simon (1969) identified five barriers when designing artifacts for use in complex large scale solutions: 1) finding ways to represent the problem; 2) having to rely on insufficient data;

3) understanding the client(s); 4) “limits on the planner’s time and attention” (p. 141), and; 5) incompatible goals. These barriers manifested themselves in the design work Riley and I conducted collaboratively. We struggled with ways to represent the problem, that is how to design for student understanding of conceptual knowledge (in particular, mathematics) through making. We relied on insufficient data, related to our clients, the students, and our own discipline knowledge. We had limits on our time and attention and our goals were often incompatible as to how we envisioned and enacted the curriculum vs how we assessed student learning. Barriers that presented themselves when designing for making speak to the complexity inherent in the design task. However, when entering the makerspace, because of our pre-making design work, aspects of complexity were distributed amongst individual agents - the students, Riley, and myself, making the environment feel less ill-structured. The responsibility for design and enactment did not rest completely with Riley, which took some pressure off her, and afforded the students a measure of empowerment. Riley noted the focus and engagement in most of her students immediately and commented on it on multiple occasions. This provided opportunities for us to engage in “reflection-in-action” (Schon, 1983, p. 79) while in the makerspace with the students.

There was also an aspect of playfulness in the design and maker work, on the part of us all. Clapp (2017) stated, “Engaging with the products of maker-centred learning is frequently a joyful experience” (p. 89). In Riley’s case, she not only expressed joy at the products and

155

meaning her students were creating, but on several occasions commented on her own love of the learning design process and the learning artifacts and experiences she created for her students. I also think this speaks to Krippendorf’s statement that “artifacts interact on human terms” (p.

195). The humanity inherent in artifact creation manifested itself for us in different ways.

Self-assessment and feedback loops were a continuous central aspect of the learning process for both students and Riley and happened prior to, during, and after making. In addition, they were also essential to the research enactment, and were critical to the promotion of iterative teacher/researcher design cycles, data collection, ongoing reflections, and an atmosphere of collaboration.

A human factor we had not considered was the notion of making as performance.

Beginning in cycle one, we could see that students were eager to share their artifacts within a broader community. This should be an important consideration in designing for making.

Presentations to an audience outside the classroom, “signal to students that their work is important enough to be a source of public learning and celebration, and provide opportunities for others in the learning community to see, appreciate and learn from student work” (Barron &

Darling-Hammond, 2013, p. 208). Performance also demands quality work (Barron & Darling-

Hammond, 2013). In the final making cycle, we created a virtual “museum” of student artifacts along with a personal description of each individual metaphor. When we discussed the possibility of sharing the museum with the world, one of the students remarked, “Oh, then it has to be good.”

Another student created a stop animation video that shared an important message about bullying and inclusion within the context of mathematical transformations on a Cartesian plane.

156

After the screening of the video, there were audible sighs in reaction to the video and its message. For the students, performance became one of the most powerful forms of feedback.

It was also powerful because students could demonstrate their strengths through a variety of performance modes (Eisner, 2005). While making, they elicited feedback, leading to an improvement of ideas, and products. In that way, performance also became a type of artifact and the creation of artifacts in general became a tool for future designs and design processes.

Design as Problem Solving

Design as problem solving (Buchanan 1992), or design interventions in graphic, industrial, organizational or complex system design (Johannson-Skoldberg et al., 2013), did not figure as prominently as design as reflection, design as sense making, or even design as artefact in the coding process. In reflecting on why, I considered the makerspace learning environment.

Implicit in the design of the makerspace as complex learning system are authentic occasions

(Collins, 1996) for sense making, reflection, and artefact creation. Discovering that, it appeared to me that design as problem solving was an omnipresent aspect of the learning. Implicit in the makerspace environment I observed the four broad areas in which humanity interacts with design

(Buchanan, 1992). Riley, the students, and myself engaged in the creation of: 1) “symbolic and visual communications”; 2) “material objects”; 3) “activities and organized services” and; 4)

“environments for living, working, playing, and learning” (Buchanan, 1992, pp. 9-10). The notion of problem solving through design took place in integrated, yet particular ways, through practical and accessible approaches (Buchanan, 1992) to address the learning needs of the students, Riley, and myself. In that way, we entered into the notion of “argument in design thinking” (Buchanan, 1992, p. 20) where we all sought to understand the “concrete interplay and interconnection of signs, things, actions, and thoughts” (Buchanan, 1992, p. 20).

157

One of these design arguments for Riley and me happened when we chose to add to an already full curriculum (instead of taking away). In doing so, we both came to see how important it was for us and the students to hear stories of how we as humans have come to know. Jardine,

Friesen, and Clifford (2006) have spoken to the notion of “rejoicing in the abundance and intricacy of the world, entering into its living questions, living debates, living inheritances” (p.

8). This sharing and naming of knowledge(s) and arguments throughout history led us into the makerspace with a sense of the past and a sense of how we might contribute to the future.

Approaching curriculum work in this way carried over to the ways Riley and her students conducted work outside the makerspace in that we all came to see design as “turning to the modality of impossibility” (Buchanan, 1992, p. 20). For the students, one impossibility they explored were the unknowns of the night sky, and for Riley and me it was thinking about how we might link the construction of objects to specific understandings we wanted the students to develop. Focusing on what seemed impossible led us to see what might be possible.

The design episodes Riley and I participated in provided opportunities to explore the meaning of curriculum and to wrestle with ideas about what is important to know. As designers we took on a more designerly stance (Buchanan, 1992). Instead of just focusing on a list of important concepts provided to us through stated curriculum, we began asking, what is it we don’t know and what is most important to learn? For Riley in particular, this was especially risky because in asking these questions, she was no longer able to default to a simple answer. In solving design problems, through the combination of design as sense making and design as reflective practice within the context of making, and nested within a design-based research approach, we worked to promote our own growth and development as reflective practitioners.

158

Design as Reflection

Riley articulated on numerous occasions during the study the importance of mentorship when getting started with making. “Right, but even just to have that person, a resource that somebody can go to and say this is what I want to do it on, can you help me?” As a leader in making on her staff, she set up and organized a maker lab in her school and created and promoted a Christmas maker activity for her colleagues to use with their students. Other than her teacher partner, no one attempted the activity. “I’ve tried doing that for little projects and they haven’t been well received and so I’m like well, okay, then I’m not going to waste my time.”

Riley was eager to partner in making for learning with her colleagues. Even so, she acknowledged the critical importance that mentoring played in her development. For Riley, designing for making promoted “a reflective conversation with a unique and uncertain situation”

(Schon, 1983, p. 130). As a methodology, DBR not only advanced her development in understanding how curriculum might be explored through making, the collaborative nature of

DBR provided a supportive atmosphere in which to address problems she encountered in practice. In essence, working collaboratively with a researcher scaffolded her not only in the initial design process prior to making, it also supported her in responding to the “back-talk”

(Schon, 1983, p. 79) that arose during and after making. Enacting makerspace designs within a

DBR study meant that her “conversation with the situation” (Schon, 1983, p. 79) was reflective.

As well, because students and the teacher share in efficacy and responsibility for the work taking place in the makerspace, opportunities for teacher reflection-in-action were made available more readily.

Riley acknowledged that designing wholistic student experiences required support and time for the teacher to learn:

159

Yes, Yes, a lot of what makerspace is used for is just STEM activities, one-off STEM activities, which are great and I’m sure that kids learn certain skills from that that but and I don’t know how people look at it in different grades but being a PAT year we don’t have time to do that. You know to potentially lose an hour to two hours, building a spaghetti tower . . . Making has to be contextualized.

Riley also indicated a desire to become more skilled at integrating individual curriculum outcomes more holistically into making activities. Though she made tremendous strides in terms of her own ability to design making activities for her students, contextualizing making within the curriculum is an ongoing reflective learning process for her in that “the unique and uncertain situation comes to be understood through the attempt to change it, and changed through the attempt to understand it” (Schon, 1983, p. 132).

Choosing DBR as methodology was crucial to the learning. By engaging collaboratively with the researcher, Riley’s lived experience became one of reflection, iteration, refinement, and learning. Over time, and with me sharing the experiences and reflecting on the learning with her, she became more comfortable and began to see the risk inherent in the work not only as beneficial, but professionally and personally evolutionary.

There is a precariousness in designing for making in that the lure of technology can indirectly overtake a designerly stance. If the tool is implemented using deeply embedded

“frames” (Dorst, 2010), teachers may be closed off to the paradoxes and possibilities that present themselves in the design context. In Riley’s case, she had been introduced to Makey Makey as a tool in the previous year by a technology consultant in the school division but did not know how she might implement it. After working with me and then attending a Makey Makey workshop, she was excited about the possibilities for student learning and the attitudes of risk taking and engagement her students displayed after their initial introduction to it. But I question whether creating an interactive poster using Makey Makey was an enactment of a traditional frame using

160

a new technology. Moving from novice to expert designer requires ongoing mentoring, constant attentiveness to the frames we hold tacitly and the ways in which we might remain open to possibility. DBR served methodologically to support and sustain changes in practice. In this case, ongoing collaborative work with a researcher would assist Riley in reflection on the “back-talk,” continually helping her to question design choices, moving her on the continuum from novice to expert designer of learning. Establishing a community of designers within a school may provide a platform in which teachers could support each other where they could eventually see

“reflection-in-action as an epistemology of practice” (Schon, 1983, p. 133).

Design as Sense Making

Krippendorf (2006), in describing shifts from the industrial to postindustrial era, cites

“primary currencies” moving from “matter and energy” to “attention by individuals and communities”; knowledge developing from static “scientific theories (of nature)” to progressive

“socially constitutive” and “transformative” ideation; and “ontological explanations” transferring from “mechanical/causal” means to the “ability to create, construct, and realize” (p. 14). For

Riley and me the act of designing for making provoked these shifts as we “actively constructed” meaning through a process of “pattern synthesis” (Cross, 2006, p. 8). Though our initial focus appeared to be on artifact construction, we came to see our work as “a human-centred effort”

(Krippendorf, 2006, p. 15). In this way, for Riley, the students, and myself, design became a kind of sense making, where through the reflective construction of artifacts we came together as a community of problem solvers and meaning makers in multiple explorations into our own journeys of coming to know.

161

Conclusion

Three recommendations and directions for future research developed out of this design- based research aspect of the study. One, elementary teachers can benefit from on-the-ground professional development activities in collaboration with a researcher that scaffolds them in envisioning curriculum through making, while building their own understanding of the history of human knowledge in mathematics, science, history, and technology. The latter point is important because when learners see a domain as relevant and interesting, they are more willing to persist in learning within that domain (Boekaerts, 2010). Elementary teachers can benefit from opportunities to engage in continual and collaborative learning with a researcher that is pertinent and energizing for them about the nature of and the knowledge within disciplines, while keeping in mind “that “knowledge of a discipline” and “knowledge of how a discipline is learned are two very different things” (Davis et al., 2015, p. 57).

Collaborative designing for making assisted Riley to integrate disciplinary knowledge as she and I made connections across the disciplines (Davis et al., 2015). This collaboration allowed her to see curriculum in new ways and adopt a more critical stance (Davis et al., 2015) in terms of how she engaged with and enacted that curriculum. Having said that, “It can be difficult for teachers to undertake the task of rethinking their subject matter. Learning involves making oneself vulnerable and taking risks, and this is not how teachers often see their role” (Bransford et al., 2000, p. 195). Acknowledging the emotional aspects of learning is an important component of this work (Boekaerts, 2010). For Riley, working with students in the makerspace helped her to develop an ability to take risks, but the side-by-side mentorship with the researcher was critically important to her reflection, documentation of learning, and growth as a teacher designer. Providing for this mentorship will involve a significant investment of time on the part

162

of teachers, schools, and school districts, and an investment in collaborative relationships with researchers from the university.

Second, consideration should be given to the design of curriculum documents so that they scaffold and support teachers to work in designerly ways. This in itself is a wicked problem.

Creating a document that provides a systematic overview of discipline knowledge and key learning ideas while promoting a creative approach to envisioning curriculum and knowledge building for students is no easy task. Following that, it cannot be assumed that teachers will be able to work in designerly ways based on their interpretation of a written document.

Collaborating in long term relationships with knowledgeable others to promote innovations in practice will be an essential aspect of the process. Furthermore, time for teachers to engage in thoughtful, ongoing conversations about this work is critical.

Further research is needed as to how teachers might design making to meet learning outcomes. Riley’s comments about her students often focused more on how students developed ontologically as opposed to epistemologically. Part of this design challenge is developing rich assessments that tell us what students have come to know as well as who they have come to be.

