MakEY in the Community

Project Report January 2019

Contents

Cite as:

Marsh, J., Kay, L. and Bradley, K. (2018). MakEY in the Community: Project Report. Sheffield: University of Sheffield.

Page

Introduction 3

Makerspaces in Community Settings 5

Broomhall Community Centre Project 12

Main Findings 17

Conclusion 26

References 29

Appendix 1: MakEY Assessment Pro-forma

35

Introduction

1.1 Background to the project

The ‘MakEY’ project (Makerspaces in the Early Years: Enhancing Digital Literacy and Creativity) is an EU-funded project led by the University of Sheffield’s School of Education. It aims to explore the role and value of makerspaces for children’s learning. Sheridan et al. (2014:507) suggest that, ‘Makerspaces are comprised of participants of different ages and levels of experience who work with varied media, but a commonality is that these spaces all involve making: developing an idea and constructing it into some physical or digital form’.

Makerspaces are commonly found in open access spaces in city centres, which are sometimes known as Fab Labs, or Hackspaces, but are increasingly popular in community centres, schools, museums and libraries, particularly in North America, which has been embracing the ‘Maker Movement’ since the early 2000s. The Maker Movement is a grassroots movement fostered by DIY enthusiasts, hackers and makers, and it emphasises the value of individuals being active creators rather than solely passive consumers of products. Makerspaces have potential to foster children’s development of skills and knowledge relating to science, technology, engineering and mathematics in both formal and non-formal learning spaces (Marsh et al., 2017).

This project was focused on the provision of a makerspace in a community setting, a non-formal learning space. Although there has been a range of research on the value of the provision and makerspaces in community centres and community spaces, the majority of this research is being conducted in North America, and with older children. The aim of the ‘MakEY in the Community’ project, therefore, was to investigate the potential makerspaces have to engage children in making in community-based settings. The project was funded by the University of Sheffield, and took place from May to October 2018.

The research questions underpinning the project were as follows:

!3

i.What is the value of a community-based makerspace for children?

ii.What are the challenges faced in offering this provision?

iii.What are the implications of this project for further work in this area?

In this report, literature relating to the provision of makerspaces in community settings is reviewed, before an overview of the project is outlined. The report concludes with recommendations for future research, policy and practice.

!4

Makerspaces in Community Settings

2.1 STEM/STEAM and the Makerspace Movement

In 2011 Google’s executive chairman, Eric Schmidt, gave a lecture declaring that, beginning with education, the UK needed to ‘bring art and science back together’ and ‘reignite children’s passion for science, engineering and maths’. Traditionally, the Arts and Sciences have been perceived as ‘disciplinary silos’, and as a way of ‘driving innovation and growth in the UK’s creative economy’ there have been calls to encourage schools and universities to bring the two disciplines together (Bakhshi & Mateos-Garcia, 2014). Jenlink (2015) argues that in the modern world we can no longer ‘safely reside’ in these ‘disciplinary silos’, and that the focus should be on the integration of experiences, academics and society aimed towards the future within which young people will exist (p.200).

The disciplines that make up STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) are viewed as ‘separate domains of knowledge’ tied together for the role they play within the economies of the technological world (Isabelle & Valle, 2015, p.1). Conversely, STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics) is an ‘interdisciplinary learning method where rigorous academic concepts are coupled with artistic works and cultural practices’ and students apply their subject knowledge within contexts that ‘make connections between school, community, personal interests, and the global marketplace’ (Gaskins, 2014, p.79). The Organisation for Economic and Co-operative Development (OECD) (2012) acknowledges that, ‘Today’s workplaces demand people who can solve non-routine problems’ (p.26). It is argued that the STEAM initiative is a useful vehicle for enabling students to use more creative skills to ‘simultaneously decompose a complex problem using convergent thinking and then apply the corresponding solution to the real world uses divergent thinking’ (Land, 2013, p.552).

!5

A current and successful approach to STEM/STEAM is the ‘makerspace’ movement that takes place across a range of contexts including classrooms, libraries, and museums. ’Makerspaces’ are specially-designed pedagogical spaces that enable participants to ‘create a range of artefacts using specialist tools and resources, such as electronics, laser cutters, 3D printers, in addition to everyday resources, both digital and non-digital’ (Marsh et al., 2017, p.7). A key factor of the movement is to provide a hands-on learning experience to encourage engagement in STEM activities, particularly for girls and other under-represented groups in science, emphasising the idea that every child can be an innovator (Hughes, 2017, p.2). Julian and Parrott (2017) assert that ‘the ideal ‘makerspace’ session should provide opportunities to encourage students to ‘think about things they may never have considered’ (p.16).

2.2 Makerspaces and Transversal Skills

Curriculum reform in England for both the primary and secondary sector has given increasing significance to ICT, highlighting an ‘explicit recognition of the increasing digitisation of the world’ (Hague & Payton, 2010, p.15). However, it is argued that if education seeks to prepare young people to make sense of the modern world then it is important that the social and cultural practices of digital literacies, and the opportunities these provide, are recognised (p.3). Land (2013) states that, ‘Progress does not come from technology alone but from the melding of technology and creative thinking through art and design’ (p.548). The integration of Art and STEM has been gaining momentum as research exploring 21st century workforce competencies has highlighted creativity, innovation, problem-solving, critical thinking, and collaboration as being critical to achieving a more productive and sustainable economy (Allina, 2018, p.80). Different terms have been used to encapsulate these competencies including 21st century skills, soft skills, core skills, basic skills, and non-cognitive skills (Care & Luo, 2016; ESCO, 2018). In 2012, Asia-Pacific Education Research Institutes Network (ERI-Net) defined these skills as ‘transversal competencies’ (TVC) which refer to ‘knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes that are integral to life in the 21st century’ (Care & Luo, 2016, p.2).

