1 Introduction
Maker education pedagogy is grounded in a long- and well-established history of thinking about how children learn and grow, epitomized in the philosophies of constructivism and constructionism (see Chapter 12 in this book by Fox-Turnbull).
Papert’s (1987) learning theory of constructionism could be considered the foundation of maker education pedagogy. Building on earlier educational theorists such as Rousseau, constructionism holds that pedagogies should derive from student interests, and they learn through embodied and making experiences.
Piaget’s notions of constructivism developed from Dewey’s emphasis on experiential and social learning, the idea of self-knowledge, inquiry based and self-directed learning. Piaget advocated a focus on what children are interested in, and what they are able to achieve at various levels of development, and what influences them to change their ideas.
These various elements of learning theory come together in the contemporary phenomena of maker movements, which started to become widespread in the early 2000s. This is however a coming together of convenience, as it was
A definitive history of the maker movement is yet to be articulated, but its social characteristics of community-building and collaboration distinguished it from previous versions of people simply making things (Burke, 2014). It has evolved from general community based approaches and become embraced by educators in museums, libraries and schools because of the synergies with educational theory.
However, some would argue that making and using tools is a defining characteristic of humanity, and consequently has been a significant and longstanding element of civilization. Debate remains about when humans first began using tools, but the evidence is that it was a long time ago. The modern maker movement is the most recent iteration of this very human activity, reinforced by a social community dynamic and by prevailing learning theory.
2 Pedagogical Themes
The basic characteristics of makerspaces provide some clues as to what pedagogies may be appropriate in this context, when the makerspace is an element of formal educational institution. These characteristics include:
- –Learning is meaningful (Smith, 2019)
- –Exploration and learning is self-directed and personal (Blikstein, 2018)
- –The environment is open
- –Failure is accepted (Smith, 2019)
- –Skill development is collaborative (Sheffield et al., 2017)
- –Thinking is activity based (Bevan, 2017)
- –Learning derives from hands on activity (Peterson and Scharber, 2017)
- –Learner has ownership over decisions (Smith, 2019)
- –Playing with ideas through tinkering (Becker, 2019)
These characteristics can be framed as a ‘Maker Pedagogy’, which is the enactment of the principles inspired by the maker movement grounded in design, artistic creation, ethical hacking, and adapting old devices for new uses (hack, adapt, design, and create) (Bullock & Sator, 2015).
A number of authors have rationalized the employment of making as an important pedagogy because of its efficacy in achieving broader education goals for student participants. Jay Silver (2016) references the concept of
A significant and recurring pedagogical theme in the makerspace literature relates to Design and Innovation. Maker spaces provide an ideal environment for the enactment of innovation in schools, including innovative pedagogy. Becker and Jacobsen (2020) identified four design decisions that emerged in the cycles of their research, which were determined to have the greatest impact on the teacher in terms of pedagogical growth:
student choice of topic and materials which led to more meaningful learning, choice of material and more flexible thinking;
students engaging in research to support making;
students and teacher implementing structured feedback; and
students and teacher modelling risk-taking; teacher risk-taking constitutes stepping back, students exercise more control over their learning and need the teachers less.
Evidence of these recurring design decisions and their influence on pedagogy are woven throughout the makerspace case studies in this book. The case in Kenya (Westerhof et al., Chapter 6) experienced a shaky beginning because there was little opportunity for student choice, an approach which is somewhat antithetical to the philosophy of makerspaces. The Delft University case (Chapter 9) indicates how the nature of the students final projects changed when students and teachers worked and researched together. The maker education community in Korea (Kwon, Chapter 7) illustrates the advances that can be made when teachers take risks together then implement feedback from those experiences.
3 Analytical Framework
Van den Akker (2013) developed a framework of ten components to address questions related to planning for student learning, illustrated in Figure 10.1. It
Framework of Makerspace Pedagogy (Van den Akker, 2013)
While not all the elements of the framework are directly related to pedagogy, they are all indirectly related and combine to form a structure that supports the pedagogical approach. Hence, in the consideration of makerspace pedagogy, all these elements are relevant.