Third, it is worth considering how to sponsor more partnerships within and between schools, school districts, public libraries, the ministry of education, and universities to share pedagogical and technological resources and expertise. DBR as methodology provided a context for theory informed collaboration, reflection, pedagogical decision making, and design work.

This diversified the opportunities and contexts for learning available to the students, the teacher, and the researcher and promoted a culture of innovation. This was exemplified in our third cycle of making, when we not only used the university 3D printing and CNC milling technology, we also engaged with university library staff in identifying, learning, and troubleshooting with the

163

design technology. Partnering with outside stakeholders advanced all the research participants’ technological skill sets and encouraged reflection and thinking about the pedagogical affordances and constraints of technology in teaching and learning situations. Given the time required for learning new technologies and troubleshooting related issues, connecting and learning with the larger community outside the classroom will not only support individual teachers, it will encourage a culture of innovation that moves beyond the four walls of the school.

Engaging in collaborative design work focused on curricular learning in an elementary school makerspace deepened Riley’s understanding of making as pedagogy. More importantly, it went beyond student construction of artifacts as a way to investigate curriculum topics.

Examining her understanding of curriculum and learning through making pressed Riley to explore deep epistemological and ontological questions not only in regards to her students, but also herself. In this way, designing for making became a rich opportunity for professional learning, one that should be championed in the future.

In the concluding chapter that follows, I link the topics of learning environment, curriculum, and design to present a holistic view of the study gleaned from these three vantage points.

164

Chapter Seven

Conclusion

Connecting Learning Through Curriculum and Design in the Elementary

Makerspace

Reflecting on the outcomes of this study, I have come to see the importance of the three elements presented in the original conceptual framework and research design: namely 1) design,

2) curriculum, and 3) learning environment. Each contributed to the overall contextualization of the learning that was observed to happen between Riley (teacher), her students, and myself as researcher.

Key Elements in the Study

In this chapter, I unpack each element separately in relation to the overarching learnings gleaned through the makerspace and research experiences. The analysis and interpretation of the three elements is followed by a discussion of design principles as contributory to theory and practice in DBR studies, and a sharing of emergent principles I have developed as a result of this study. This chapter concludes with some final insights and recommendations for both research and practice.

Design

Willms et al., (2009), in advocating for teaching as intentional design, stated that

“teachers must go beyond developing techniques to implement the curriculum” (p. 33). For

Riley, her students, and myself, participating in design processes related to making led us all to becoming designers and learners in new and different ways. Based on a synthesis and evaluation of all data collected throughout this study, I argue that the design experience was the most important and critical aspect of this study. Design as reflective practice within the design-based

165

research approach led Riley and me to engage and think differently about the students, the curriculum, the conditions in the learning environment, and ourselves as teachers and learners.

Designing for making helped us to reflect and make sense of not only the curriculum, but of the ways in which people in various disciplines conduct their work.

The methodological choice in this study was also key, in that it established a design focus from the outset. Envisioning design research microcycles of exploration, design, implementation, and reflection within mesocycles of making, set the stage for the same design-based learning process with the students in the makerspace. The design-based approach also allowed Riley and me the freedom to risk take because we knew within the various cycles, we had opportunities to collaboratively test, make adjustments, and take our learning forward through iteration and constant improvement. In employing a constructivist stance within the research context, the students, Riley, and I were building knowledge of the disciplines and of particular curriculum topics. We went “beyond developing techniques” (Willms et al., 2009, p. 33). We all became designers and makers. Through our designs for learning and the work conducted in the makerspace we all took on a more designerly stance. I reflected deeply on what served as a springboard for developing the design mindset. Two ideas resonated most with me: the makerspace as learning environment, and the curriculum as a course of study. I examine each of these ideas in more detail in the next two sections.

Curriculum

As suggested by van den Akker (2013), when one is developing, designing, and enacting curriculum “there is not a single perspective, overarching rationale or higher authority that can resolve all dilemmas for the curriculum choices to be made. The practical context and its users are in the forefront of curriculum design and enactment” (van den Akker, 2013, p. 61). Van den

166

Akker speaks of balance when considering the knowledge to be learned, the learner’s personal needs and interests, and societal influences and requirements. This balance can be difficult to achieve when various stakeholders within the system value different aspects of curriculum more prominently than others.

Encouraging stances in curriculum enactment. In order to achieve curriculum balance, which van den Akker (2013) acknowledges is a substantive challenge, he recommends three encouraging stances. I posit that each of van den Akker’s (2013) three stances can be constituted in making, and explore each in the sections that follow.

Stance 1: Restrict “separate subject domains to a more limited number of broader learning areas” (van den Akker, 2013, p. 60). Exploring curriculum through making may provide a way for teachers to employ this stance because of the interdisciplinary nature inherent in making. For example, in the first cycle, Riley and I discussed the possibility of connecting star charts to movements on a cartesian plane. Though we did not proceed with this idea at the time, in the next sky science iteration that Riley enacted on her own, she used the Cartesian plane to show the movement of stars through the manipulation of a robotic device. Riley’s curriculum connections in a subsequent making iteration demonstrated that she is becoming more confident and knowledgeable in interdisciplinary approaches to designing for making and is exploring ways to make this happen in her classroom.

Stance 2: Connect learning inside and outside school (van den Akker, 2013). As indicated by Riley during the study, her students did not leave their makerspace learning at school. Participation in making cycles encouraged the students to explore ideas outside the makerspace which they then brought back with them to share in the maker community of practice. For example, one student explored different approaches to creating stop animations at

167

home. She found an example online that involved drawing animations using dry erase markers and used this approach in her project. Several students adopted this approach, after seeing her use it in the makerspace.

Stance 3: Make learning more personal and challenging (van den Akker, 2013). In all cycles of making, the students pursued questions and ideas, and played with materials that provoked their thinking with personally relevant and interesting ideas. For example, in building metaphors related to core concepts of democracy, the students pushed themselves to understand what terms like equity and freedom truly meant, and many explored the use of Tinkercad and

Easel to prototype their metaphors.

One student in exploring the meaning of the word freedom, painted a scene on a rock showing a metaphor of a fish swimming upstream. She wrote, “Sometimes you have to swim against the current but in the end you will be free.” In further explanation, she wrote, “My metaphor represents the freedom fish have. I chose this design because it shows a fish being unique and breaking social standards.”

Another student 3D printed a model to depict the meaning of equity as he understood it.

He wrote, “This is important to me to remember. Even though people are treated equal it is important to see what they need. For example, if you give a person a wheelchair, you don’t expect them to go upstairs, so you build a ramp.”

A student in depicting the word respect, 3D printed one person helping get to the top of a wall. This student wrote, “This basically means that they believe that you’re an innocent person.

They tell you their problem to help them. They know that you’re the kind of person who is respectful and trustable.”

168

Working with challenging ideas and technologies made the learning richer. Having to develop a metaphor that was personally meaningful made the work significant and worthwhile.

Balancing curriculum components. Over time, Riley began to reflect and discuss how she had an agential role in curriculum enactment through making, and how the students could also play a role in this work by sharing their interests and contributing their ideas. However, there were times during the study where the desired curriculum balance teetered and was precariously lopsided. In particular, I noticed Riley’s preoccupation with provincial achievement tests (PATs) throughout the study which often contributed to a sense of imbalance. When she was asked what caused the most unsteadiness, Riley also identified assessment.

In reflection on the three cycles of making, I concluded that the curriculum imbalance was related more specifically to summative assessment. Looming over the study were the upcoming PATs; however, Riley was also concerned about her students’ knowledge of content related to the various disciplines, and how the students would be able to demonstrate that knowledge in traditional reporting formats.

While many of the curriculum components (van den Akker, 2013) shifted to a student focus on learning, the assessment component, particularly summative aspects, remained teacher directed. The requirement of summative assessment created an imbalance that added stress, most noticeably for the teacher. In Table 6 I describe in more detail how the curriculum components materialized in various aspects of the study.

169

Table 6

Curriculum Components as Enacted by the Teacher and Students Van den Akker’s (2013) Enactment in the Study Curriculum Components Rationale: Why are they While the original focus was on curriculum outcomes, the learning? teacher came to understand that by embedding making in the work the students were learning how to be learners.

Aims and objectives: Students goals focused on making models, stop animation Towards which goals are they videos, and physical embodiments of democratic concepts. learning? The teacher focus was on learning about curricular concepts.

Content: What are they Students learned content based on their interests, needs, and as learning? determined by specific curriculum outcomes. Teacher focus was on content outcomes identified in the curriculum.

Learning activities: How are Students learned through an iterative design process which they learning? included research and prototyping of ideas through physical or digital construction.

Teacher role: How is the The majority of the teacher facilitation happened in the design teacher facilitating the phase prior to entering the makerspace. Once most of the learning? students began making, feedback happened in a just-in-time and responsive manner.

Materials and resources: With Students chose their own materials, and often shared resources what are they learning? they located themselves with their peers.

Grouping: With whom are Students chose with whom they would work, but often they learning? provided feedback to a variety of students in the class in a just-in-time and responsive manner.

Location: Where are they Students’ learning took place in multiple locations, including learning? but not limited to the makerspace, the classroom, and at home.

Time: When are they Many of the students’ learning experiences moved across learning? contexts, as they explored ideas, tools, and resources at school and at home.

Assessment: How is their Assessment methods (both formative and summative) learning assessed? included the use of tests, rubrics, conversations and written reflections. Feedback loops (written and oral) took place prior to and while in the makerspace to move learning forward.

170

In the makerspace, while all of the curriculum components were considered in designs, specific elements were more easily surrendered to the students. For example, when designing,

Riley and I observed that the students took ownership of what materials and resources they would use, how they would group themselves for learning, and where and when they would work and learn.

Curriculum as represented and realized. Digging more deeply into notions of curriculum as intended, implemented, and attained (van den Akker, 2013), Riley indicated in post making interviews that she needed support to envision the ideal and formalized curriculum with a maker focus. Though she had created noon hour maker clubs in the school and one-off maker activities with her own class prior to engaging in this research study, she had yet to envision making as the cornerstone of a curricular unit of study. Implementing curriculum units through making forced Riley to think differently about her role in designing for curriculum implementation, which led her to think differently about learning. It also had an impact on what she valued epistemologically and what she came to see ontologically as important in reflecting upon her students as learners. The constructivist essence exhibited by her students forced her to rethink her own learning in the school setting, which she made more explicit to her students on numerous occasions.

In Table 7, researcher reflections over time indicate that Riley needed support in envisioning the intended curriculum with a maker focus, but with that support she was able to implement and interpret the curriculum in different ways. The teacher’s growth was linked to a shift in how student participants experienced learning through making, as they engaged in a process that took place in community where all participants, including the teacher, were learners.

171

Table 7

Researcher Reflections on the Teacher and Students' Notions of Representation of Curriculum Van den Akker’s Curriculum Researcher Reflections from the Study Representations (2013) Type* Description* Intended Ideal Vision, underpinned by The teacher needed support in envisioning what philosophy the curriculum might look like through making.

Formal/Written Intentions specified in The teacher was unsure how to enact formal government / curricular written curriculum in a maker context. documents Implemented Perceived Curriculum interpreted The teacher came to understand curriculum by the teacher differently by adding curriculum content to support disciplinary learning.

Operational Actual teaching and The teacher came to value different aspects of learning process teaching and learning (e.g. habits of mind). Attained Experiential Learning perceived by The teacher made explicit for the students a learners different view of learning as lived through making.

Learned Resulting learner The students and the teacher came to see learning outcomes differently. *van den Akker’s articulation, used with permission

In terms of attained curriculum, Riley was able to articulate for her students while in class and for the researcher in one-on-one planning sessions, moments when she blundered, misinterpreted, or lacked knowledge or understanding of an idea. The teacher’s way of being led to a shift for her and her students in that what was valued, was subject to change. Learning became less about regurgitating known content and became more about playing with ideas in physical and digital ways in order that learners could make sense through their own choices and courses of action.

Designing for making encouraged Riley to see the curriculum differently – as ideas and insights emerging out of living disciplines of study - and it became a living document that could 172

be connected and added to, revised, and learned from, rather than digested whole. In operationalizing curriculum in this way, Riley began to see the importance of the ontological facets of learning. She and her students became learners through making. Though Riley is still on this learning journey, she has begun to envision curriculum not as a step-by-step checklist of pre- set outcomes, but as a generative learning process, in which interdisciplinary topics of study can be explored all at once.

Comparing curriculum implementation at different levels. Participating in the research study also provided opportunities for Riley and me to think differently about how curriculum through making is considered at different levels (van den Akker, 2013). This multi- levelled nature of inquiry into the curriculum was a recurring theme in conversations between us.