!6

Voogt et al. (2010) also identified ICT literacy and social and cultural skills as most commonly mentioned in the different existing conceptual frameworks that define 21st century skills (p.i).The development of the ‘global knowledge society’ and the prevalence of ICT makes the acquisition of digital skills a necessity. The ability to search and evaluate information, solve problems, exchange ideas and develop ideas in a digital context are perceived as essential skills for employment (van Laar et al., 2017, p.578). Ferrari (2013) argues that digital competence ‘should be acquired by all citizens, to ensure their active participation in society and the economy’ (p.2). However, Tan and Barton (2008) suggest that references to such terms as ‘global citizens’ and the ‘knowledge economy’, masks ‘the inequitable distribution of resources and opportunities afforded only to certain students’, and re-enforces the view that all students start from a level playing field (p.47).

Recent research carried out by Blackley et al. (2018) which used a makerspace to engage Indonesian primary students with STEM found that in the workshop, students demonstrated the ‘21st century skills’ of ‘collaboration, communication and problem solving’ (p.37) through a process of ‘asking questions, explaining ideas, and applying knowledge’ to the scientific activity (p.36). Whilst the use of makerspaces in community spaces is a under-researched area, this highlights potential advantages for the engagement of marginalised groups in STEM activities and scope for further research in this area.

2.3 Makerspaces and Marginalised Groups

Whilst the makerspace phenomenon is gaining momentum on a global level, there is a lack of empirical work to substantiate the arguments put forward that makerspaces have the potential to ‘tackle social inequity’ (Scott, 2017, p.92) through the engagement of marginalised groups in STEM/STEAM subjects. A recent BERA review exploring the potential and the challenges of developing STEAM education through creative pedagogies recommended that ‘the impact of STEAM projects on pupils from lower socioeconomic groups and its potential for improving engagement with STEM subjects’ should be investigated in more depth (Colucci-Gray, 2017, p.10).

!7

The government has been urged to place the arts along with science, technology and maths, at the heart of the education system, in order to create a sustainable and diverse workforce and ensure the future success of the UK (CIF, 2015). However, The Warwick Commission (2015) highlighted how there has been a significant decline in the number of state schools offering arts subjects taught by specialist teachers and, since 2010, subjects such as art, drama, and design and technology have seen a reduction in teachers and hours of teaching. The report goes on to assert that ‘without educational intervention’ there is a danger the ‘voices, talent and experiences given expression in the Cultural and Creative Industries will be impoverished and increasingly limited to the most social and economically advantaged groups’ (p.47).

This is further exacerbated by issues surrounding the engagement of girls and other marginalised groups in STEM subjects. Research carried out by the Aspires project (Archer et al., 2013) funded by the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) found that gender issues in science related subjects are evident from a young age. Girls are less likely than boys to aspire to a career in science, even though a higher percentage of girls than boys rate science as their favourite subject, and are much more likely to want to follow a career in the arts, or the caring professions (p.3). Whilst there is an upward trend with more women working in STEM than ever before, in 2017 there were still only 23 percent of women working in core STEM industries (Wise Campaign, 2017).

Banerjee (2017) argues that ‘attainment and participation in STEM subjects is known to be stratified by socio-economic status, ethnicity and other pupil background characteristics’ (p.203). Research exploring what influences the likelihood of a young person choosing a science-related career found that women, working-class, and some minority ethnic groups remain under-represented, especially in the physical sciences and engineering (ASPIRES, 2013, p.1). The findings of Archer, DeWitt, Osbourne et al. (2012) illuminate how working-class White and Black families do not lack interest in science, rather it is ‘very weakly woven into children’s home lives with little supporting science capital and a marked lack of out-of-school science activities’ (p.901).

In England, the Creative Learning Alliance argues that STEAM has the potential to improve the general attainment of young people, to increase innovation, and to motivate young people to pursue careers in STEM subjects (Colucci-Gray et al., 2017,

!8

p.28). The fundamental basis for ‘makerspaces’ is that anybody can be a maker, regardless of class, race, religion, and gender, and the movement has gained momentum due to its potential role in ‘breaking down barriers to learning and attainment in STEM (Barton, et al., 2016, p.3). However, little research has been undertaken focusing on how the maker movement and STEAM projects might address the ability to increase the participation of marginalised groups in STEM, particularly those from disadvantaged ethnic minority groups, and women (Colucci-Gray et al., 2017, p.10). Findings from the Aspires Project (Archer, Osbourne and DeWitt, 2012) highlight the need for collaboration between schools and external agencies in order to explore ways of enhancing children’s and families’ science capital and career aspirations.

2.4 Makerspace as a Creative Pedagogy

The Practical Work for Learning project (Nuffield Foundation, 2012) asserts that practical work where teaching and learning is active and participatory is the most significant factor in promoting attitudes towards science (p.2). Importantly, in makerspaces there is a shift away from the concept of individual learner, and learning is a ‘type of social interaction, rather than a cognitive activity’ where a community is built on a common goal and the development of particular practices. ‘Hands on’ and ‘experiential’ learning work alongside the role of social interactions, and the sharing of knowledge within the community, are key aspects of the makerspace (Willett, 2016, p.7).

Recent research has begun to look at how learning can be achieved through makerspaces, and Curry (2017) states that:

Through participation in open access learning environments outside of restrictive normative curriculum structures, each makerspace potentially provides a cross disciplinary experiential learning space that fosters innovation and creativity and allows for self-efficacy to be developed through self-directed learning opportunities in a productive, mutually supportive community environment (p.210).