The structure of the framework has an intent – the spiderweb indicates many inter-connections, which are necessary in order to maintain the integrity of the structure. The status of Makerspaces in schools is a relatively new phenomena, and in order for them to be sustainable, this framework implies that all the connections need to be maintained. Just like a spiderweb, the effectiveness of the web in functioning successfully is dependent on the balance between the connections. It can still work with missing connections, but not as effectively. So it is with Makerspaces, to be as effective and sustainable as they are capable of being, all the components need to be functionally linked and in tension.
Derived from this structure, the following are the suggested components of a Makerspace pedagogy for learning:
Rationale or Vision: Why are they learning? Aims & Objectives: Towards which goals are they learning?
Content: What are they learning?
Learning Activities: How are they learning?
Teacher Role: How is the teacher facilitating learning?
Materials & Resources: With what are they learning?
Grouping: With whom are they learning?
Location: Where are they learning?
Time: When are they learning?
Assessment: How to measure how far learning has progressed?
The following discussion will utilize these components as a structure for discussion, drawing on the case studies as illustration.
4 Rationale or Vision: Why Are They Learning?
The vision of the effects of makerspaces is varied and in some instances grandiose, but generally relates to either social or personal development of the participants. The goal of the case study in Kenya (Westerhof et al.), which involved culture-sensitive design and development of appropriate toys, was seen as a medium to support the participants social development. The initial concept was to create marketable toys to sell and use locally.
The Mexico case study (Núñez-Solís et al., Chapter 5) also had a social sustainability goal by applying Circular thinking to the problems generated by e-waste from obsolete electronic products. Eco maker kits were used to stimulate curiosity while at the same time developing technical skills. The notion of Invention Literacy was employed as a goal which refers to the ability to look at how the human made world works and have the technical and understanding skills to invent new things by solving problems of everyday life.
One of the rationales for the maker education case study in Korea (Kwon) was to demonstrate the true value of Technology Education, so in this case this goal is unrelated to personal development. In Korea, maker education has been introduced into the school curriculum, and the many similarities between maker Education and Technology Education have been recognized by technology teachers as an opportunity to reinvigorate and promote their subject.
The iCentre maker space in China (Gu and Yang, Chapter 8) is committed to the very lofty goal of making students dreams come true, fully unleashing their creative potential and creating a good atmosphere of creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship. This makerspace is situated in a higher education
The library makerspaces established throughout the Netherlands (Pijls, Van Eijck & Bredeweg, Chapter 4) had a dual rationale of providing activities which allowed children to experience new social roles, and also to develop their creative and technological skills. It targeted lower socio-economic areas in order to provide experiences which may otherwise not be accessible. The programs comprised digital fabrication and tinkering, designing, community-art and programming/coding; each of these often based on a theme.
The rationales for makerspaces are varied and context dependant. When the makerspace is located within an institution, they tend to be curriculum related and when they are community based, they include a social rationale which may relate to personal development or relate to the broader community.
5 Aims & Objectives: Towards Which Goals Are They Learning?
Many maker spaces have unclear learning objectives because they are not aligned with the curriculum, but are extracurricular. The free, designerly, self-discovery, tinkering characteristics of makerspaces do not lend themselves to be compatible with a structured school experience, when learning goals are more likely to be specified and assessed.
The Korean case study (Kwon) is an exception to this because the government is promoting maker spaces in school and Technology teachers have seen this as an opportunity to promote their subject. The core concepts of the Technology curriculum: efficiency, communication, adaptation, innovation and sustainability can be strongly related to Maker education.
The learning goal of the EcoMakerKits, utilized as the focus of the development of Circular Thinking in the Mexican case (Nunez) was to practice the 21st century skills of creativity, collaboration, communication, and critical thinking, while at the same time encouraging responsible citizenship through circular thinking. These were achieved by developing digital tools to create a melody played through a constructed Bluetooth loudspeaker and an electric ventilator using e-waste, then test the Bluetooth loudspeaker and the electric ventilator and reflect on their learning.