At the nano level (van den Akker, 2013), student participation in the curriculum became evident. By observing student interaction with curriculum topics that interested them, Riley was provoked into rethinking and reconceptualizing what it means to know and what is important to know. For example, in the sky science unit, Riley came to see that students learning about the ways in which scientists conduct their work, and the theories that prominent thinkers hold about the sky, were important ideas for the students to consider and experience.

At the micro (van den Akker, 2013) or classroom level, study evidence showed the students, Riley, and me learning together. With the use of the scientist’s log book in cycle one,

Riley asked the students to record instances where collaborative learning happened and gave students the opportunity to identify and vocalize these to the entire class as examples of working in community. Students gained a sense of agency in how they could build knowledge, in that they came to see that it could develop collaboratively with their peers, their teacher, their family,

173

and through resources, both hard copy and digital. Riley also began to deeply understand how we

– the teacher and the researcher – could learn from the students and also from each other.

At the meso (van den Akker, 2013) or school level, Riley expressed on several occasions her chagrin at the lack of connection with teaching colleagues in the school. Though she created maker activities for the staff to use, and she and I presented to them about our design-based research, the staff did not engage with her about her learning in the makerspace. Riley expressed dismay because she was excited to share what was happening in her classroom and her practice, but in many ways, the maker research work she participated in also separated and isolated her from other staff members. Since she was demonstrating leadership in other ways on staff, she also expressed concern that her colleagues might feel she was coming across as self-important.

Riley’s feelings of disappointment were not surprising considering her enthusiasm for the collaborative experience in which we had engaged. It speaks to the importance of providing constructivist opportunities for teachers to engage in learning, along with their students, rather than designing professional learning in a traditional frame. For researchers, it also could present a drawback to the methodological choice of DBR in this instance, in that rather than promoting an innovation as scalable, in attempts to share knowledge, it may have limited scalability by its very design.

The desire to lead learning on Riley’s part did take place at the macro (van den Akker,

2013) level, when she proposed that the two of us present results from the study at the yearly

Teachers’ Convention, a gathering of teachers from multiple school districts in the area. From the beginning, Riley recognized the importance of collaborative practice in implementing curriculum through making. As a researcher, I acknowledged the importance of sharing and leading learning about makerspaces beyond this study. Not only did the design-based research

174

and curriculum work involve lengthy discussions in terms of ideation, I provided behind the scenes support that Riley did not always have time for related to the location of background research and resources. More than that, the risk taking required to shift how we might enact the outcomes especially related to content was more easily executed in a supportive environment, where we could bounce ideas off each other in a just-in-time manner, share in our successes, and chuckle about our missteps. It is Riley’s vision and mine that in order for making through the curriculum to become embedded in practice, teachers require a teaching peer or educational researcher to work side-by-side with them in the initial stages.

At the supra (van den Akker, 2013) or national level, policy makers who lead curriculum development and government leaders should consider specific policies that can impact the implementation of curriculum through making. These policies could include 1) funding by-the- elbow support for teachers when they are starting out with making; 2) creating curriculum exemplars that enlist design principles to consider when enacting curriculum through making; 3) weighing the benefits of high stakes testing vs the benefits of making as a way to shift teacher practice and approaches to assessment.

Learning Environment

After we completed our in-school work, Riley mentioned how she came to realize that the makerspace was not a physical environment, but a “mindset,” a way of operationalizing learning for her and her students. In surveying the data, I noted that Riley and I spent very little time discussing and addressing issues of the learning environment in planning sessions. We came to understand together that implicit in makerspace environments were particular ways of being that facilitated learning. In that way, our considerations of learning environment faded to the

175

background. What became more pressing in our planning discussions, were notions of curriculum and exploring the ways we might approach designing for learning in a makerspace.

The adapted table from Collins’ (1996) design issues for learning environments presented in Chapter 3, provides evidentiary examples from the study that demonstrate how we addressed specific learning environment considerations. What may not be obvious from the table, is how smoothly and organically these issues were addressed because of the attributes rooted in makerspaces, which include opportunities for iterative design work of personal interest in a collaborative, risk taking environment.

Peppler et al., (2016) suggested three dichotomous propositions or “tradeoffs” when considering learning environments: “1) individualization vs standardization in learning environments; 2) formal vs informal education divide; and 3) technology vs. hands-on making”

(p. 6). I purport, based on the findings from this study, that these dichotomous either-or decisions with regards to how we established the learning environment were not necessary. Because of the design work the students engaged in prior to entering the makerspace, dichotomous decisions about whether to engage digitally or physically, formally or informally, singularly or systematically, did not arise as issues once in the makerspace.

Riley and I found that many of the issues related to learning environment that needed to be explicitly addressed by the teacher in the classroom setting, were implicitly addressed in the makerspace. Table 8 provides a more complete summary of the overall design considerations and specific (indicated with e.g.) examples from the study.

176

Table 8

Examples of Design Considerations Implicitly Addressed in the Makerspace

Makerspace Design Considerations Evidence of Examples in Study (adapted from Collins, 1996) Learning Goals -scaffold whole tasks, while building in skills practice -build sky science model, stop animation video, as needed democracy metaphor, while developing skills needed1

-build in significant time for thinking, as well as time -thinking and practice with tools happened before, for development of automaticity, particularly with tools during, and after making, at school and at home

-encourage individual students to become specialists in -students became experts in sky science topics, and in different areas of study the use of individual technologies

-use different technologies to construct meaning, -student exercised choice with materials in all making allowing for diverse approaches to uniform curriculum activities

-promote dialogic moments, highlighting how tools - e.g. discussions took place with John re: paper vs work along with their specific affordances Lego

-start with cognitive fidelity, either digitally or on -teacher initiated with maker planning sheet, paper, and then move to physical fidelity. development of ideas prior to entering makerspace Learning Approaches -provide a mix of interactive and active opportunities -all students were active in constructing ideas, and they interacted with others when the need arose2

-design for incidental learning, with direct teaching -individual teaching about scale and size of planets, introduced at time of need whole group teaching re: scientist log book

-design meaningful, engaging tasks -overall engagement of students in the makerspace

-provide time to focus on natural learning, accepting - e.g. student use of tubing to construct orbital path, that some of it will be inefficient Matt’s play with materials during construction of video

-provide students information to assist them in making -e.g. movement of students from surface questions to good learning decisions based on pedagogy deep thinking prior to entering makerspace Sequence -design contextual experiences that ground abstractions -students used making to explore abstract ideas related within them to space, democracy, the Cartesian plane

-start with more structure, leading to less structure -structured planning time in the classroom in preparation for less structure in the makerspace

-start with systematic variation, moving to more - e.g. learning about star charts and various diverse problems astronomers, followed by individual topics of interest3

-conduct assessments to determine starting and -planned feedback opportunities took place prior to the scaffolding needs makerspace, feedback while making was organic

177

Teaching Methods -model in ‘just in time’ manner - e.g. scientist log book, where students need additional guidance in use

-design and iterate scaffolds with use -maker planning sheets, which include opportunities for multiple rounds of feedback from different sources

- coaching including providing ideas, hints, scaffolds, -implicit in the teacher design work prior to and while feedback, challenge, encouragement, structure in the makerspace

- use technology to assist in articulation and -use of photos, video explanation, written reflections documentation of process and learning

-use technology and scaffolding to assist in reflection, - e.g. scientists log book, video sharing, virtual placing ownership with student museum

Three examples from the study in the above table (numbered 1, 2, and 3) exemplify how addressing learning goals, approaches, and sequences in a makerspace environment meant we did not have to trade off one approach for the other.

Example 1: Learning goals. Scaffold whole tasks while building in skills practice as needed (Collins, 1996)1. While students worked on the wholistic task of designing a metaphor for a core aspect of democracy, many were also learning how to use 3D modelling software. We scaffolded the student task of designing a metaphor, but the development of skills related to 3D digital modelling happened generatively and collaboratively between the students. We did not offer specific skills training on the software, but the students learned about it in the context of their work.

Example 2: Learning approaches. Provide a mix of active and interactive opportunities

(Collins, 1996)2. In all three cycles, while all students were actively making, either on their own or with others, they were also interacting, as students shared ideas, knowledge, and feedback, even if it meant observing other student’s use of particular tools or techniques, which they then borrowed for their own work. For example, when one student brought in the idea of creating a

178

stop animation using dry erase markers and a plastic lid that she had found on YouTube, several other students adopted this idea into their own stop animations.

Example 3: Learning sequences. Start with systematic variation, moving to more diverse problems (Collins, 1996)3. To introduce the sky science unit, we began by asking each student to research a different astronomer from history, followed by a discussion of the key perceptions they came to understand about the work of astronomers. When students moved to the makerspace, they were exploring more diverse questions of personal interest related to sky science, rather than being limited by content solely provided by the teacher. The systematic variation involved students researching different astronomers; we then followed this up with diverse modeling and problem solving in the makerspace.

The makerspace as learning environment was critical to the study, and not in a peripheral way. Given its very nature, and the collaborative relationship between the teacher and the researcher, the makerspace served to promote a rethinking of curriculum enactment.

Design Principles

This study has led to the development of what McKenney and Reeves (2012) have called

“local theory” (p. 35), that is, theory that manifests itself through focused examination of a local experience (McKenney & Reeves, 2012). Though the design principles presented here are offered in an emergent form, they can serve as a starting point for future research that builds and extends upon these principles and insights to develop “middle-range theory” (McKenney &

Reeves, 2012, p. 36) about the ways in which teachers can become learners with their students in makerspaces.

179

Utilizing Sandoval’s (2014) conjecture mapping as an “argumentative logic” (p. 29) I connect in Figure 8 how the design attributes, that is, the embodied constructs and processes operating within this study, link to the attributes that “mediate learning and produce intended outcomes” (p. 28), thereby determining “a pattern of change” (p. 30).

Embodiment Mediating Processes Intervention Outcomes

Sensemaking Resources Pre-making research and Tools and Materials and Tools planning Ontologic development as Understanding makers and learners curriculum through making requires Artifact provision for Construction Curricular iterative learning sensemaking Deepening task designs that through artifact promote Community construction understanding of disciplinary ways of disciplinary Structure Activity of Practice being understanding and ways of being. Reflection of making Dialogue with processes Materials

Dialogue with Community Discursive practices Discursive

Figure 8. Conjecture map (Sandoval, 2014) for supporting curricular implementation through making.

For us all, the use of sensemaking resources, whether they be curriculum documents, online and print subject matter, or a specific medium chosen for making, promoted dialogue between the materials and makers. It was through planning to make, then making, and finally reflecting on making experiences that we came to see ourselves as ontologically different learners in multiple disciplines of study.

180

Bakker (2019), in trying to understand what is meant by design principles and how they might be verified and/or utilized, acknowledged that he himself is still unclear. In surveying the

DBR literature, he queried whether design principles are “values, criteria, predictions, advice or heuristics?” (p. 177). He has suggested that design principles are an “amalgam of values and knowledge” and suggests that the use of design principles over some other form of research contribution “shows the complexity of formulating actionable knowledge in a concise form so that it can be used by others” (p. 184). He recommended that researchers should explicitly state upfront what they are trying to achieve through design principles. Bakker also provided some specific advice when creating design principles: 1) think of a memorable phrase that encapsulates the principle’s core message; 2) state the principle clearly and in “a couple of sentences”; 3) include within the principle the embedded values and empirical substantiation. As recommended by Bakker, (2019) I have adapted design principles based on a suggested frame

(van den Akker, 2013, p. 67):

If you want to design intervention X [for purpose/function Y in context Z] then you are best advised to give that intervention the characteristics C1, C2,..., Cm [substantive emphasis] and to do that via procedures P1, P2, ..., Pn [methodological emphasis] because of theoretical arguments T1, T2, ..., Tp and empirical arguments E1, E2, ..., Eq (p. 67).

Informed by the study findings, Bakker’s (2019) suggestions, van den Akker’s (2013) frame, and Sandoval’s conjecture mapping process, I present three “specific design principles”

(Linn, Bell, & Davis, 2004, p. 315) that address the two initial research questions.

RQ1: How can teachers be supported in the development of teacher knowledge, pedagogy, and practice within an elementary school makerspace environment?