!9

Julian and Parrot (2017) argue that the curriculum is a primary factor that needs to be considered when developing a makerspace as they must support academic objectives, and therefore it is crucial that the planning and utilisation of tools and activities ensure that science and technology needs are met (p.15). However, the benefits of carrying out makerspace programmes across a range of provision, including libraries and museums, is that they can use ‘a range of learning and teaching styles and structures’ (Willett, 2016, p.12). This has enabled facilitators to be innovative and creative with the methods they have used to engage young people in makerspace activities, particularly those from marginalised communities.

Adjapong (2017) argues that since the turn of the 20th century, the teaching of science has been ‘monocultural’, which benefits middle-class White students, whilst failing to provide quality instruction for marginalised students who come from culturally diverse backgrounds (p.7). In order to engage young people from culturally diverse backgrounds, innovative pedagogical approaches have been utilised as a way of connecting with student’s cultural and lived experiences, and ‘teaching to their realities and experiences’ (Adjapong, 2017, p.7). As a way of working with marginalised groups, recent projects undertaken have used a variety of creative approaches including comics, ‘Hip-Hop pedagogies’, culturally relevant storytelling, clothing design projects, and digital art making (Adjapong, 2017; Barton et al., 2016; Hunter-Doniger et al., 2018; Liao et al, 2016; Pascal & Pascal, 2017). The flexibility to be creative within these makerspaces enables the potential to immerse groups of young people in science and technology learning that they may previously not have been able to access.

2.5 STEAM in Community Spaces

To date, research carried out on makerspaces has focused on community groups, museums and libraries as ‘out-of-school provision’, mainly within a US context. There are after-school clubs offering ‘STEAM’ activities in the UK, but research reporting the outcomes of this work is extremely limited, as is the engagement of marginalised groups within these spaces.

!10

Falk et al. (2007) argue that whilst school science provides learners with basic knowledge in biology, chemistry and physics, it is through need, motivation and curiosity that these ‘foundations are further activated’ and specific knowledge is deepened through application. Findings from their research exploring public science interest and understanding provide ‘enticing initial evidence for the importance of acknowledging and fully supporting the vital role played by non-school sources of science learning’ (p.464). Research carried out in Australia which focused on establishing a ‘mobile community makerspace’ inside an old shipping container found that the project attracted a mix of people from different socio-cultural backgrounds. Interestingly, during this project the boundaries of typical dichotomies such as professional/amateur, digital literacy/physical skills and knowledge/craft became blurred, and the makerspace community organically grew into a ‘supportive and inclusive space for creatives’, each with something to offer.

The Harvard Family Research Project (2008) analysed evidence of research and evaluation studies undertaken since the turn of the 21st century and confirm the view that children and young people who take part in after-school programs ‘can reap a host of positive benefits in a number of interrelated outcomes areas - academic, social/emotional, prevention, and health and wellness’ (p.2). Described by Litts (2015) as a ‘third place’ existing between work/school and home, these community makerspaces offer people a place to meet informally, to work together in a way that can give a ‘sense of worth’ (p.7). This is a useful concept when considering the community-based makerspace as a way of engaging children and young people from a marginalised background in STEM/STEAM education.

2.6 Summary

This section has briefly sketched out some of the key concepts underpinning this project, including the importance of STEM/STEAM engagement and the development of digital literacies for children from a BME background. Utilising the ‘Maker Movement’ to facilitate creative and innovative practices, this project explored in more depth the use of this approach as a pedagogical tool in fostering STEM/STEAM learning for children and young people.

!11

The Broomhall Community Centre Project The project took place over a six month period, from May to October 2018. A pop-up makerspace was offered at a community centre in Broomhall, Sheffield, on a weekly basis, for one and a half to two hours. The makerspace was advertised as suitable for children aged from five to eleven.

The Community Centre has the following mission statement on its website:

Our mission is to promote diversity and inclusion in Broomhall and Sheffield as a whole. To do this, we support a number of community-based initiatives and we're always looking to do more. As a Community Centre, we also have a number of great spaces for hire. The money we receive from bookings helps us supplement a number of projects, classes and groups, giving the more vulnerable members of the community a safe place to flourish and, hopefully, become a strong, vocal part of this thriving community.

The project therefore provided a helpful source of income for the Community Centre, but it also offered children in the local community a valuable opportunity to ‘flourish’. The Community Centre is located in Broomhall, which is a multicultural community situated in an inner-city area near to the University of Sheffield.

Families had to register children to join the makerspace, and they could choose to leave children for the sessions and pick them up at the end of the event. Many chose to do this, but a large number of parents also stayed for the sessions. In total, 64 children were registered for the makerspaces, with an average of 30 children attending each week, with, in general, equal numbers of girls and boys attending. The majority of the children who attended the makerspace sessions were from Black and Minority Ethnic Communities, with a wide range of heritages including Bangladeshi, Iranian, Malaysian, Pakistani and Somalian heritages. A number of the children were from asylum and refugee families from Iraq, Libya and Syria. Sessions were advertised on

!12

the Community Centre’s Facebook page, and flyers were sent to schools local to the centre.

The makerspace was run by a team of staff from the University, working with volunteers. Materials available included a 3D printer, equipment for engaging in Virtual Reality activities (laptop and HTC Vive), and tablets. A specific theme informed the planning of sessions over a two-week period, and activities enabled children to hack, make and tinker. Figures 1-9 provide an overview of each of the themes, with photographs of some of the activities undertaken.

Figures 1-9: Maker Themes in the Project

!13

Makerspace Theme 1: Light and Colour

Activities in this theme enabled children to explore light and colour both as scientific concepts and aesthetic properties. The children learned how to make a circuit, created drawings that lit up through the use of copper tape, LEDs and batteries, made models using conductive Play Doh and LEDs and created lightshows using home-made torches and the app ‘Pablo’. They also made lightshows using an OHP and transparent shapes.