In some instances the Makerspace experience is recognized to complement discipline curriculum studies, by encouraging activities which would be difficult to structure within the timetabled school day. For example the Applied Physics case (Pols) in which students encountered unexpected problems they have to solve in a manner they are not familiar with in their education: fixing things that break or do not work requires a different approach from getting stuck in a theoretical assignment. In this case the Makerspace increases the sense of ownership in students by giving the tools to turn an idea into a physical thing.
An indication of the diversity of learning goals which can be achieved through Makerspace activities is clear from the case studies in this book, and is supported by the research of Emm and Hawkins (2020) which introduces a Bauhaus Makerspace design experience as a means of integrating multiple literacies and disciplines. Language literacy is developed through design and CAD activities through a multiliteracies pedagogy.
Many of the goals which are generally associated with makerspaces are evident in most of the cases presented in this book: creativity, technological literacy, collaboration. The specific goals of each makerspace are related to the rationale for their existence, and tend to be different depending on whether the location is in-institution or out-of-institution.
6 Content: What Are They Learning?
Because of the often high-tech focus of maker spaces, typified by ubiquitous 3D printers (for example the Korean case study), many tend to think that the goal of maker education is for pupils to learn how to operate digital technologies and produce tangible artifacts, but the design process and collaborative learning that takes place along the way are also important. Maker spaces can be places for collaboration, creativity and design, but also for critical reflection on how technology is currently transforming society. Through a range of activities, students can develop understanding about how the designed world came into existence, an important element of technological literacy.
Much maker education literature proposes that participants develop problem solving and creative thinking skills, attributes that all students need regardless of the vocation they pursue. This implies the easy transferability of such skills, but research indicates that these skills generally develop in context –
On the other hand, it is a challenge to design and implement maker activities characterized by innovative pedagogies and projects while working within the constraints of a standardized curriculum. A true makerspace offers student-driven opportunity for open-ended exploration (Fleming, 2018). The maker mindset (Jaatinen & Lindfors, 2019) of exploration, design thinking, action, human centred and collaborative is not entirely supported by many school structures.
While the library makerspaces in the Netherlands (Pijls et al.) specified goals related to technological skills and creativity, it was recognised that engagement by children resulted in the development of motivation, confidence and self-worth.
The Kenyan case study (Westerhof et al.) focuses on seven key design skills that are considered the most relevant for primary school pupils (Klapwijk, 2018):
- –thinking in all directions (divergent thinking),
- –developing empathy,
- –making productive mistakes (early and frequent iteration),
- –making ideas tangible (convergent thinking),
- –sharing ideas (communication),
- –defining your direction, and
- –making use of the process (meta-cognitive skills).
The Applied Physics program described in the case study by Pols and Hut is an example of using makes space activities to supplement mandatory courses which are included in the applied physics bachelor programme. The aim is to provide students the opportunity to develop skills in the combination and application of the content knowledge gained in the formal classes, in designing solutions to given problems.
The university based iCentre in China (Gu and Yang) includes activities related to metal processing technology, electronic technology, explosion-proof demining robot design, 3D printer design and production, intelligent home design and production, photovoltaic power generation, with the stated goal of supporting the popularization of science both within the university, and also as a resource for primary and secondary schools.
7 Learning Activities: How Are They Learning?
A tension within the methods of learning in makerspaces is epitomized by the experience of the case study in Kenya, where it was noted that students ‘initial curiosity towards what the design educator could teach them dwindled once it became clear that these [maker] workshops followed a strict task-based structure that felt like formal schooling’ (Chapter 6, this volume, in Westerhof et al.).
The tension here was between the expectations of a makerspace, a place where playful creativity, tinkering, adapting and personal problem solving take place in an unstructured environment, and the need for structured activity based learning in order to ensure equity of experience and specific externally established goal achievement. Unlike the Kenya case, these differences are particularly evident when a makerspace is encompassed within a school curriculum; when there are set goals to be achieved by the students in a makerspace, then structures are invariably introduced to help ensure the achievement of those goals.