181

Teacher development can be supported in collaborative design-based research with a focus on implementing innovations in maker practice, in which they are continually advised to critically appraise the design “frame” used to guide their learning plan, and they continually question whether their learning designs provide opportunities for both

“sensemaking” and evidentiary displays of knowledge. While the activities Riley and I designed together led to finished products, in order to make, the students’ process of engagement with materials provided an opportunity for sensemaking of ideas. Attending to this notion of sensemaking, (ie. How sky scientists use modeling to answer questions they have about the sky, how the cartesian plane can be used to show movement, and how metaphor can lead to an understanding of democratic ideas) as opposed to the creation of work that provides substantiation of particular knowledges and conceptual understandings, needs to be at the forefront when designing for curricular learning in makerspaces. DBR as a key aspect of this work, provided opportunities to scaffold teacher development as well as supporting implementation and evaluation, while gathering useful data which can support further study related to learning in makerspace environments.

RQ2: How can teachers support the development of students’ conceptual understanding of disciplinary topics in an elementary school makerspace?

It is recommended that teachers scaffold their students’ learning by designing opportunities to conduct work in the way that experts in the field do (Friesen, 2009). This means students are supported in pursuing questions of interest, ideating and conducting research prior to making, and interacting collaboratively to solve problems that arise throughout the process. The teacher and researcher’s collaborative design, implementation, and evaluation processes in a makerspace environment were conducive to both teacher’s and

182

students’ learning about the ways in which discipline experts undertake their work. Inherent in making and design-based research were opportunities for learners to address complex problems through collaboration, iteration, and creation of ideas and products.

Teachers must live and share with their students their own experiences of failure, being unsure, and not knowing. In so doing they model what it means to be a maker and a learner. When Riley presented herself as a knowledge expert, and focused on the delivery of content, the students tended to defer to her and rely on her for their next steps. Entering the makerspace as learners together changed the dynamic between the students and Riley, creating a community of practice that valued learning for all over content reiterated by students.

Additional Insights Arising From the Study

Three other considerations emerged based on the research conducted with Riley and her students that were not spotlighted in the separate manuscript chapters. I feel it is important to address them here.

Gauging Pedagogical Intentions

An important aspect of designing for making is remaining vigilant about the intentionality of pedagogy. Giving students choices of tools, working groups, and topics of study within the context of the broader curriculum is important for the development of the maker mindset (Dougherty, 2013). However, teachers may choose to mix canonical and non-canonical approaches to teaching when designing for making with their students. These approaches should be based on a presented need arising from the work and can incorporate instances of direct teaching as required.

Teachers should recognize and share with their students the benefit of using digital tools when making. These include opportunities for rapid prototyping of ideas, and the ability to

183

develop cross platform competencies. However, for both students and teachers, gradual and responsive implementation, with students taking a significant lead in the process, is paramount.

Given that, it is important that the focus remain on pedagogy first. Making a technology the linchpin of the activity elevates the tool over the process and can take away student choice in how they might explore a topic of interest. Designing for curricular learning around making with digital technologies can easily lead back to a traditional frame, where making is used to demonstrate knowledge of content for the teacher. Teachers must be diligent in continually questioning if their designs are focused equally on a sensemaking process, and product creation.

When making becomes too oriented on product, students and the teacher may focus on the exoticism of the tool, while disregarding the curricular learning that may or may not be happening.

As a designer of curricular learning opportunities for makerspace environments, Riley used “well-organized and easily accessed procedures, scripts, and schemas” (Schwartz,

Bransford & Sears, 2005, p. 27) to engage in a form of “disciplined improvisation” (Sawyer,

2005, p. 45), which pushed her beyond her established ways of doing and led her to develop

“adaptive expertise” (Schwartz et al., 2005, p. 27). The intertwining of design-based research and the makerspace environment provided two types of scaffolds “allowing students and teachers to jointly improvise their own collective path as they build their own knowledge” (Sawyer, 2005, p.

46). Remaining responsive and open to improvisation meant that at times we had to forego efficiency, that is the coverage of curriculum outcomes in preparation for the provincial exams, in exchange for the innovative, but often messy practice of becoming maker teachers. At other times, we focused on efficiency, by addressing curriculum outcomes within the context of making or as a stand-alone activity. Schwartz et al., (2005) advocate “that it is important to

184

balance efficiency and innovation in instruction” (p. 50). Riley’s well-established schemas provided some efficiency to our work and allowed us to operate within an “optimal adaptivity corridor” (Schwartz et al., 2005, p. 27) as indicated in Figure 8. There could be a tendency, when the focus remains strictly on the technology or content delivery to slide back to a more fulsome focus on efficiency, as opposed to a balanced approach.

Working collaboratively with the researcher also provided a fulcrum to stabilize tensions centering on efficient curriculum coverage vs the sporadic inefficiency required for innovative ideation when making.

frustrated adaptive expert novice maker teacher maker teacher

adaptivity

corridor with

supports

novice

Innovation routine expert maker teacher

Efficiency Figure 9. Innovation maker pathway using routine expertise. Based on the concept of adaptive expertise (Schwartz, Bransford, & Sears, 2005).

Riley, as routine expert teacher, utilized pre-established schemas in the makerspace. In particular these schemas included the ways in which she interacted and supported her students,

185

and her ability to create a culture of respect between the students, herself, and each other. This allowed her to enter the “adaptivity corridor,” which is now leading her on a path to becoming an adaptive expert maker teacher.

An aspect of the study that we did not anticipate but that needs further consideration are the multiple and diverse ways that students might share and engage with the broader world about their learning. This expanded communication and engagement imperative, in itself, might lead to a kind of sensemaking and could involve for example, initiating dialogue with discipline experts, sharing iterations on social media to engage feedback, or connecting with groups face to face in the local community in order to deepen understanding of topics of interest.

Experiencing Joy in Making

What is challenging to convey through writing is the joy that permeated all aspects of this study. Palmer (1997) stated “there are moments in the classroom when I can hardly hold the joy.

When my students and I discover uncharted territory to explore, when the pathway out of the thicket opens up before us, when our experience is illumined by the lightning-life of the mind – then teaching is the finest work I know” (p. 14). Riley and I experienced this joy and observed this joy happen with the students. As a collaborative teacher-researcher duo, Riley and I relished many gratifying moments in all phases of each cycle of the teaching and research. From our lengthy one-on-one design sessions, to enactments and problem solving in-the-moment, to reflective conversations after the fact, Riley’s comments acknowledged my delight when engaging in making with the students.

The joyful engagement in learning is not to say that our work did not involve struggle.

From start to finish, we recognized that designing curriculum for makerspace environments to be

“challenging work that will be difficult, that will prompt disequilibrium” (Boaler, 2015, p. 19)

186

but which also pushed our thinking and contributed to our learning. One of the most challenging aspects was bridging the need for students to develop procedural and conceptual knowledge

(Gresalfi, Barab, & Sommerfeld, 2012) to meet specific standardized curriculum outcomes, while engaging in making that was personally and meaningfully relevant.

Rantala and Maatta (2011), in conducting ethnographic research to determine what factors lead to primary students’ joy in learning, cited key conclusions that substantiate our experience. These factors include: 1) persisting successfully through challenges, 2) engaging in playful work, 3) participating in a setting that allows for self-determination, 4) allowing substantive time to independently explore ideas, 5) sharing in the social aspect of learning with multiple opportunities for explicit provision of immediate feedback, and 6) building on the knowledge students already possess. These factors also help to describe and make explicit the joy Riley and I experienced in collaborating together on design work. In developing our own community of practice, the two of us played, persisted, explored, created, and challenged our notions of what it means to be maker teachers, what it means to explore the curriculum as a living document, and how to transform pedagogy.

Additionally the two of us, along with the students, engaged in what we determined to be

“flow activities” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, p. 30), when designing and making. Together, we faced design challenges and we provided ongoing feedback throughout the process

(Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Jacobsen, Lock, & Friesen, 2013). When making, it appeared that as a learning community, we had a coherent awareness of our aim (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997), even though we were all approaching the provocations in unique and personal ways. Because of that, we became so engaged in learning tasks that we often lost track of time (Csikszentmihalyi,

1997). Csikszentmihalyi (1997) stated that “the flow experience acts as a magnet for learning –

187

that is, for developing new levels of challenges and skills” (p. 33). As we participated in successive making activities, we felt our ability to enter a state of flow became more natural and effortless. This flow space required cognitive and emotional energy but was also energizing as we engaged in “teamwork, planning, negotiation, decision making, diagnosis, synthesis, peer review, conjecture, reasoned judgement, creation, and innovation” (Jacobsen et al., 2013). There was an inexplicable feeling of joy that pervaded the work, the more we entered the space, which was evidenced by Riley’s comment as we participated in our third round of making: “This time we have them all.”

Following the conclusion of this researched cycle of design work and data gathering,

Riley has continued to send me text messages, photos, and videos of the work she and her students are conducting. She has invited me back to the classroom, not just to celebrate what she is doing, but also to continually problematize what she believes to be working, and what is not.

This ongoing desire for engagement indicates to me that though Riley is well on her way to being an accomplished maker teacher, continued support would deepen and extend her practice.

Accepting Tensions in the Research Process

There were advantages and disadvantages to advancing this research from a non-STEM perspective. Approaching the research work where all participants were learners contributed to the building of a unique learning culture, in that Riley and her students did not look to me as the knowledge expert. I think positioning everyone as a learner, teacher and researcher included, was key in developing an authentic community of practice.

As researcher, I acknowledge that had I entered the work with more deeply embedded

STEM knowledge, the design work may have been more efficiently and greatly realized. This mirrors the challenge for many elementary teachers in their day-to-day practice in that they do

188

not have access to STEM knowledge experts to guide them in designing rich tasks for curriculum engagement. That being said, for Riley and me, participating in STEM topics as learners ourselves provided for many “aha” moments related not just to pedagogy, but also about the big ideas in the STEM disciplines. I feel these moments of joyful discovery together could not be replicated had one of us entered the makerspace as the expert.

Gresalfi et al. ( 2012) have stated that “engaging critically with content” (p. 50) means this engagement must occur “procedurally, conceptually, and - crucially – consequentially with information” (p. 50). The authors also state that the overall aim in supporting students’ ability to critically engage is to develop in them “a disposition for intelligent action” needed for this work

(Gresalfi et al., 2012, p. 51).

The need for intelligent action does create a design dilemma for teachers and one that needs further consideration when supporting many elementary teachers in their learning in

STEM disciplines. While taking part in the work with Riley, I often thought that teachers at the elementary level would benefit from continuous professional development focused on building their understanding of the concepts underpinning STEM disciplines which could then assist them in leading their students to “intelligent action” (Gresalfi et al., 2012, p. 51). Additionally, linking the big ideas found across STEM disciplines could aid teachers in making connections that they could consider when designing for interdisciplinary learning.

Another tension was the choice to work with one teacher and her class over a long period of time, as opposed to several teachers at once. Riley, who at the time of the study was in her third year of professional practice, was highly skilled in terms of the way she interacted and considered the overall learning needs of her students. She had already assumed a leadership role on the staff and showed great interest and engagement in developing innovative teaching

189

methods. Gresalfi et al. (2012) declared that “it is only in the interaction between the tasks and the classroom norms that the opportunities to learn – and thus, the instantiation of intelligent action – are constructed” (p. 58). Thus, an enduring question that resided in my mind during and after the completion of the data collection was how much of what happened related to the activities conducted in the makerspace environment, and how much related to the “classroom norms” as established by the teacher (Gresalfi et al., 2012, p. 58). This question speaks to the need for further research.

Directions for Future Research

Based on the results from this study, varied opportunities for further research present themselves. Most obvious would be the reiteration of the research design to include multiple teachers in multiple and different teaching contexts. I envision a study with teacher participants working alongside researcher(s) in the creation of a community of practice attending to the design principles articulated in the current study, in which a comparison of tasks and classroom norms might yield further insights as to the scalability of the design principles.

Another possibility is teachers working to design and enact making activities hand in hand alongside STEM discipline experts to determine whether this approach provides insights into how teachers, along with their students, not only deepen their understanding of STEM topics alongside STEM experts, but also change teaching and learning practices and processes.

Questions related to epistemology should also be addressed. Though the outcomes from the current study showed ontologic development by the participants, abundant evidence determining epistemic growth did not present itself. A study exploring in detail how and what students come to know through making would be of benefit, particularly as related to discipline

190

knowledge. Further, exploring the criteria found in teacher designs for making may determine key characteristics that are necessary to develop students’ epistemic knowledge.

Related to epistemological considerations is assessment. Both Riley and I realized that assessment created a curriculum imbalance in our work. A research focus on epistemology could include new and different ways to envision assessment of, for, and as learning (Earl, 2012) in makerspaces. DBR as methodology can allow for the development and testing of multiple iterations of assessments and assessment tools, including the use of technology to document making processes and epistemological growth related to discipline and content knowledge, while encompassing insights on how that knowledge is applied and transferred. As discussed earlier in the document, scholars are developing frameworks for use in makerspace settings. The aforementioned frameworks could serve as scaffolds for implementation and future study into how learning takes place in makerspaces and how it might be documented.