MakEY in the Community

Makerspace Theme 2: Under the Sea

Children learned about sea creatures and oceanography as they undertook activities in this theme. They undertook e-textile work, sewing fishes out of felt ,with LED eyes that lit up. The children created a collaborative collage using a range of arts and craft materials, and this activity also involved electronics as they lit their pictures up. They created shoebox puppet theatres that enabled them to tell ocean-related stories. Finally, the children were introduced to 3D printing, printing a variety of sea creatures such as seahorses and an octopus.

MakEY in the Community

!14

Makerspace Theme 4: Fun With Robots

This theme enabled children to learn about robots. Thanks to Sheffield Robotics / CATCH, the children were able to meet the robot Miro, which inspired them to create their own caring robots through drawings. Children made drawbots using batteries, motors and cart materials, and also learned to code robots such as the Ozbots, and Dot and Dash. Finally, the children printed off robot models using a 3D printer.

MakEY in the Community

T

Makerspace Theme 5: Magic and Monsters

This theme began with a scientific experiment in which the children mixed ingredients that inflated their monster-face balloon. They also created google-eyed monster slime, and made monster masks. Magic wands were created using sticks and all kinds of glittery materials.The children created their own monsters using clay, which were then made into 3D digital models and imported into the software programme Google Tilt Brush, enabling the children to create their monster’s world in Virtual Reality.

MakEY in the Community

Makerspace Theme 6: On the Beach

This theme fitted perfectly to the weather during the summer heatwave! The children created deckchairs using lollypop sticks and cloth, and they made pictures from coloured sand. All kinds of wonderful sea creatures were formed using the 3D printer , and the children also created an underwater collage with parts that lit up. Finally, using LEGO Wedo, an electronics kit, children created beach buggies.

MakEY in the Community

!15

Makerspace Theme 7: Toys and Games

MakEY in the Community

This theme provided lots of fun for children as they made marble runs from scrap materials, and Ferris Wheels from Strawbees. The children also hacked toys to make new creations, and created dolls houses from cardboard boxes. Finally they created games with buzzers that they made work using batteries, crocodile clips and conductive paint.

Makerspace Theme 8: Stories and Legends

MakEY in the Community

In this theme, the children created pop-up storybooks, and wrote and starred in plays based on favourite myths and legends. They also had to make their own costumes and props from recycled materials. The children made comics, which involved drawing and writing about their favourite superhero characters. Some children made animated films using a tablet.

Makerspace Theme 9: Rockets, Moons and Stars

MakEY in the Community

In this final theme, the children learned about the solar system as they created a space collage. They made rockets using junk materials and electronic equipment, and they created space mobiles using cardboard tubes and craft materials. Children also learned to print pictures of far-away galaxies using gello pads, paints and rollers. Finally, they learned about aero-dynamics as they created simple rockets using straws with paper fins.

Each week they attended, the children earned a stamp in a ‘MakEY Passport’. In the final session of the project, the Lord Mayor of Sheffield presented children who attended with a certificate, and a gift voucher from a store with a branch in the city centre. Parents attended this celebratory event. A researcher from the University attended the majority of the sessions, undertaking close observations of children as they engaged in the activities. An assessment framework was developed for this purpose, based on the ‘Characteristics of Effective Learning’, which are embedded in the Early Years Foundation Stage (DfE, 2017). Stewart (2014) asserts that ‘Central to working with the characteristics of effective learning is the understanding that children, as the agents of their own learning, must be willing to actively expend mental and physical effort in the process’ (p.54). This aligns comfortably with the key characteristics of makerspaces as a space where children’s problem-solving abilities are developed, and agency, persistence, and self-efficacy are exercised (Bevan et al., 2016, p.2). Drawing on an assessment tracker devised by Bristol Learning City (2017), and adding elements that were deemed to be relevant for makerspaces, such as criteria related to design and social learning, an assessment framework was developed (see Appendix 1).

Photographs and films were taken of the maker activities, if permissions had been given for this. Field notes were made recoding reflections on the sessions. The informed of consent of parents was gained for the project, and the assent of children was of significance to researchers. Children could choose not to participate in the observations, photographs or videos if they so wished. In the final weeks of the projects, children and parents took part in semi-semi-structured interviews about the project.

The following section highlights the key outcomes of the project.

!16

Main Findings

2.1 The children’s responses

The children who attended the makerspace sessions were very enthusiastic about them.

Children were able to choose activities and work at their own pace, which meant that the

pathways through the workshops were highly individualised. At times, University staff and

volunteers did talk to children about what activity they wished to undertake next, if it was

felt that that kind of support was required.

The activities varied in relation to whether they led to a specific outcome, but children felt

free to tinker and explore in all of the activities, so even when there was a goal to work

towards, some children chose not to aim for that, but instead used the materials in an

open and playful way. It was possible for them to return to some of their texts and

artefacts over weeks if these could be stored, but due to the limited space available in the

community centre, this was not always possible.

The workshops offered repeated activities, in addition to one-off events. This meant that

children could build up confidence and expertise over time in a specific area, such as

squishy circuits, or using Scratch to code texts.

Over the weeks, there was extensive evidence of children demonstrating the

characteristics of effective learning, across both structured and unstructured activities.

Figure 10 provides an example of an observation of an older boy working with a younger

peer to make a marble run. This was a structured activity, in that children were provided

with appropriate resources and given a model that offered a starting point for their work.

Figure 10: Example of an assessment of a structured activity

!18

The assessment pro-forma was also useful when assessing learning in unstructured

activities. Figure 11 outlines an assessment of a child who used available materials to

create her own design. This unstructured activity also offered opportunities to demonstrate

key characteristics of effective learning.