An answer to this question: how students are learning?, may reflect a point of differentiation between a social makerspace, a general makerspace in a school and a technology education workshop. In Technology Education, activities are structured in order to facilitate student achievement of particular learning goals. Not that all students are necessarily following the same path to goal achievement, but an essential element is the constructive alignment of goals, pedagogy, activity and assessment. In a free and open school makerspace, no such alignment is necessary, although the elements of goals, pedagogy, activity and assessment may exist in some form. In a social makerspace (for example a community library) this alignment may not exist at all, and engagement may constitute the major goal.
The response to the problem of student disinterest in the toy making activity in Kenya was to restructure the makerspaces ‘to be inviting, have exciting relatable topics for the children, be fun to partake in, and give the children a sense of accomplishment’. Tangible design goals were set that were feasible to reach in a single workshop, assignments were relatable and interesting to a diverse group of boys and girls.
In the Kenya case, the emphasis of the workshop shifted over time from the end-product (available, affordable, sustainable toys) to the playful learning
In some instances, the nature of the makerspace determines the necessary pedagogy. For example, if the equipment available for use within the space includes sharp or powerful tools, or machines which are not intuitive (3D printers, laser cutters, welders, etc) then some form of structured pedagogy is necessary in order for the participants to effectively use the equipment. This form of tool and equipment learning maybe preparatory to engagement in a creative design process.
The characterization of makerspaces as collaborative communities of playful creativity, tinkering, adapting and personal problem solving is not reflected in all of the cases presented in this book. The focus on these characteristics very across different types of makerspaces, for example they are common in men’s sheds (Golding & Carragher, 2015) types of makerspaces which tend to be less structured and goal oriented.
8 Teacher Role: How Is the Teacher Facilitating Learning?
The teacher as learning maker (van Dijk et al., 2020) has a fluid role in makerspaces. A student centred approach with little intervention from the teacher, is sympathetic to both a constructivist and constructionist philosophy in maker spaces. However, if the maker education experiences are in-school and in-curriculum, then there may be a tension related to teacher pedagogy. This may require teachers to gain new knowledge about pedagogical strategies, such as Design Thinking, in order to implement new practices. Teachers must also develop knowledge about the technology and tools in the space, including how the tools function and how to troubleshoot when there are issues (Oliver, 2016).
The Kenya case study provides insight into how the teachers facilitated learning. It was recognized early that a culture-sensitive design approach (Van Boeijen & Zijlstra, 2020) was key to success. Constant dialogue was established between the education developer in Netherlands and local facilitator and organizer in Kenya, and because of this, all stakeholders could suggest changes or specific additions or omissions from the workshops.
Learning by doing through play was the focus of the educational developer in producing the digital instruction materials. Through play, the children explored
The Applied Physics support makerspace case study involved an iterative process, where students quickly build a prototype version, test it, make adjustments and then produce a better prototype. To support students in this process they had a mandatory meeting with a teaching assistant once a week. In this meeting they reported on progress made, tasks completed and how insights from the past week influenced future actions. The technical assistants were trained to push the students towards an iterative planning instead of a single production run.
Because the context in Korea includes government support for makerspaces in schools, and technology teachers have been proactive in maximising these opportunities, the strategies of the makerspace teachers are similar to technology education: exploring problems and implementing the process of solving problems using a range of materials, tools and equipment.
Teachers who participate in the development of a makerspace culture have indicated that their regular classroom culture has been impacted, with a consequent development of design thinking, and a focus on problem solving and brainstorming (Shively et al., 2021) within their non-makerspace classrooms.
Community based makerspaces may not employ teachers, but supervisors or coaches, so the basic assumptions related to teacher skills (pedagogy, behaviour management) may not be evident. The library makerspace coaches employed in the libraries of the Netherlands were librarians who underwent courses in pedagogy, maker education, digital fabrication and design, and needed continuous professional development.
Some maker teachers utilize competitions to achieve their educational goals because of the motivational aspects of competing, and the creative and designerly focus of many competitions. For example the iCentre space in China incorporates the following competitions: Comprehensive Ability of Engineering Training Competition, the Mechanical Innovation Design Competition, the Electronic System Design Competition, the Virtual Instrument Competition, the Construction Manufacturing Competition, the Energy-Saving Vehicle Competition, the Hardware Design Competition and the Digital System Innovation Design Competition.