Conclusion

I set out to study how a classroom teacher and her students might be supported in making to explore curriculum topics. My initial conceptual framework, presented in chapter three, does not begin to capture the complexity inherent in this work. The teacher, students, and researcher as individual agents interacted with curriculum individually and uniquely in the makerspace learning environment. This meant that within this complex system, approaches to design prior to, during, and after making were distributed and operationalized in personal and distinctive ways leading to feelings of agency and competence on the part of the participants. Capturing the essence not only of the complexity, but also the potential embodied in the maker work conducted in this study was a challenge, and one well worth undertaking.

191

The study findings indicate that there is possibility for the makerspace to serve as a powerful curricular learning environment not just for students, but also for teachers in promoting the present day competencies embraced by education ministries and policymakers. I would argue that given the values espoused in making and makerspaces, it is possible to adopt an approach to learning that promotes risktaking and learning from failure while attending to mandated curriculum. However, it is critical that teachers embrace this stance along with their students.

Using a design process to explore curriculum in the makerspace is one approach.

For all participants in the study, the research work we conducted led to an ontological shift in the ways we interacted and viewed ourselves as learners which carried over from the makerspace into the classroom, allowing us to deepen our understanding of what it means to be scientists, mathematicians, and learners. Approaching the design process in different ways, through 1) the creation of artifacts, 2) problem solving, 3) reflection, and; 4) sensemaking centred the work on learning, not teaching.

The implications from this study suggest that the makerspace as design artifact may assist teachers in constructing pedagogical knowledge leading them to imagine new ways to engage both ontologically and epistemologically with curriculum. Supporting teachers in developing expertise should be an important aspect of the work.

Though DBR as methodology yields limitations related to the time required to engage in design, enactment, reflection, and data analysis, it does provide a rich and authentic setting in which to learn about learning. For Riley as practitioner, it deepened her knowledge of the disciplines, and provoked her thinking about individual students, her own practice, and her ontologic presence in the classroom. More than that, DBR provided an opportunity for us to question how well our designs worked in relation to individual students, and within the context

192

of curriculum, and the learning environments of classroom and makerspace (Dai, Zhang, & Yan,

2012).

I anticipate that the insights gleaned from this study will add to the scholarly discourse on making as a way to engage in learning in elementary school settings. It is my hope that teachers, their students, and researchers can see how curriculum, explored with a design focus in the makerspace, can lead to opportunities to develop ontologically, intellectually, and joyfully.

193

References

Abd‐El‐Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on

students' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The

Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 37(10),

1057-1095.

Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness

of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International

Journal of Science Education, 30, 1945–1969. doi:10.1080/09500690701749305

Agency by Design. (2015). Maker-centered learning and the development of self: Preliminary

findings of the Agency by Design Project. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of

Education.

Ahmed, S., Wallace, K. M., & Blessing, L. T. (2003). Understanding the differences between

how novice and experienced designers approach design tasks. Research in Engineering

Design, 14(1), 1-11.

Alberta Education. (2011). Framework for student learning: Competencies for engaged thinkers

and ethical citizens with an entrepreneurial spirit. Retrieved from

http://open.alberta.ca/dataset/4c47d713-d1fc-4c94-bc97-08998d93d3ad/resource/

58e18175-5681-4543-b617-c8efe5b7b0e9/download/5365951-2011-Framework-Student-

Learning.pdf

Alberta Education. (2017). Curriculum development: Why change curriculum. Retrieved from

https://education.alberta.ca/curriculum-development/why-change-curriculum/everyone

/why-change-curriculum/

194

Alberta Education. (1996). Science Program of Study. Retrieved from

https://education.alberta.ca/media/159711/elemsci.pdf

American Society for Engineering Education. (2016). Envisioning the future of the maker

movement: Summit report. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.asee.org/

documents/papers-and-publications/papers/maker-summit-report.pdf

Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education

research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16-25.

Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal

of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12.

Appleton, K. (2006). Science pedagogical content knowledge and elementary school teachers. In

K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education: International perspectives on

contemporary issues and practice, 31-54. New York: Routledge.

Archer, B. (1979). Design as a discipline. Design Studies, 1(1), 17-20.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1989). Participatory action research and action science compared:

A commentary. American Behavioral Scientist, 32(5), 612-623.

Arthur, S. & Nazroo, J. (2003). Designing fieldwork strategies and materials. In J. Ritchie & J.

Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and

researchers (pp. 109-137). London: SAGE Publications.

Banks, L. R. (1985). The Indian in the cupboard. New York, NY: Avon.

Bakker, A. (2019). Design principles in design research: A commentary. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs

& M. Peters (Eds.), Unterrichtsentwicklung macht Schule (pp. 177-192). Wiesbaden, DE:

Springer.

195

Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning design

framework. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 21-24.

Barab, S. (2014). Design-based research: A methodological toolkit for engineering change. In R.

K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 151-

170). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Barab, S., & Duffy, T. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. Jonassen

and S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 25-56).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Barab, S. & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal

of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1-14.

Baroutsis, A., & Woods, A. (2019). Materialities, multiliteracies, and makerspaces: Design-

based experiments in teacher/researcher collaborations. In N. Kucirkova, J. Roswell, &

G. Falloon (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of learning with technology in

early childhood (pp. 248 -263). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Barron, B. & Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Prospects and challenges for inquiry-based

approaches to learning. In H. Dumont, D. Istance, & F. Benavides, (Eds.), The nature of

learning: Using research to inspire practice (pp. 199-216). Paris: OECD Publishing.

Retrieved from https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/the-nature-of-

learning_9789264086487-en

Barron, B., & Martin, C. K. (2016). Making matters: A framework for assessing digital media

citizenship. In K. Peppler, E. R. Halverson, & Y. Kafai (Eds.), Makeology: Makers as

learners (Vol. 2, pp. 45-63). New York, NY: Routledge.

196

Barton, A. C., Tan, C., & Greenberg, D. (2016). The makerspace movement: Sites of

possibilities for equitable opportunities to engage underrepresented youth in STEM.

Teachers College Record, 119(6), 11-44.

Becker, S. & Jacobsen, M. (2019). “How can I build a model if I don’t know the answer to the

question?”: Developing student and teacher sky scientist ontologies through making.

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(1), 31-48.

doi:10.1007/s10763-019-09953-8

Beetham, H. & Sharpe, R. (2007). An introduction to rethinking pedagogy for a digital age. In H.

Beetham & R. Sharpe, (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing and

delivering e-learning, pp. 1-13. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Bell, S. (2010) Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing

House, 83(2), 39-43. doi:10.1080/00098650903505415

Berland, M. (2016). Making, tinkering, and computational literacy. In K. Peppler, E. Halverson,

& Y. Kafai (Eds.), Makeology: Makers as learners (Vol. 2, pp. 196-205). New York,

NY: Routledge.

Bers, M. U. (2010). The TangibleK Robotics program: Applied computational thinking for

young children. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 12(2), n2.

Bevan, B. (2017). The promise and the promises of making in science education. Studies in

Science Education, 53(1), 75-103. doi:10.1080/03057267.2016.1275380

Bevan, B., Gutwill, J. P., Petrich, M., & Wilkinson, K. (2015). Learning through STEM‐rich

tinkering: Findings from a jointly negotiated research project taken up in

practice. Science Education, 99(1), 98-120.

197

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2010). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom

assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(1), 81-90.

Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital Fabrication and ’Making’ in Education: The Democratization of

Invention. In J. Walter-Herrmann & C. Büching (Eds.), FabLabs: Of Machines, Makers

and Inventors (pp. 203-221). Bielefeld: Transcript Publishers.

Blikstein, P., & Krannich, D. (2013). The makers' movement and FabLabs in education:

Experiences, technologies, and research. In Proceedings of the 12th International

Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 613-616). New York, NY: ACM.

doi: 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, NY: Routledge.

Blikstein, P., Kabayadondo, Z., Martin, A., & Fields, D. (2017). An assessment instrument of

technological literacies in makerspaces and fablabs. Journal of Engineering Education,

106(1), 149-175.

Bloomberg, L. D., & Volpe, M. (2012). Completing your qualitative dissertation: A road map

from beginning to end. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Boaler, J. (2015). Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing students’ potential through creative math,

inspiring messages, and innovative teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Boekaerts, M. (2010). The crucial role of motivation and emotion in learning. In H. Dumont, D.

Istance, & F. Benavides, (Eds.), The nature of learning: Using research to inspire

198

practice (pp. 91-111). Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://read.oecd-

ilibrary.org/education/the-nature-of-learning_9789264086487-en

Boudreault, F. A., Haga, J., Paylor, P., Sabourin, A., Thomas, S., & van der Linden, C. (2012).

Future tense: Adapting Canadian education systems for the 21st century. Retrieved from

http://www.actioncanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/TF2-Report_Future-

Tense_EN.pdf

Brahms, L. & Crowley K. (2016). Making sense of making: Defining learning practices in

MAKE magazine. In K. Peppler, E. R. Halverson, & Y. B. Kafai (Eds.), Makeology:

Makers as Learners (Vol. 2, pp. 13-28). New York, NY: Routledge.

Bransford, D., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience,

and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Brennan, P. (2017, February 23). Earth-size planets: The newest weirdest generation. Retrieved

from https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/earth-size-planets-the-newest-weirdest-generation

British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2015). BCs education plan: Focus on learning January

2015 update. Retrieved from http://www.bcedplan.ca/assets/pdf/bcs_education_plan_

2015.pdf

Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating

complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2),

141-178.

Bruce, C. D., Esmonde, I., Ross, J., Dookie, L., & Beatty, R. (2010). The effects of sustained

classroom-embedded teacher professional learning on teacher efficacy and related student

achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1598-1608.

199

Brydon-Miller, M., Kral, M., Maguire, P., Noffke, S., Sabhlok, A. (2011). Jazz and the banyan

tree: Roots and riffs on participatory action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 387-400). Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5-21.

Buchholz, B., Shively, K., Peppler, K., & Wohlwend, K. (2014). Hands on, hands off: Gendered

access in crafting and electronics practices. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21(4), 278-297.

Burger, J. M., & Krueger, M. (2003). A balanced approach to high-stakes achievement testing:

An analysis of the literature with policy implications, 7 (4). IEJLL: International

Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 7.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of

Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. (2014,

December). Tri-Council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving

humans. Retrieved from http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2-

2014/TCPS_2_FINAL_ Web.pdf

Carroll, M., Goldman, S., Britos, L., Koh, J., Royalty, A., & Hornstein, M. (2010). Destination,

imagination and the fires within: Design thinking in a middle school classroom.

International Journal of Art & Design Education, 29(1), 37-53.

Cermak-Sassenrath, D., & Møllenbach, E. (2014). Teaching to tinker: Making as an educational

strategy. In Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction:

Fun, Fast, Foundational (pp. 789-792). New York, NY: ACM.

doi:10.1145/2639189.2654827

200

Chan, M. M., & Blikstein, P. (2018). Exploring Problem-Based Learning for Middle School

Design and Engineering Education in Digital Fabrication Laboratories. Interdisciplinary

Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 12(2), 7.

Cheng, L., & Couture, J. C. (2000). Teachers' work in the global culture of performance. Alberta

Journal of Educational Research, 46(1).

Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A

theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218.

Christensen, K. S., Hjorth, M., Iversen, O. S., & Blikstein, P. (2016). Towards a formal

assessment of design literacy: Analyzing K-12 students' stance towards inquiry. Design

Studies, 46, 125-151.

Chu, S. L., Quek, F., Bhangaonkar, S., Ging, A. B., & Sridharamurthy, K. (2015). Making the

maker: A means-to-an-ends approach to nurturing the maker mindset in elementary-aged

children. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 5, 11-19.

Chu, S. L., Schlegel, R., Quek, F., Christy, A., & Chen, K. (2017). 'I Make, Therefore I Am': The

Effects of Curriculum-Aligned Making on Children's Self-Identity. In Proceedings of the

2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 109-120). New

York, NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/3025453.3025458

Clapp, E. P. (2017). Presenting a symptomatic approach to the maker aesthetic. Journal of

Aesthetic Education, 51(4), 77-97.

Clapp, E. P., & Jimenez, R. L. (2016). Implementing STEAM in maker-centered learning.

Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10(4), 481.

201

Collins, A. (1996). Design issues for learning environments. In S. Vosniadou, E. De Corte, R.

Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-

supported learning environments, (pp. 347-361). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and

methodological issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15-42.

Cowley, P. & Easton, S. (2018). Report card on Alberta’s elementary schools 2018. Vancouver,

BC: Fraser Institute.