!19

Figure 11: Example of an assessment of an unstructured activity

!20

The observations demonstrate that a rich range of learning can take place in out-of-school

makerspaces, but this learning is rarely recognised in school contexts. This is due to the

lack of formal mechanisms in many projects to bridge out-of-school and school learning

experiences. In this project, it was not possible to set up within the time available the links

with local schools so that this communication could take place, and teachers could be

provided with information about children’s achievements in out of school settings, but this

is a future aspiration of the project team.

Both boys and girls were enthusiastic about the maker activities, thus indicating that

STEAM approaches can attract children to STEM who traditionally have not been keen to

participate. The interviews with children pointed, without exception, to the enthusiasm they

felt for the project.

!21

!22

I’veenjoyedmakingslime,virtualrealityandhavingfunwithfriendsandlearningthings.BeforeIusedtothinksciencewasboringbutsinceI’vebeencominghereI’verealisedwhatfunitis.WhatIenjoyistheac>vi>es,forexample,thisweek

wedidslime.I’velearntaboutelectricity–thatifyouclipthewiretothepaperthebulbwillcomeon.Ithoughtelectricitywasonlymadefromthewind.AndIalsolearntthatthereissuchthingasa3Dprinter–Ididn’tknowyoucouldmakeplas>cobjectsfromaprinter–technologyjustimproveseveryday.

I’veenjoyeddoingtheac>vi>eslikewhenweweremakingthemoviesbecausemeandmybrotherandmycousinweredoingswordfights.IlearntVenusisthehoGestplanet–beforeIthoughtitwasMercury.

I’velikedlearningaboutsciencebecausesciencesoundseasybutit’sactuallyhard.It’slikesciencebutplayingsoyoudon’tknowyou’reactuallydoingit.IwillmissthisplacewhenIgo–I’llbeverysadtoleave.

I’veenjoyedmakingslimeandtherollercoasterandthepain>ng.I’velearntscienceisfunbutabitmessysome>mes!

I’veenjoyedallthefungameswegottoplayandallthedifferentexperiences.Myfavouriteac>vitywasmakingarocketbecauseonceIdidrocketscienceanditwassofun.Ilearntthingsaboutelectricitylikeconnec>ngwiresandmakingbulbslightup.

I’veenjoyedmakingslimeandmakingtheglowinthedarkthings.I’velearntthatpain>ngandsciencecanactuallybefun.

Thisclubisn’tjustlearning,it’snotthatboring.It’sgottheequalnessoflearningandfun.

Comments from children about the project

2.2 Parents’ views on the project

As outlined previously, many parents participated in the makerspaces. Every week,

approximately 8 - 15 parents would be present during the makerspace, many of whom

engaged in activities alongside their children. Their roles varied from simply sitting back

and observing their child(ren), providing primarily emotional support, supporting and

scaffolding elements of the activities and, at times, taking over a little to finish projects off.

Parents were unanimous in their praise for the project, identifying the positive impact the

project had made on children’s knowledge and skills. Over the course of the project,

children had the opportunity to develop a range of knowledge about science topics such

as space, forces, materials and their properties, states of matter, electricity, and so on.

Parents were able to relate some of the knowledge acquired by their children.

One mother from an asylum-seeking family from Iraq felt that the project had also enabled

her 3-, 5- and 6-year-old children to learn English, as well as develop skills relating to

making. This was also the case for another mother who had moved recently from Libya,

who felt that learning English was developed alongside other learning experiences. She

said that the project had been ‘…very good and useful, they create things and socialise, it

is very beneficial for my kids…[they] learn science, scientific things. It is very good for the community.’

Parents mentioned that they could not offer these activities at home, as they did not have

the resources to do so. One mother stated that the makerspace project was very popular

with her children, and that she felt it helped her children avoid getting involved in negative

activities in the area:

…honestly, it’s like the highlight of their Tuesdays now. It’s a really good, safe space for them to engage in something because if they are not here, then where else would they be? And especially with the area, it’s a really run down area, it’s got a lot of crime in this area, there’s a lack of children’s provision in this area…it’s all about early intervention. If you can engage them in positive activities like this, then they’re not going to be out on the streets and they are not going to be getting up to no good.

!23

Parents commented that the project had benefited the community:

The project has had a positive influence on my kids behaviour, with them looking forward to the sessions every week and engaging with the activities. It has really brought the community together, providing a creative and really enjoyable way to learn.

Parents also noted how the activities had encouraged their daughters to engage in STEM

learning:

…at home it isn’t her ‘go-to’ type of activity, it is my son’s, that’s why we originally came, but because of the variety you have on offer here, she was able to choose something and it opened up her eyes to other things she can do. Now she tells her dad when she gets home what she’s been doing and that’s what she says, she wrote a little thing, “I love science, I love making”…It just shows you doesn’t it, I came originally for him, and he’s enjoying it, the technical, the engineering, but then she’s found her things that she enjoys.

One parent commented that the value of the community-based makerspace was that it

offered children more time than in school to experiment and tinker:

My daughter she likes painting and colouring and cutting and sticking and dancing. She liked the slime and squishy things and my older daughter liked making the slime - like chemistry - and discovering things. She was very interested in the 3D printer. In here they have time to do everything and what they like. In school the time is limited.

Overall, therefore, parents were very positive about the project and expressed a wish for it

to be continued at some point in the future.

!24

2.3 The challenges of offering makerspaces in community settings

There were a number of challenges faced by the project team in offering the makerspace

in the community centre. These were primarily practical challenges. Firstly, there was very

limited space to store materials, and so materials and resources had to be transported to

and from the community centre each week. Secondly, this lack of storage space meant

that children’s products had to be either taken home, if they wished to do that, or disposed

of at the end of sessions. Only occasionally were products kept for future work. This was

obviously disappointing for children, as they would have liked to have returned to work

further on some artefacts at times. Thirdly, it was difficult to anticipate how many children

and families would come to the session each week, which made the planning of activities

quite challenging. One week, over 35 children attended in addition to many parents, which

meant that space for activities was quite limited. Fourthly, the management of volunteers

was a challenge in that some could not make every session, and in some sessions, the

number of volunteers was fewer than the team would have liked, due to holidays and so

on. Finally, the project timescale meant that it was not possible to develop links with the

teachers of the children who attended the after-school makerspace, which meant that

assessments of children’s learning could not be shared.