The pedagogy of the makerspace teachers varies from those in a school setting where formal pedagogical training is an assumed prerequisite, to community makerspaces where the leaders or guides have had no pedagogical training
9 Materials & Resources: With What Are They Learning?
Although the perception of makerspaces include a predominance of digital resources such as 3D printers and laser cutters, the case studies in this book reveal a much broader variety of materials and resources.
The Chinese iCentre Innovation Workshop case study reflects this common perception with its focus on science popularization projects and equipment which includes an explosion-proof demining robot, a 3D printer, a smart home, a Smart Arm, a photovoltaic power generation system and other projects to support science popularization.
The Netherlands library makerspaces had consistent equipment across all ten sites: two or three 3D-printers, a laser-cutter, a vinyl-cutter, fifteen laptops, glue guns, two sewing machines, and pencils, paint, paper, etc.
The maker activity described at the Tianyi middle school in China focused on the design of a lamp and functioned in a special room in the school equipped with a large common tool section (pincer workbench, grinding wheel, polishing machine, drilling machine, wire saw, pistol drill, illuminator and other common equipment); a small tool section, requiring at least one group set (sharp-nosed pliers, diagonal pliers, scissors, straight screwdrivers, cross screwdrivers, large files, hobby knifes, tweezers, small files, internal heating type electric contact irons; and multi-meters.
The design and construction of toys in the Kenya makerspace began with the initial concept to create toys to sell and use locally, using local and found materials. When it became clear that found materials would not enable this, the pedagogies became flexible and focused less on the toy end product and more on creative and designerly making processes.
The EcoMakerKits case study also had a focus on sustainability by developing tangible solutions and alternatives and integrating Circular Thinking into the development of new sustainable products. The approach was project-based, to create artifacts made out of reused, repurposed or repaired objects.
The Applied Physics support maker education program arose from a perceived deficiency of student wasted time because of jury rigged solutions which improperly used everyday tools such as scissors, knives and miles of ‘duct tape’. The result was a perception that dedicated rooms (makerspaces) with tools and equipment readily available to students were needed. As a result, three rooms were found – a Maker room for quick production of prototypes using the latest tools such as 3D printers and a laser cutter, a Machine
The makerspace facilities and equipment are either structured in such a way as to facilitate achievement of the goals of the makerspace, or if the facilities and equipment pre-exist, then they may have a deterministic effect on both the activities within the makerspace and the outcomes achieved.
10 Grouping: With Whom Are They Learning?
The element of the constructivist underpinnings of makerspaces relevant to this component of the framework is that students construct knowledge based on their experiences and their interactions with others. This was a common theme of the case studies, particularly as it related to the development of procedural knowledge. Makerspace participants played and developed design knowledge together. However in those cases where the focus was on a final product rather than the process, some students worked individually rather than together. For example the lamp in China, the EcoKits in Mexico, the libraries in the Netherlands and the play produced artefacts in Kenya.
The only case which specifically addressed the nature of collaboration was the makerspaces which supported the university physics courses (Pols and Hut, Chapter 9, this volume). The students were given a lecture to help them develop strategies to work successfully together which focussed on effective communication (the content – process – relationship model). The students subsequently had to collaboratively draft a code of conduct, which was referred to (and reflected upon) when troubles in the functioning of the team arose.
11 Location: Where Are They Learning?
Fleming (2018) concluded that a great makerspace has six key attributes: it is personalized, deep (allowing deeper learning), empowering, equitable, intentional, and inspiring. It also needs to be a safe environment in which participants feel free to experiment and ask questions. These attributes provide no guidance in determining location, the location of a makerspace is determined by issues such as access, equipment, funding and availability.