Crichton, S. E., & Carter, D. (2015). Taking making into the schools: An immersive professional

development approach. In M. I. Niess & H. Gillow-Wiles (Eds.), Handbook of Research

on Teacher Education in the Digital Age, Vol. II, (pp. 412-439). Hershey, PA: IGI

Global.

Crichton, S., & Carter, D. (2016). Maker day toolkit 2. Retrieved from

http://innovativelearningcentre.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/

MakerDayToolKitver2reviseMay31e.pdf

Crichton, S. & Childs, E. (2016). Taking making into schools through immersive professional

learning. In J. Novotná & A. Jančařík (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th European

Conference on e-Learning ECEL2016, Prague, Czech Republic, 143-150.

Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221-227.

Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427-441.

Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. London, UK: Springer-Verlag.

Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Oxford, UK:

Berg.

202

C21 Canada. (2012). Shifting minds: A 21st century vision of public education for Canada.

Retrieved from http://www.c21.canada.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Shifting-Minds-

Revised.pdf

Cuban, L. (2013). Inside the black box of classroom practice: Change without reform in

American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Dahlberg, G. (2012). Pedagogical documentation: A practice for negotiation and democracy. In

C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Forman, (Eds.), The Hundred Languages of Children: The

Reggio Emilia Experience in Transformation (3rd ed., pp. 225-230). Santa Barbara, CA:

Praeger.

Dai, D. Y., Zhang, J. & Yan, Z. (2012). Epilogue: Where are we, and where are we going? In D.

Y. Dai (Ed.), Design research on thinking and learning in educational settings (pp. 270-

282). New York, NY: Routledge.

Davee, S., Regalla, L., & Chang, S. (2015). Makerspaces: Highlights of select literature.

Retrieved from http://makered.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Makerspace-Lit-Review-

5B.pdf.

Davies, H., & Kinloch, H. (2000). Critical incident analysis. In V. E. Cree & C. Macaulay (Eds.),

Transfer of learning in professional and vocational education (pp. 137-147). London,

UK: Routledge.

Davis, B., Sumara, D., & Luce-Kapler, R. (2015). Engaging minds: Cultures of education and

practices of teaching (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Davis, B., & the Spatial Reasoning Study Group. (2015). Spatial reasoning in the early years:

Principles, assertions, and speculations. New York, NY: Routledge.

203

Deloitte. (2014, May). Town of Banff economic prosperity strategy. Retrieved April 16, 2019

from http://banff.ca/documentcenter/view/2094

The Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm

for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education.

New York, NY: Macmillan.

Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York: Minton, Balch & Company.

DiSessa, A. A. (2001). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press.

DiSessa, A. A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design

experiments. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 77-103.

Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521-

532.

Dorst, K. (2010). The nature of design thinking. Retrieved from

https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/16590/1/2010000367OK.pdf

Dorst, K. (2010, October). The nature of design thinking. In K. Dorst, S. Stewart, I. Staudinger,

B. Paton, & A. Dong (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Design Thinking Research

Symposium (DTRS8), Sydney, 131-139.

Dougherty, D. (2013). The maker mindset. In M. Honey & D. E. Kanter (Eds.). Design, make,

play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators. New York, NY: Routledge.

Dumont, H., Istance, D., & Benavides, F. (2010). Executive summary. In H. Dumont, D. Istance,

& F. Benavides, (Eds.), The nature of learning: Using research to inspire practice (pp.

204

13-18). Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://read.oecd-

ilibrary.org/education/the-nature-of-learning_9789264086487-en

Dunne, D., & Martin, R. (2006). Design thinking and how it will change management education:

An interview and discussion. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(4), 512-

523.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House.

Earl, L. M. (2012). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student

learning (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal

of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105-121.

Eisner, E. (2005). Reimagining schools: The selected works of Elliot W. Eisner. Abingdon, UK:

Routledge.

Eriksson, E., Heath, C., Ljungstrand, P., & Parnes, P. (2018). Makerspace in school—

Considerations from a large-scale national testbed. International Journal of Child-

Computer Interaction, 16, 9-15. doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2017.10.001

Falk, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2009). Documentation and democratic education. Theory into

Practice, 49(1), 72-81.

Farris, A. V. & Sengupta, P. (2016). Democratizing children's computation: Learning

computational science as aesthetic experience. Educational Theory, 66(1-2), 279-296.

Fecho, B., Graham, P., & Hudson-Ross, S. (2005). Appreciating the wobble: Teacher research,

professional development, and figured worlds. English Education, 37(3), 174-199.

205

Fitton, D., Read, J. C., & Dempsey, J. (2015). Exploring children’s designs for maker

technologies. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design

and Children (pp. 379-382). New York, NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2771839.2771921

Fourie, I., & Meyer, A. (2015). What to make of makerspaces: Tools and DIY only or is there an

interconnected information resources space?. Library Hi Tech, 33(4), 519-525.

Freeman, A., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., and Hall Giesinger, C. (2017).

NMC/CoSN Horizon Report: 2017 K–12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media

Consortium.

Friesen, S. (2009). What did you do in school today? Teaching Effectiveness: A Framework and

Rubric. Toronto: Canadian Education Association.

Friesen, S., Clifford, P., Francis-Poscente, K., Martin, B., & Network, G. E. (2008). Learning

mathematics in an accessible classroom. Calgary, AB: Galileo Educational Network,

University of Calgary. Retrieved from http://galileo.org/wp-

content/uploads/2017/04/access_math_research.pdf

Froebel, F. (1885). The education of man. New York, NY: A. Lovell & Company.

Fullan, M., Hill, P., & Crevola, C. (2006). Breakthrough. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Galileo Educational Network (2017). Digital storytelling rubric. Retrieved from

https://www.galileo.org/tips/rubrics/ds_rubric.pdf

Gandini, L., Hill, L., Cadwell, L., & Schwall, C., Eds. (2005). In the spirit of the studio:

Learning from the atelier of Reggio Emilia. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., & Clay-

Chambers, J. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based

206

science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 45(8), 922-939.

Gershenfeld, N. (2005). Fab: The coming revolution on your desktop – from personal computers

to personal fabrication. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gierdowski, D., & Reis, D. (2015). The MobileMaker: An experiment with a mobile

makerspace. Library Hi Tech, 33(4), 480-496. doi:10.1108/LHT-06-2015-0067

Goodnough, K., Pelech, S., & Stordy, M. (2014). Effective professional development in STEM

education: The perceptions of primary/elementary teachers. Teacher Education and

Practice, 27(2-3), 402-423.

Gravemeijer, K. & Cobb, P. (2006). Design research from a learning design perspective. In J.

van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design

research (pp. 17-51). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. Handbook of

Educational Psychology, 77, 15-46.

Gresalfi, M., Barab, S., & Sommerfeld, A. (2012). Intelligent action as a shared accomplishment.

In D. Y. Dai (Ed.), Design research on thinking and learning in educational settings (pp.

41-64). New York, NY: Routledge.

Gutwill, J. P., Hido, N., & Sindorf, L. (2015). Research to practice: Observing learning in

tinkering activities. Curator: The Museum Journal, 58(2), 151-168.

Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard

Educational Review, 84(4), 495-504.

Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1990). Software design as a learning environment. Interactive Learning

Environments, 1(1), 1-32.

207

Harlen, W. (1997). Primary teachers' understanding in science and its impact in the

classroom. Research in Science Education, 27(3), 323-337.

Harlen, W. (2005). Teachers’ summative practices and assessment for learning–tensions and

synergies. Curriculum Journal, 16(2), 207-223.

Hawkins, D. (2012). Malaguzzi’s story, other stories, and respect for children. In C. Edwards, L.

Gandini, & G. Foreman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia

experience in transformation (3rd ed., pp. 73-80). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

Herrington, J., McKenney, S., Reeves, T., & Oliver, R. (2007). Design-based research and

doctoral students: Guidelines for preparing a dissertation proposal. In C. Montgomerie &

J. Seale (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia,

Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2007 (pp. 4089-4097). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Hetland, l., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan K. (2013). Studio thinking 2: The real benefits

of visual art education (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Hira, A., & Hynes, M. M. (2018). People, means, and activities: A conceptual framework for

realizing the educational potential of makerspaces. Education Research

International, 2018. doi:10.1155/2018/6923617

Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students

learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.

Holbert, N. (2016). The powerful ideas of making: Building beyond the curriculum. Journal of

Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 5(1), 30. doi:10.1186/s13731-016-0058-4

Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Agency and identity in cultural

worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

208

Hughes, J., & Morrison, L. (2018). The use of e-textiles in Ontario education. Canadian Journal

of Education/Revue canadienne de l’éducation, 41(1), 543-571.

IDEO. (2012). Design thinking for educators. Retrieved from

http://www.designthinkingforeducators.com/toolkit/

Jacobsen, M. (2014). Design-based research: Sponsoring innovation in education. Education

Canada, 54(5), 22-24. Retrieved from http://www.cea-ace.ca/education-

canada/article/design-based-research

Jacobsen, M., & Friesen, S. (2010). Hands on vs. hands up: Technology-enabled knowledge

building in high school. Education Canada, 53(1). Retrieved from http://www.cea-

ace.ca/education-canada/article/web-exclusive-hands-vs-hands-technology-enabled-

knowledge-building-high-sch

Jacobsen. M., Lock. J., & Friesen, S. (2013). Strategies for engagement: Knowledge building and

intellectual engagement in participatory learning environments. Education Canada,

53(1), 14-18. Retrieved from http://www.cea-ace.ca/education-canada/article/strategies-

engagement

Jardine, D. W., Friesen, S., & Clifford, P. A. (2006). Curriculum in abundance. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Johansson‐Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design thinking: Past, present

and possible futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), 121-146.

Johnson, B., & Halverson, E. (2015). Learning in the making: Leveraging technologies for

impact. Presented at the Interaction Design and Children IDC (2015) Workshop. New

York, NY: ACM.

209

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015

K-12 Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.

Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology

Research and Development, 48(4), 63-85.

Jurow, A. S. (2005). Shifting engagements in figured worlds: Middle school mathematics

students' participation in an architectural design project. The Journal of the Learning

Sciences, 14(1), 35-67.

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., Peppler, K., & Chapman, R. (2009). The computer clubhouse: A place for youth. In Y.

Kafai, K. Peppler, & R. Chapman (Eds.), The Computer Clubhouse: Constructionism and

creativity in youth communities (pp. 1-16). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

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: Taylor & Francis.

Kangas, K., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2013). Figuring the world of

designing: Expert participation in elementary classroom. International Journal of

Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 425-442.

Kelly, R. (2016). Creative development: Transforming education through design thinking,

innovation, and invention. Calgary, AB: Brush Education, Inc.

210

Klinger, D. A., & Rogers, W. T. (2011). Teachers' perceptions of large-scale assessment

programs within low-stakes accountability frameworks. International Journal of

Testing, 11(2), 122-143.

Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Wong, B., & Hong, H. Y. (2015). Design thinking for education:

Conceptions and applications in teaching and learning. Singapore: Springer.

Krippendorff, K. (2006). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. Boca Raton, FL:

Taylor & Francis.

Latta, M. M., & Crichton, S. (2015). Innovation's renewing potential: Seeing and acting

mindfully within the fecundity of educative experiences. Education and Culture, 31(2),

27-38.

Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning

and technology. New York: Routledge.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New

York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Leander, K. M., Phillips, N. C., & Taylor, K. H. (2010). The changing social spaces of learning:

Mapping new mobilities. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 329-394.

Lederman, N.G., Lederman, J.S., & Antink, A. (2013). Nature of science and scientific inquiry

as contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy.

International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(3), 138-

147.

Lederman, J. S., Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., Bartels, S. L., Meyer, A. A., & Schwartz, R. S.

(2014). Meaningful assessment of learners' understandings about scientific inquiry—The

211

views about scientific inquiry (VASI) questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 51(1), 65-83.

Legard, R., Keegan, J., & Ward, K. (2003). In-depth interviews. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.),

Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp.

138-169). London: SAGE Publications.

Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A. & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions,

and emerging confluences, revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage

handbook of qualitative research, (4th ed., pp. 97-128). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

Publications, Inc.

Linn, M. C., Bell, P., & Davis, E. A. (2004). Specific design principles: Elaborating the

scaffolded knowledge integration framework. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell

(Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 315-340). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Litts, B. K. (2015). Resources, facilitation, and partnerships: three design considerations for

youth makerspaces. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction

Design and Children (pp. 347-350). New York, NY: ACM.

Litts, B., & Ramirez, D. (2014). Making people fail: Failing to learn through games and making.