Despite these challenges, the project overall was very successful. In the conclusion, the

key outcomes are highlighted, along with recommendations for future developments in this

area.

!25

Conclusion

3.1 Summary of outcomes

The evaluation of the project indicates that it was very successful, with positive outcomes

for both children and families, and the community involved. The benefits can be

summarised thus: •Children enjoyed the sessions, finding learning fun. •Parents felt that the sessions had been valuable for their children’s learning and

engagement. •Children acquired knowledge in STEM subjects through a STEAM approach, and

developed further transversal skills such as problem-solving and collaborative working. •The community centre felt that the project had not only brought in useful income

(through the payments made for the hire of the the room by the University), but the

project had also enabled them to engage families who had not previously used the

centre. •Volunteers gained confidence and skills in offering STEAM approaches to learning.

There were numerous aspects of the project that led to its success, which are as follows:

1.The project was a partnership between the University and a community centre within

its vicinity, building on previously developed links between the organisations. Both

parties were, therefore, committed to the success of the project.

2.The community centre was active in publicising the makerspace, which increased

attendance.

3.The core activities designed for the programme were appropriate for the target

audience (children aged 5-11).

4.The training offered for volunteers met their immediate needs.

!26

There are a number of recommendations for future projects of this nature, which are

outlined below.

3.2 Recommendations

A number of recommendations can be identified for future activities in relation to policy,

practice and research, as follows.

3.2.1 Recommendations for future research

The project provided a range of insights into the value of makerspaces in community

centres. It is recommended that the research is continued and expanded to include a

greater number of communities, in order to develop the knowledge base further.

There is also a need for further research into how the assessments of children’s learning

within these makerspaces might be passed on to local schools in order to enhance links

between non-formal and formal learning spaces. There is also a need for research on the

extent to which engagement in community makerspaces has long-term impact on young

children’s learning and orientation to STEM subjects, both at home and school.

3.2.2 Recommendations for policy

The project indicates that offering makerspaces in community centres has value in that it

provides an opportunity to strengthen community bonds and enhance social engagement.

The activities can also provide a means of engaging children in productive activities in

which they acquire valuable skills and knowledge. This is particularly important for for

some BME families and asylum and refugee-seeker families, whose children traditionally

are not as engaged in STEM activities as other groups.

!27

It is recommended that funding is offered for community groups to organise makerspace

activities in order to address these issues. Given the need to ensure that the future UK

workforce has the digital skills necessary to operate in the ‘fourth industrial revolution’, in

which STEM knowledge will be key, it should be recognised by the government that

community centres have a key role to play in this area. Community organisations can reach

out to communities who might otherwise not engage with the digital skills agenda, and the

provision of makerspaces for children and their families can offer a means of narrowing the

digital skills gap. This is not to suggest that the makerspaces themselves can provide the

full range of education and training required for this purpose, but they can motivate

participants to engage in further education and training in the area.

3.2.3 Recommendations for practice

The project suggests that partnerships are significant if community centres are going to be

able to expand their offer in relation to the provision of makerspaces for children.

Community centres should seek to set up partnerships with local access/ makerspaces,

so that they might benefit from the expertise of people working in those areas. A lack of

space should not preclude makerspaces from being offered, as ‘pop-up’ makerspaces

can be organised, in which resources are placed in the community centres for makerspace

sessions, but then stored away for future sessions. Community centre workers can ensure

that they access the guidance that is available on setting up and running makerspaces.

The ‘MakEY in the Community’ project has led to the production of a booklet offering such

guidance – “Makerspaces in Communities: Guidelines and Resources’. This could offer a

starting point for such work.

In conclusion, this project was highly successful in terms of meeting its original aims. The

project has identified that makerspaces for children in community centres are not only

valuable for children, but also their families and communities.

!28

References

Adjapong, E. (2017). Bridging theory and practice in the urban science classroom: A

framework for hip-hop pedagogy. Critical Education Vol. 8, 15, pp5-22.

Allina, B. (2018). The development of STEAM educational policy to promote student

creativity and social empowerment. Arts Education Policy Review Vol. 119,2, pp77-87.

Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B. & Wong, B. (2012) Science Aspirations, Capital,

and Family Habitus: How Families Shape Children’s Engagement and Identification With

Science. American Educational Research Journal .Vol. 49, 5, pp881-908.

Archer , L., Osborne, J. F., & DeWitt, J. (2012).Ten science facts and fictions: The Case for

Early Education about STEM Careers. London, UK: King's College

Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B. & Wong, B. (2013). ASPIRES: Young

people’s science and career aspirations age 10-14. Retrieved from https://www.kcl.ac.uk/

sspp/departments/education/research/ASPIRES/ASPIRES-final-report-

December-2013.pdf on 15th May. 2018.

Bahkshi, H. & Mateos-Garcia, J. (2014). Fix the pipeline for STEAM talent in the creative

economy. Retrieved from https://www.nesta.org.uk/blog/fix-pipeline-steam-talent-creative-

economy on 21st May 2018.

Banerjee, P. (2017). Is informal education the answer to increasing and widening

participation in STEM education? Review of Education Vol. 5,2, pp202-224.

Barton, A., Tan, E. & Greenberg, D. (2016). The Makerspace Movement: Sites of Possibilities for Equitable Opportunities to Engage Underrepresented Youth in STEM

Teachers College Record. Vol. 119, 6, 11-44.