Many makerspaces have developed as spaces for innovation within traditionally structured schools, but timetabling a single makerspace in a school for equitable access can be problematic (Shively et al., 2021) particularly when attempting to be innovative (Becker & Jacobsen, 2020). This is because it may
The location for the toys makerspace in Kenya was a community centre, which does not provide formal education, and children are free to come and go as they wish. This suited the purposes of the maker teachers. The makerspaces in libraries in the Netherlands were open to participants after school, and were often perceived by participants to complement the school curriculum by providing alternative activities not available at school.
The dual goals of the iCentre makerspace at Tsinghua University were to provide an interdisciplinary platform for innovation and entrepreneurship education for the university students, and a real engineering environment for primary and secondary school students. This has resulted in the development of an innovation workshop, a mechanical workshop and an electronic craft workshop, facilities which directly support the goals of the makerspace activities.
In the other university based case in this book, the makerspace supporting the Applied Physics program at Delft (Pols and Hut), specialized rooms were also developed to house the maker activities: a Maker room, a Machine room and an Assembly room.
Makerspaces can be affective if they are purposely designed to support the anticipated activity (such as in a university or school) but can also be effective if an existing setting is repurposed or adapted to makerspace activities (such as a community centre or a library).
12 Time: When Are They Learning?
The timing of learning in makerspaces is not a significant element in the analysis of maker pedagogy. This is confirmed by the fact that none of the case studies considered the issue of when the participants were learning in their discussion of their experiences. Institutionally based makerspaces are open within predetermined times, community based makerspaces tend to be operational outside of school times.
13 Assessment: How to Measure How Far Learning Has Progressed?
Assessing students’ learning requires opportunities for students to share products (Jaatinen & Lindfors, 2019), reflect upon processes (Bevan et al., 2015; Shively et al., 2018), and demonstrate what has been learned (Christensen,
For example in the case study from China, guidance is provided by the General Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic related to the goals of innovative makerspaces:
- –stimulate students’ awareness of innovation and entrepreneurship,
- –cultivate the mindset of creators, the entrepreneurial spirit of all students to think hard, question well, and dare to challenge authority,
- –cultivate a culture of innovation,
- –stimulate students’ entrepreneurial motivation, entrepreneurial interest, and entrepreneurial ideas, and
- –enhance students’ market awareness, business awareness, and risk awareness.
Despite these goals, the Green Energy-saving Lamp project is evaluated based on the final product.
In the Applied Physics maker education support case study, the students had to make (build) the solution they proposed based on their design. Some of the goals were to
- –cooperate and work effectively in groups
- –report and present a design
- –make 2D (vector) and 3D models
The students are assessed as normal for the physics courses which the makerspace supports, but the teachers have found that since the inclusion of the Makerspace, students are more enthusiastic about the course in general and their project in particular, they have an increased sense of ownership, because the makerspace allows them to more rapidly test if their ideas work, speeding up the design cycle.
The goals of the Mexico case study were to foster sustainability awareness and stimulate circular thinking. A final activity in this case study was for the participants to evaluate and self-assess their understanding and knowledge based on the rubrics from the first self-assessment activity and to reflect on their learning by answering the questions:
- –What did you learn?
- –What made you curious?
- –What worked well?
- –
What did not work? - –What else would you like to learn?
This enabled the maker teachers to understand the perceived effectiveness of the project from the students. They concluded that the combination of all activities helped to raise awareness of Circular Thinking, grasp the concept of e-waste and develop technical skills that could help them to expand their Maker Mindset.
The library makerspaces in the Netherlands also depended on participant self-reflection for assessment, and while this was invariably positive, it did not indicate if the goals of the program related to personal and social development, creativity and technological literacy were being achieved.
It is difficult to assess those goals often associated with makerspaces such as creativity, cooperation and innovation; and consequently they are not assessed in the majority of cases. In addition, because of the informal nature of many makerspaces, particularly those which are community based, and the lack of assessment literacy of the makerspace coordinators, little attention is given to assessment.