Proceedings GLS, 10, 160-166.

Lock, J., Redmond, P., & Becker, S. (2018). Makerspace assessment framework. Unpublished

manuscript.

Maker Education Initiative. (2015). Youth makerspace playbook. San Francisco, CA.

Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College

Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 5(1), 4.

212

Martin, R., & Martin, R. L. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next

competitive advantage. Brighton, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Martinez, S. L. & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the

classroom. Torrance, CA: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.

May, S., & Clapp, E. P. (2017). Considering the role of the arts and aesthetics within maker-

centered learning. Studies in Art Education, 58(4), 335-350.

McKay, C., Banks, T. D., & Wallace, S. (2016). Makerspace classrooms: Where technology

intersects with problem, project, and place-based design in classroom curriculum.

International Journal of Designs for Learning, 7(2), 11-16.

McKay, C. S., & Glazewski, K. D. (2016). Designing maker-based instruction. In C. M.

Reigeluth, B. J. Beatty, & R. D. Myers (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models,

volume IV: The learner-centered paradigm of education (pp.145-172). New York, NY:

Routledge.

McKenney, S., Nieveen, N., & van den Akker, J. (2006). Design research from a curriculum

perspective. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.),

Educational design research (pp. 67-92). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. Florence, KY:

Taylor and Francis.

McNeill, K. L., Katsh-Singer, R., & Pelletier, P. (2015). Assessing science practices: Moving

your class along a continuum. Science Scope, 39(4), 21.

McWilliams, J. (2016). Queering participatory design research. Cognition and Instruction, 34(3),

259-274.

213

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods

sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Montessori, M. (1912). The Montessori Method. New York, NY: Frederick A. Stokes.

Moorefield-Lang, H. (2015). Change in the making: Makerspaces and the ever-changing

landscape of libraries. TechTrends, 59(3), 107-112.

Moorefield-Lang, H. M. (2015). When makerspaces go mobile: Case studies of transportable

maker locations. Library Hi Tech, 33(4), 462-471.

Munby, H. (1989). Reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action. Current Issues in

Education, 9(1), 31-42.

Nadelson, L. S., Callahan, J., Pyke, P., Hay, A., Dance, M., & Pfiester, J. (2013). Teacher STEM

perception and preparation: Inquiry-based STEM professional development for

elementary teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(2), 157-168.

NASA (2017, February 22). NASA telescope reveals largest batch of earth-size habitable zone

planets around a single star. Retrieved from https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-

telescope-reveals-largest-batch-of-earth-size-habitable-zone-planets-around

NASA (2018, January 23). Hypothetical Planet X. Retrieved from https://solarsystem.nasa.gov

/planets/hypothetical-planet-x/in-depth/

Nathan, M. J. & Sawyer, R. K. (2014). Foundations of the learning sciences. In R. K. Sawyer

(Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 21-43). New York,

NY: Cambridge University Press.

Nehring, A., Nowak, K. H., zu Belzen, A. U., & Tiemann, R. (2015). Predicting students’ skills

in the context of scientific inquiry with cognitive, motivational, and sociodemographic

variables. International Journal of Science Education, 37(9), 1343-1363.

214

Newstetter, W. C., & McCracken, W. M. (2001). Novice conceptions of design: Implications for

the design of learning environments. In C. Eastman, W. Newstetter, & M. McCracken

(Eds.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 63-77). New

York, NY: Elsevier.

Niemeyer, D. J., & Gerber, H. R. (2015). Maker culture and Minecraft: Implications for the

future of learning. Educational Media International, 52(3), 216-226.

Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. New York,

NY: Basic Books.

Norman, D. A., & Verganti, R. (2014). Incremental and radical innovation: Design research vs.

technology and meaning change. Design Issues, 30(1), 78-96.

Norris, A. (2014). Make-her-spaces as hybrid places: Designing and resisting self constructions

in urban classrooms. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47(1), 63-77.

Oliver, K. M. (2016). Professional development considerations for makerspace leaders, part one:

Addressing “what?” and “why?”. TechTrends, 60(2), 160-166.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2016). 21st century competencies: Foundation document for

discussion. Retrieved from http://www.bcedplan.ca/assets/pdf/ bcs_education_

plan_2015.pdf

Owen, C. (2007). Design thinking: Notes on its nature and use. Design Research Quarterly, 2(1),

16-27.

Oxman Ryan, R., Clapp, E. Ross, J. & Tishman, S. (2016). Making, thinking, and understanding:

A dispositional approach to maker-centred learning. In K. Peppler, E. R. Halverson, & Y.

Kafai (Eds.), Makeology: Makers as learners (Vol. 2, pp. 29-44). New York, NY:

Routledge.

215

Paganelli, A., Cribbs, J. D., Huang, X. S., Pereira, N., Huss, J., Chandler, W., & Paganelli, A.

(2016). The makerspace experience and teacher professional development. Professional

Development in Education, 43(2), 232-235. DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2016.1166448

Palmer, P. J. (1997). The heart of a teacher identity and integrity in teaching. Change: The

Magazine of Higher Learning, 29(6), 14-21.

Papert, S. (1987). Information technology and education: Computer criticism vs. technocentric

thinking. Educational Researcher, 16(1), 22-30.

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic

Books, Inc.

Papert, S. (1996). A word for learning. In Y. B. Kafai, & M. Resnick, (Eds.), Constructionism in

practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world (pp. 9-24). New York, NY:

Routledge.

Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.),

Constructionism, (pp. 1-11). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

Parker, J., & Heywood, D. (2000). Exploring the relationship between subject knowledge and

pedagogic content knowledge in primary teachers' learning about forces. International

Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 89-111.

Peppler, K., and Bender, S. (2013). Maker movement spreads innovation one project at a

time. Phi Delta Kappan 95(3), 22-27.

Peppler, K., Halverson, E. R., & Kafai, Y. (2016). Introduction to this volume. In K. Peppler, E.

R. Halverson, & Y. Kafai (Eds.), Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environments,

(Vol. 1, pp. 1-11). New York, NY: Routledge.

216

Peppler, K., Halverson, E. R., & Kafai, Y. (2016). Makeology: Makerspaces as learning

environments (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Routledge.

Peters, E. E. (2012). Developing content knowledge in students through explicit teaching of the

nature of science: Influences of goal setting and self-monitoring. Science &

Education, 21(6), 881-898.

Peters, E. E., & Kitsantas, A. (2010). Self-regulation of student epistemic thinking in science:

The role of metacognitive prompts. Educational Psychology, 30(1), 27-52.

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. 50-69). New York, NY: Routledge.

Piaget, J. (1972). Some aspects of operations. In M. W. Piers (Ed.), Play and Development: A

Symposium (pp. 15-27). New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

Plomp, T. (2013). Educational design research: An introduction. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen

(Eds.), Educational Design Research (pp. 10-51). Enschede, NE: Netherlands Institute

for Curriculum Development.

Postman, P. N., & Weingartner, C. (1969). Teaching as a subversive activity. New York, NY:

Dell Publishing.

Powell, C. S. (2018, June 5). Here’s the answer that will finally settle the “Is Pluto a Planet?”

debate for good. (yeah, right). [Web log comment]. Retrieved from

http://blogs.discovermagazine .com/outthere/2018/06/05/the-is-pluto-a-planet-

debate/#.W3QttS0jmCc

Rantala, T. & Määttä, K. (2010). Ten theses of the joy of learning in primary schools. Early

Childhood Development and Care, 182(1), 87-105.

217

Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important?.Review of

Educational Research, 82(3), 330-348.

Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part I: A history of

instructional media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 53-64.

Resnick, M. (2007). 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 conference

on creativity & cognition (pp. 1-6). New York, NY: ACM.

doi:10.1145/1254960.1254961

Resnick, M., Berg, R., & Eisenberg, M. (2000). Beyond black boxes: Bringing transparency and

aesthetics back to scientific investigation. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(1), 7-

30.

Resnick, M. & Rosenbaum, E. (2013). Designing for tinkerability. In M. Honey & D. E. Kanter

(Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innnovators (pp. 163-

181). New York, NY: Routledge.

Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy

Sciences, 4(2), 155-169.

Robinson, C. (2007). Figured world of history learning in a social studies methods

classroom. The Urban Review, 39(2), 191-216.

Rush, L. S., & Fecho, B. (2008). When figured worlds collide: Improvisation in an inquiry

classroom. Teaching Education, 19(2), 123-136.

Rusk, N., Resnick, M., & Cooke, S. (2009). Origins and guiding principles of the Computer

Clubhouse. In Y. Kafai, K. Peppler, & R. Chapman (Eds.), The Computer Clubhouse:

218

Constructionism and Creativity in Youth Communities (pp. 1-16). New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.

Sadik, A. (2008). Digital storytelling: A meaningful technology-integrated approach for engaged

student learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(4), 487-506.

Saettler, P. (2004, 1990). The evolution of American educational technology. Greenwich, CT:

Information Age Publishing.

Saldana, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Sandoval, W. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design

research. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 18-36.

Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Educating for innovation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(1), 41-48.

Sawyer, R. K. (2014). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, (2nd ed.). New York,

NY: Cambridge University Press.

Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (2014). Knowledge building and knowledge creation: Theory,

pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the

learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 397-417). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Scheer, A., Noweski, C., & Meinel, C. (2012). Transforming constructivist learning into action:

Design thinking in education. Design and Technology Education, 17(3), 8-19.

Schon, D. (1983). The reﬂective practitioner. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Schön, S., Ebner, M., & Kumar, S. (2014). The maker movement: Implications of new digital

gadgets, fabrication tools and spaces for creative learning and teaching. eLearning

Papers, 39, 14-25.

Schrock, A. R. (2014). “Education in disguise”: Culture of a hacker and maker space.

InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 10(1).

219

Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., & Sears, D. (2005). Efficiency and innovation in transfer. In J.

P. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 1-

51.) Greenwich, CT: IAP.

Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of

science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature

of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(4), 610-645.

Sengupta, P., Krishnan, G., Wright, M., & Ghassoul, C. (2014, April). Mathematical machines

and integrated STEM: An intersubjective constructionist approach. In International

Conference on Computer Supported Education (pp. 272-288). Cham: Springer.

Sharples, M., de Roock , R., Ferguson, R., Gaved, M., Herodotou, C., Koh, E., Kukulska-Hulme,

A., Looi, C-K, McAndrew, P., Rienties, B., Weller, M., Wong, L. H. (2016). Innovating

Pedagogy 2016: Exploring new forms of teaching, learning and assessment, to guide

educators and policy makers, Open University Innovation Report 5. Milton Keynes, UK:

The Open University. Retrieved from http://proxima.iet.open.ac.uk/public/

innovating_pedagogy_2016.pdf

Sheridan, K., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B., 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.

Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-

189.

Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial, (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

220

Slatter, D. & Howard, Z. (2013) A place to make, hack, and learn: Makerspaces in Australian

public libraries. The Australian Library Journal, 62(4), 272-284. DOI:

10.1080/00049670.2013.853335

Stager, G. S. (2013). Papert’s prison fab lab: Implications for the maker movement and education

design. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and

Children (pp. 487-490). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2485760.2485811

Stager, G. (2017). Unconventional wisdom about the maker movement (Web log comment).

Retrieved from http://inventtolearn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/DA-MakerSpace-

article-by-Gary-Stager2.pdf

Stevenson, M., Bower, M., Falloon, G., Forbes, A., & Hatzigianni, M. (2019). By design:

Professional learning ecologies to develop primary school teachers’ makerspaces

pedagogical capabilities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1260-1274.

doi:10.1111/bjet.12743

Stone, E. M. (2014). Guiding students to develop an understanding of scientific inquiry: A

science skills approach to instruction and assessment. CBE-Life Sciences

Education, 13(1), 90-101.

Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Retrieved from

http://www.bie.org/object/document/a_review_of_research_on_project_based_learning

Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1990). Epistemological pluralism: Styles and voices within the

computer culture. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 16(1), 128-157.

Urrieta, L. (2007). Figured worlds and education: An introduction to the special issue. The

Urban Review, 39(2), 107-116.

221

van den Akker, J. (2013). Curricular development research as a specimen of education design

research. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational Design Research (pp. 52-71).

Enschede, NE: Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development. van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (2006). Introducing

educational design research. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney & N.

Nieveen (Eds.), Educational Design Research (pp. 3-7). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Volante, L. (2010). Assessment of, for, and as learning within schools: Implications for

transforming classroom practice. Action in Teacher Education, 31(4), 66-75.

doi:10.1080/01626620.2010.10463536

Volante, L., & Ben Jaafar, S. (2008). Educational assessment in Canada. Assessment in

Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15(2), 201-210.