!29

Bevan, B., Ryoo, J.J., Shea, M., Kekelis, L., Pooler, P., Green, E., Bulalacao, N., McLeod,

E., Sandoval, J., & Hernandez, M. (2016) Making as a Strategy for Afterschool STEM

Learning: Report from the Californian Tinkering Afterschool Network Research-Practice

Partnership. San Francisco, USE: The Exploratorium

Bristol Learning City (2017). Bristol Early Years Characteristics of Effective Learning

(CoEL).Retrieved from https://www.bristolearlyyears.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/

Bristol-EY-CoEL-Final-Document.pdf on 16th July 2018.

Blackley, S., Rahmawati, Y., Fitriani, E., Sheffield, R. & Koul, R. (2018). Using a

Makerspace approach to engage Indonesian primary students with STEM. Issues in

Educational Research. Vol.28, 1, pp18-42.

Care, E. & Luo, R. (2016). Assessment of Transversal Competencies: Policy and Practice

in the Asia-Pacific Region. Paris, France: UNESCO Bangkok Office.

CIF: Creative Industries Federation (2015). Creative Education Agenda Retrieved from

https://www.creativeindustriesfederation.com/sites/default/files/2017-05/

CIF_EduAgenda_spreads.pdf on 21st May 2018.

Colucci-Gray, L., Burnard, P., Cooke, C., Davies, R. Gray, G. & Trowsdale, J. (2017). BERA Research Commission. Reviewing the potential and challenges of developing STEAM education through creative pedagogies for 21st learning: How can school curricula be broadened towards a more responsive, dynamic, and inclusive form of education?

London, UK: British Educational Research Association (BERA).

Curry, R. (2017). Makerspaces: a beneficial new service for academic libraries? Library

Review Vol. 66, 4/5, pp201-12.

Department for Education (DfE) (2017). Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation

Stage London, UK: Crown copyright.

!30

European Skills/Competences, qualifications and Occupations (ESCO) (2018). Skill

reusability level Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/esco/portal/escopedia/

Skill_reusability_level on 4th June 2018.

Falk, J., Storksdieck, M. & Dierking, L. (2007). Investigating public science interest and

understanding: evidence for the importance of free-choice learning. Public Understanding

of Science Vol. 16, 4, pp455-469.

Ferarri, A. (2013). DIGCOMP: A Framework for Developing and Understanding Digital

Competence in Europe Seville, Spain: Joint Research Centre of the European

Commission.

Gaskins, N. (2014). Techno-vernacular creativity, innovation and learning in under-

represented ethnic communities of practice. PhD thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology.

Hague, C. & Payton, S. (2010), Digital literacy across the curriculum. Bristol, UK: Futurelab.

Harvard Family Research Project (2008). Afterschool programs in the 21st century

Retrieved from https://globalfrp.org/Articles/After-School-Programs-in-the-21st-Century-

Their-Potential-and-What-it-Takes-to-Achieve-It on 5th June 2018

Hunter-Doniger, T., Howard, C., Harris, R. & Hall, C. (2018). STEAM Through Culturally

Relevant Teaching and Storytelling. Art Education Vol.71, 1, pp46-51.

Isabelle, A. and Valle, N. (2015) Inspiring STEM Minds Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense

Publishers.

Jenlink, P. (2015). STEM Teacher Education: Imagining a Metadisciplinary Future. Teacher

Education Practice. Vol. 28,2/3, pp197-207.

Julian, K. & Parrott, D. (2017). Makerspaces in the Library: Science in a Student’s Hands.

Journal of Learning Spaces Vol. 6, 2, pp13-21.

!31

Land, M. (2013). Full STEAM Ahead: The Benefits of Integrating the Arts Into STEM

Procedia Computer Science Vol. 20., pp547-552

Liao, C., Motter, J. & Patton, R. (2016). Tech-Savvy Girls: Learning 21st-Century Skills

Through STEAM Digital Artmaking. Art Education Vol. 69, 4, pp29-35.

Litts, B.K. (2015). Making learning: Makerspaces as learning environments. PhD thesis,

University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Marsh, J., Kumpulainen, K., Nisha, B., Velicu, A., Blum-Ross, A., Hyatt, D., Jónsdóttir,

S.R., Levy, R., Little, S., Marusteru, G., Ólafsdóttir, M.E., Sandvik, K., Scott, F., Thestrup,

K., Arnseth, H.C., Dýrfjörð, K., Jornet, A., Kjartansdóttir, S.H., Pahl, K., Pétursdóttir, S. and

Thorsteinsson, G. (2017). Makerspaces in the Early Years: A Literature Review. University

of Sheffield: MakEY Project. Accessed online at: http://makeyproject.eu/wp-content/

uploads/2017/02/Makey_Literature_Review.pdf

Marsh, J., Arnseth, H.C. and Kumpulainen, K. (2018). Maker Literacies and Maker

Citizenship in the MakEY (Makerspaces in the Early Years) Project. Multimodal

Technologies and Interaction. 2(3), 50; doi:10.3390/mti2030050

Neelands, J., Belfiore, E., Firth, C., Hart, N., Perrin, L., Brock, S., Holdaway, D. & Woddis,

J. (2015). The Warwick Commission, Enriching Britain: Culture, Creativity and Growth.

Coventry, UK: University of Warwick.

Nuffield Foundation (2012). Science in the workplace - Research Summary Retrieved from

https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/

SITW%20research%20summary.pdf on 12th June 2018.

Organisation for Economic and Co-operative Development (OECD) (2012). PISA 2012

Results: Creative Problem Solving Students’ SkIlls In tacklIng Real-lIfe Problems Volume V

Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/PISA-2012-results-volume-V.pdf on

11th June 2018.