14 Conclusion
In all of the elements of the pedagogical framework discussed above, there is no single consistent conclusion to be made because of the fundamental diversity of approaches: rationales, objectives, pedagogies, content and activities, locations and assessment are all diverse. Those readers seeking a pedagogical template for a successful makerspace will be disappointed. This diversity is a strength of the makerspace movement; the only fundamental commonalities seem to be active learning through concrete material (see Chapter 11 on Materiality by Mehto & Kangas) experiences.
References
Becheikh, N., Ziam, S., Idrissi, O., Castonguay, Y., & Landry, R. (2010). How to improve knowledge transfer strategies and practices in education? Answers from a systematic literature review. Research in Higher Education Journal, 7, 1.
Becker, S. (2019). Becoming makers: A designed-based research study investigating curriculum implementation through making. [Dissertation, University of Calgary].
Becker, S., & Jacobsen, M. (2020). Becoming a maker teacher: Designing making curricula that promotes pedagogical change. Frontiers in Education, 5(83). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00083
Bevan, B. (2017). The promise and the promises of making in science education. Studies in Science Education, 53, 75–103. https://doi.org/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.
Bullock, S. M., & Sator, A. J. (2015). Maker pedagogy and science teacher education. Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, 13(1), 61–87.
Burke, J. J. (2014). Makerspaces: A practical guide for librarians (Vol. 8). Rowman & Littlefield.
Christensen, K. S., Hjorth, M., Iversen, O. S., & Smith, R. C. (2019). Understanding design literacy in middle-school education: Assessing students’ stances towards inquiry. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(4), 633–654.
Emm, A., & Hawkins, D. (2020). From Bauhaus to makerspace: Meaning design and computer-aided design in introductory German. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 53(2), 138–150.
Fleming, L. (2018). Pedagogy, not passing trend. School Library Journal, New York, 64(5): 33.
Golding, B., & Carragher, L. (2015). Community men’s sheds and informal learning. In J. Ostrouch-Kamińska & C. C. Vieira (Eds.), Private world(s) (pp. 103–118). Sense Publishers.
Jaatinen, J., & Lindfors, E. (2019). Makerspaces for pedagogical innovation processes: How Finnish comprehensive schools create space for makers. Design and Technology Education, 24(2).
Klapwijk, R. M. (2018). Formative assessment of creativity. In M. J. De Vries (Ed.), Handbook of technology education (pp. 765–784). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44687-5_55
Oliver, K. M. (2016). Professional development considerations for Makerspace leaders, part one: Addressing “What?” and “Why?” TechTrends, 60(2), 160–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0028-5
Papert, S. (1987). A critique of technocentrism in thinking about the school of the future. http://www.papert.org/articles/ACritiqueofTechnocentrism.html
Peterson, L., & Scharber, C. (2017). Learning about makerspaces: Professional development with K12 inservice educators. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 34(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2017.1387833
Sheffield, R., Koul, R., Blackley, S., & Maynard, N. (2017). Makerspace in STEM for girls: A physical space to develop twenty-first-century skills. Educational Media International, 54(2), 148–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2017.1362812
Shively, K., Stith, K., & Rubenstein, L. (2021). Ideation to implementation: A 4-year exploration of innovating education through maker pedagogy. The Journal of Educational Research, 114(2), 155–170, https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2021.1872472
Silver, J. (2016). Invention literacy. https://medium.com/startup-grind/invention-literacy-5915a411e29d
Smith, S., Wakefield, A., & Talley, K. (2019). Facilitating makerspace adoption: Professional development for university faculty in making techniques and pedagogy [ASEE conference paper 25151].
Van Boeijen, A. G. C., Daalhuizen, J. J., & Zijlstra, J. J. M. (Eds.). (2020). Delft design guide: Perspectives, models, approaches and methods (2nd ed.). BIS Publishers.
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). Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development.
Van Dijk, G., Arjan van der Meij, A., & Savelsbergh, E. (2020). Maker education: Opportunities and threats for engineering and technology education. In P. J. Williams & D. Barlex (Eds.), Pedagogy for technology education in secondary schools. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41548-8_5
Zhu, Z. T., & Luo, L. (2015). From maker movement to maker education: Cultivating mass innovation culture. Research on Audio-visual Education, 3(7), 5–13.