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 psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning

environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5-23.

Wardrip, P. S., & Brahms, L. (2015). Learning practices of making: Developing a framework for

design. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and

Children (pp. 375-378). New York NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2771839.2771920

Wardrip, P. S., & Brahms, L. (2016). Taking making to school: A model for integrating making

into classrooms. In K. Peppler, E. R. Halverson, & Y. Kafai (Eds.). Makeology:

Makerspaces as learning environments (Vol. 1, pp. 97-106). New York, NY: Routledge.

222

Werklund School of Education. (2017, February). Werklund School of Education: Guidelines for

a doctoral manuscript based thesis. Retrieved from

https://werklund.ucalgary.ca/gpe/files/gpe/werklund-manuscript-based-thesis-guidelines-

april-8-2016.pdf

Westman, R. S. (2018). Nicholas Copernicus: Polish astronomer. Retrieved from

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nicolaus-Copernicus

Wiliam, D. (2010). The role of formative assessment in effective learning environments. In H.

Dumont, D. Istance, & F. Benavides, (Eds.), The nature of learning: Using research to

inspire practice (pp. 135-159). Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from

https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/the-nature-of-learning_9789264086487-en

Willett, R. (2016). Making, makers, and makerspaces: A discourse analysis of professional

journal articles and blog posts about makerspaces in public libraries. The Library

Quarterly, 86(3), 313-329.

Williams, D. C., Ma, Y., Prejean, L., Ford, M. J., & Lai, G. (2007). Acquisition of physics

content knowledge and scientific inquiry skills in a robotics summer camp. Journal of

Research on Technology in Education, 40(2), 201-216.

Willms, J. D., Friesen, S. & Milton, P. (2009). What did you do in school today?: Transforming

classrooms through social, academic, and intellectual engagement (First National

Report). Toronto, ON: Canadian Education Association.

Zaritsky, R., Kelly, A. E., Flowers, W., Rogers, E., & O’Neill, P. (2003). A view from sister

design efforts. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 32-34.

223

Appendix A: Analysis of Makerspace Research Articles

Table A1 Analysis of makerspace research articles (n) related to methodology, theme, and location (n= 43) Research Article Methodology Used Theme of Location (as stated) Article (Location of study, country of origin) American Society of Engineering Education. Report Overarching LR (2016). Envisioning the future of the maker USA movement: Summit report. Washington, DC.

Barron, B., & Martin, C. K. (2016). Making Quantitative Pedagogy HS matters: A framework for assessing digital survey (assessment) USA media citizenship. In K. Peppler, E. R. Halverson, & Y. Kafai (Eds.), Makeology: Makers as learners (Vol. 2, pp. 45-63). New York, NY: Routledge.

Barton, A. C., Tan, C., & Greenberg, D. Critical Equity and IE (2016). The makerspace movement: Sites of ethnography access USA possibilities for equitable opportunities to engage underrepresented youth in STEM. Teachers College Record, 119(6), 11-44

Bevan, B., Gutwill, J. P., Petrich, M., & Jointly negotiated Pedagogy IE Wilkinson, K. (2015). Learning Through research USA STEM‐Rich Tinkering: Findings From a Jointly Negotiated Research Project Taken Up in Practice. Science Education, 99(1), 98-120.

Blikstein, P., Kabayadondo, Z., Martin, A., & Quantitative Pedagogy HS Fields, D. (2017). An assessment instrument of survey (assessment) USA technological literacies in makerspaces and fablabs. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(1), 149-175.

Bowler, L. (2014). Creativity through" maker" Case study Pedagogy IE experiences and design thinking in the USA education of librarians. Knowledge Quest, 42(5), 58.

Brahms, L. & Crowley, K. (2016). Learning to Case study Pedagogy IE make in the museum: The role of maker USA educators. In K. Peppler, E. Halverson, & Y. Kafai (Eds), Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environments (Vol. 1, pp. 15-29). New York, NY: Routledge.

224

Buchholz, B., Shively, K., Peppler, K., & Qualitative Equity and IE Wohlwend, K. (2014). Hands on, hands off: research, surveys, access USA Gendered access in crafting and electronics interviews, video practices. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21(4), and audio 278-297. recordings

Cetin, I. (2016). Preservice Teachers’ Mixed methods Pedagogy PS Introduction to Computing: Exploring Turkey Utilization of Scratch. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(7), 997-1021.

Clapp, E. P., & Jimenez, R. L. (2016). Empirical Pedagogy Text Implementing STEAM in maker-centered approach to USA learning. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, deductive textual and the Arts, 10(4), 481-492. analysis

Cohen, J. (2017). Maker Principles and Quantitative Pedagogy, PS Technologies in Teacher Education: A survey engagement, USA National Survey. Journal of Technology and access, (pre- Teacher Education, 25(1), 5-30. service teachers)

Davee, S., Regalla, L., & Chang, S. (2015). Literature review Overarching LR Makerspaces: Highlights of select literature. USA Retrieved from http://makeredorg/wpcontent/uploads/2015/08/ Makerspace-Lit-Review-5B.pdf.

Fitton, D., Read, J. C., & Dempsey, J. (2015, Participatory Learning ES June). Exploring children's designs for maker design UK technologies. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 379-382). New York, NY: ACM.

Fordyce, R., Heemsbergen, L., Mignone, P., & Qualitative design, Tools and PS Nansen, B. (2015). 3D Printing and semi-structured technologies Australia makerspaces: Surveying countercultural interviews and communities in institutional settings. Digital online surveys Culture & Education, 7(2), 192-205.

Fourie, I., & Meyer, A. (2015). What to make Pragmatic and Pedagogy LR of makerspaces: Tools and DIY only or is reflective analysis USA there an interconnected information resources space?. Library Hi Tech, 33(4), 519-525.

Gierdowski, D., & Reis, D. (2015). The Description of Implementatio IE MobileMaker: an experiment with a Mobile design and n USA Makerspace. Library Hi Tech, 33(4), 480-496. implementation with preliminary findings

Gross, M. D., & Do, E. Y. L. (2009). Literature Review Pedagogy PS Educating the new makers: Cross-disciplinary USA creativity. Leonardo, 42(3), 210-215.

225

Gutwill, J. P., Hido, N., & Sindorf, L. (2015). Jointly negotiated Pedagogy IE Research to practice: Observing learning in research USA tinkering activities. Curator: The Museum Journal, 58(2), 151-168.

Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The Essay Overarching LR maker movement in education. Harvard USA Educational Review, 84(4), 495-504.

Harris, J., & Cooper, C. (2015). Make room Description Implementatio IE for a makerspace. Computers in Libraries, n USA 35(2), 5-9.

Johnson, B., & Halverson, E. (2015). Learning Design-based Tools and IE in the making: Leveraging technologies for research technologies USA impact. In IDC '15: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. New York, NY: ACM.

Justice, S. B. (2015). Learning to teach in the Narrative inquiry, Professional HS digital age: Digital materiality and maker Actor Network development USA paradigms in schools (Doctoral dissertation, Theory Teachers College, Columbia University).

Kafai, Y., Fields, D., & Searle, K. (2014). Design-based Equity and HS Electronic textiles as disruptive designs: research access USA Supporting and challenging maker activities in schools. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 532-556.

Kayler, M., Owens, T., & Meadows, G. (2013, Qualitative Pedagogy PS March). Inspiring maker culture through USA collaboration, persistence, and failure. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1179-1184).

Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the maker Description and Overarching LR movement for education. Journal of Pre- literature review USA College Engineering Education Research (J- PEER), 5(1), 4.

McKay, C., Banks, T. D., & Wallace, S. Description of Pedagogy HS (2016). Makerspace Classrooms: Where teacher design USA Technology Intersects With Problem, Project, project and Place-Based Design in Classroom Curriculum. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 7(2).

Michele Moorefield-Lang, H. (2014). Makers Case study Tools and IE in the library: Case studies of 3D printers and technologies USA maker spaces in library settings. Library Hi Tech, 32(4), 583-593.

226

Moorefield-Lang, H. (2015). Change in the Qualitative using Implementatio IE making: Makerspaces and the ever-changing interviews n USA landscape of libraries. TechTrends, 59(3), 107- 112.

Moorefield-Lang, H. M. (2015). When Case study Implementatio IE makerspaces go mobile: Case studies of n USA transportable maker locations. Library Hi Tech, 33(4), 462-471.

Odlin, S., & Fleming, J. S. (2014). Using Qualitative using Tools and HS Automata to Teach Science Concepts in questionnaire and technologies New Zealand Technology Education. International Journal observations of Science in Society, 5(3).

Oliver, K. M. (2016). Professional Literature review Professional LR Development Considerations for Makerspace development USA Leaders, Part One: Addressing “What?” and “Why?”. TechTrends, 60(2), 160-166.

Oliver, K. M. (2016). Professional Literature review Professional LR Development Considerations for Makerspace development USA Leaders, Part Two: Addressing “How?”. TechTrends, 60(3), 211-217.

Paganelli, A., Cribbs, J. D., ‘Silvie’Huang, X., Phenomenological Professional PS Pereira, N., Huss, J., Chandler, W., & quantitative development USA Paganelli, A. (2016). The makerspace approach using experience and teacher professional surveys, observer development. Professional Development in protocols, and Education, 1-4. leader reflections

Agency by Design. (2015). Maker-centred Qualitative Pedagogy Variety learning and the development of self: research, action USA Preliminary findings of the Agency by Design research Project. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Santo, R., Peppler, K., Ching, D., & Hoadley, Case study Implementatio IE C. (2015). Maybe a maker space? n USA Organizational learning about maker education within a regional out-of-school network. In Fablearn 2015. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

Scheer, A., Noweski, C., & Meinel, C. (2012). Case study Pedagogy HS Transforming constructivist learning into Germany action: Design thinking in education. Design and Technology Education, 17(3), 8-19.

Schön, S., Ebner, M., & Kumar, S. (2014). Literature review Overarching LR The Maker Movement. Implications of new Austria/USA digital gadgets, fabrication tools and spaces for creative learning and teaching. eLearning Papers, 39, 14-25.

227

Sheridan, K., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B., Case study Pedagogy IE Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T. USA (2014). Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 505-531.

Slatter, D., & Howard, Z. (2013). A place to Qualitative Implementatio IE make, hack, and learn: makerspaces in research, n Australia Australian public libraries. The Australian interviews Library Journal, 62(4), 272-284.

Vossoughi, S., & Bevan, B. (2014). Making Literature Review Overarching LR and tinkering: A review of the literature. USA National Research Council Committee on Out of School Time STEM, 1-55.

Wardrip, P. S., & Brahms, L. (2015, June). Qualitative Pedagogy IE Learning practices of making: developing a research, field USA framework for design. In Proceedings of the notes, reflections, 14th international conference on interaction and meeting design and children (pp. 375-378). New York, transcriptions NY: ACM.

Wardrip, P. S., & Brahms, L. (2016). Taking Qualitative Implementatio ES making to school: A model for integrating research, n USA making into classrooms. In K. Peppler, E. R. interviews, surveys Halverson, & Y. Kafai (Eds.). Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environments (Vol. 1, pp. 97-106). New York, NY: Routledge.

Willett, R. (2016). Making, makers, and Analysis Overarching LR, IE makerspaces: A discourse analysis of USA professional journal articles and blog posts about makerspaces in public libraries. The Library Quarterly, 86(3), 313-329. Note. LR = Literature review; IE = Informal learning environment; HS = High school; ES = Elementary school

228

Appendix B: Semi-Structured Teacher Interview Guiding Questions

What aspects of the curriculum spider web (van den Akker, 2013) are most challenging to address in the makerspace?

Does your ideal intended curriculum (van den Akker, 2013) live out in the makerspace and if so, how?

How successful were you at operationalizing the curriculum in the makerspace? What were the challenges? What were the successes?

Can the curriculum as you perceive it be interpreted for use in a makerspace? Why or why not?

Do you feel students attained the learning outcomes in the makerspace? Why or why not?

How do think students perceived the learning experiences in the makerspace?

In terms of learning goals, sequencing, learning approaches, and teaching methods, what was most successful, what was most challenging?

229

Appendix C: Semi-Structured Principal Interview Guiding Questions

Note: The interview questions asked of the principal were not part of the analysis presented in the thesis, however, they are included here.

How do you see this makerspace work impacting the culture of the school? Can you provide examples that would back up your claims?

Do you feel students attained the learning outcomes in the makerspace? Why or why not?

How do think students perceived the learning experiences in the makerspace?

How did other adults in the school perceive making for learning?

In terms of professional development, how would you describe the learning experience for the teacher?

Would you consider further implementation of making for learning? Why or why not?

230