!32

Pascal, J. & Pascal, T. (2017). Using Student Developed Comics to Promote Learning of

Transport Phenomena Concepts. Paper presented at the ASEE annual conference and

exposition, Columbus, Ohio, USA, 25th - 28th June Retrieved from https://www.asee.org/

public/conferences/78/papers/19848/view on 12th June 2018.

Robson, S. (2014). The ‘Analysing Children’s Creative Thinking Framework’: development

of an observation-led approach to identifying and analysing young children’s creative

thinking, British Educational Research Journal, 40, 1, 121–134.

Schmidt, E. (2011. MacTaggart Lecture in full Retrieved from https://

www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/edinburgh-tv-festival-eric-schmidts-mactaggart-lecture-

full/1087474 on 21st May 2018.

Scott, F. (2017). Makerspaces and Social Class In: Marsh, J., Kumpulainen, K., Nisha, B.,

Velicu, A., Blum-Ross, A., Hyatt, D., Jónsdóttir, S.R., Levy, R., Little, S., Marusteru, G.,

Ólafsdóttir, M.E., Sandvik, K., Scott, F., Thestrup, K., Arnseth, H.C., Dýrfjörð, K., Jornet,

A., Kjartansdóttir, S.H., Pahl, K., Pétursdóttir, S. and Thorsteinsson, G. Makerspaces in

the Early Years: A Literature Review. University of Sheffield, Sheffield: MakeEY Project

Sheridan, K.; Halverson, E.R.; Litts, B.; Brahms, L.; Jacobs-Priebe, L.; Owens, T. (2014).

Learning in the Making: A Comparative Study of Three Makerspaces. Harvard Educational

Review, 84, 505–531.

Stewart, N. (2014). Active Learning In: H. Moylett (Ed.) Characteristics Of Effective Early

Learning: Helping Young Children Become Learners for Life. Maidenhead, UK: Open

University Press.

Tan, E. & Barton, A. (2008). Unpacking Science for All through the Lens of Identities-in-

Practice: The Stories of Amelia and Ginny Cultural Studies of Science Education Vol. 3,

Issue 1.

University of Sheffield (2004) Access Agreement Retrieved from https://www.offa.org.uk/

agreements/

!33

University%20of%20Sheffield%20Access%20Agreement%202011-12%20app%207.1.11.

pdf on 8th May 2018.

van Laar , E., Alexander, J., van Deursen, J., van Dijk, A. & de Haan, J. (2017). The

relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review

Computers in Human Behavior. Vol. 72, p577-588.

Voogt, J. & Pareja Roblin, N. (2010). 21st Century Skills (Discussion Paper). Retrieved from

http://opite.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/61995295/

White%20Paper%2021stCS_Final_ENG_def2.pdf on 4th June 2018.

Willett, R. (2016). Making, Makers, and Makerspaces: A Discourse Analysis of Professional

Journal Articles and Blog Posts about Makerspaces in Public Libraries. Library Quarterly:

Information, Community, Policy Vol. 86, 3 , pp313-329.

Wise Campaign (2017). Women in STEM workforce 2017. Retrieved from https://

www.wisecampaign.org.uk/resources/2017/10/women-in-stem-workforce-2017 on 11th

June 2018.

!34

Appendix 1: MakEY Assessment Pro-forma

!35

MAKERSPACELEARNINGASSESSMENTFRAMEWORK(AdaptedfromBristolCOEL)

Name: Age:DateofObservation: DetailsofActivity/Context:OBSERVINGHOWACHILDISLEARNINGENGAGEMENT MOTIVATION

E1:Dotheyusetheirsensestoexploreandmakesenseoftheirworld?E2:Dotheytransformresources?E3:Dotheydemonstratesustainedinterestinthetask?E4:Dotheydemonstratea‘cando’attitude?E5:Aretheyeagertotrynewideasordotheystaywithwhattheyarefamiliarwith?E6:Aretheyunafraidtomakemistakesandworkoutsidetheircomfortone?

M1:Aretheretimeswhentheyareabsorbedintheirownlearning?M2:Dotheydemonstrateasenseofpurpose?M3:Dotheyshowpersistence–notgivingupevenifitmeansstartingagain?M4:Aretheyabletosettheirowngoals?M5:Dotheydemonstrateprideintheirachievements?M6:Dotheyenjoymeetingtheirownchallenges?

CRITICALTHINKING CREATIVITY&DESIGN

CT:Dotheyhavetheirownideasandusetheirowninitiativewhenplanningdesigns?CT2:Dotheydemonstratecuriosity,imagination,spontaneityandinnovation?CT3:Whatstrategiesdotheyusetosolveproblemsorchallengesintheirdesigns?CT4:Dotheychallengeandextendtheirownlearning?CT5:Dotheytrysomethingdifferentratherthanfollowwhatsomeoneelsehasdone?CT6:Dotheytryoutandrepeattheirideastoseeiftheywork?

CD1:Dotheyexplorethepropertiesofmaterialsandusetheirunderstandingofthemtoachievedesigngoals?CD2:Dotheyusematerialsincreativeways?CD3:Aretheyconfidentinusinga‘trialanderror’approachanddotheyshowortalkaboutwhysomethingsdoordon’twork?CD4:Dotheyusetheirpreviousexperienceandknowledgetodevelopworkarounds?CD5:Dotheyadjusttheirgoalsbasedonfeedbackandevidence?CD6:Cantheymakesuggestionsastohowtheartefactcouldbeimproved?

SOCIALLEARNINGS1:Dotheylistentotheideasofothers?S2:Dotheybuildontheideaofothers?S3:Dotheysupportthelearningofotherchildren?S4:Dotheycollaborateeffectivelywithotherchildren?S5:Dotheyseekideas,assistanceandexpertisefromothers?S6:Dotheygivefeedbackontheoutputsofothers(includingwhenaskedtodoso)?

!36