Makerspaces for rethinking teaching and learning in K–12 education: Introduction to research on makerspaces in K–12 education special issue

Introduction

In this special issue of The Journal of Educational Research, the focus is on makerspaces in K–12 education research—in particular, research on how student engagement in the spaces influences their learning and development. The configuration of makerspaces can vary widely, particularly in K–12 education. The spaces may be locations in a classroom dedicated to making, rooms in the school that are nearly exclusively committed for engaging in making activities, or ephemeral constructions temporarily created in the school or classroom for making activities and then disassembled after the making activities are completed. Regardless of the configuration, makerspaces are typically equipped with a range of tools and supplies that can be used in the process of making or creating some sort of product that is a potential solution to a problem.

Makerspaces are a unique learning environment in which makers are very much in control of their learning. They can be considered as a place for engaging in structured learning or as spaces for creative exploration. What makes the spaces particularly unique is the nearly obligatory focus on student-centered learning. Owing to the focus on producing some sort of product in makerspaces, it is the learner who controls their learning. While instruction may be offered, the goal in many of the spaces is for students to find creative and unique solutions to proposed problems. A potential challenge in engaging students in making learning is finding alignment with learning standards and traditional teaching and learning perceptions (Jocius et al., 2020). The problem solving, options for creative expression, and conditions for multiple possible solutions can result in meaningful learning about process and outcomes that accompany makerspace learning. However, makerspace learning may encounter challenges due to the potential conflict between traditional didactic approaches to education and the student-center learning that takes place in the spaces. Resolving the potential challenges can be justified by giving students unique opportunities for learning in the spaces such as those reported by Tofel-Grehl et al. (In Press).

Constructivism, constructionism, and making

The student-centered learning that can occur in makerspaces is conducive to supporting constructivism as the students build this knowledge and constructionism as they develop tangible products. If the proper assignments are given, and scaffolding and support are provided, then it is very likely that the learning opportunities will engage students in higher-order thinking skills (Youmans et al., In Press). The products students create may vary between virtual (Huang & Shu, In Press), digital (Ng et al., In Press), or more physical (Tofel-Grehl et al., In Press). Whatever the nature or structure of the product, the process of making, and the evaluation of the final solution model or prototype, students are actively engaged and positioned to construct their understanding through the process of making. This is supported by the work of Shively et al. (In Press), who report on the innovation of education that makerspaces can provide as students (and educators) progress from idea to invention. The active engagement enhances student motivation and provides context for learning, catalyzing their knowledge construction, which provides additional justification for using makerspaces and making in K–12 education.

Making and learner engagement

Beyond knowledge construction, makerspaces provide an environment for learning about learning. As Vongkulluksn et al. (In Press) report, makerspaces can promote learner growth mindset development. The potential iterative process of design-build-test-redesign that occurs in making is ideal for supporting student development of a learning perspective in which they consider the need for more practice and knowledge to be successful. Through making, students can learn that failure is part of learning, and if a product they make fails, they can study why it failed, and based on their new knowledge, they can create a new product. Unlike more traditional approaches to learning, in making the students learn, failure does not have negative consequences, but rather is part of making and refining products to improve the outcome’s quality.

Using the context of making for learning can increase students’ interest in learning and enhance their commitment to learning (Schweder & Raufelder, In Press). The unique opportunity to make and control their learning and find solutions that work creates conditions conducive to high levels of student commitment to learning. The high level of commitment to learning may lead students to a state of flow in which they lose a sense of time and surroundings as they engage in extreme focus on their work. The level of flow in making can result in very concentrated learning. Thus, by engaging in making, students are more likely to develop a growth mindset and engage in very concentrated learning, which provides additional justification for using making as a context for learning in K–12 education.

Belonging and equity

Making can level the potential distribution of learner academic success and learner expertise, and the practice of grouping of learners by academic performance. Thus, the use of makerspaces for learning can increase opportunities for equity and inclusion. As Heredia and Tan (In Press) report, makerspaces about the potential for makerspaces to advance social justice. Creating equitable learning opportunities using traditional education approaches is challenging, as the system was not designed through a lens of social justice, but rather was designed through a lens of product over process. However, makerspaces are much more focused on the process, providing the opportunity for all to be engaged and learning collectively. Further, there is typically no correct solution in making, but rather the determination of products meeting the criteria of being a workable solution to the problem being considered. The maker approach to learning also is conducive to more social interactions in which all can contribute and share ideas (Herro et al., In Press). The potential for increased social interactions and the need for collaboration for developing solutions to solve complex problems support the potential for makerspaces to increase students’ perceptions of belonging and enhance inclusion. Thus, the more inclusive environment for learning and engagement provides an additional justification for using makerspaces for learning.

Identity development

Identity development is a complex process that involves a combination of self-claiming of self-identifying and social recognition or external identification of an individual’s status or characteristics (Burke & Stets, 2009; Hogg, 2018). Identity is dynamic and subject to change due to shifts in location, experiences, time, social interactions, and other potential influences that can alter personal identity development and stability (Roccas & Brewer, 2002). The unique learning environment of makerspaces may influence how students view and identify themselves as learners. Students who may not find success in traditional learning environments may achieve high success levels in a makerspace environment. The success may lead the students to rethink their abilities as learners and influence their learner identity, further reinforcing their growth mindset development (Vongkulluksn et al., In Press). Additionally, the range of possible outcomes from making may also engage students who may not identify with specific subject areas but like problem-solving and developing creative solutions. Using a STEAM approach to making may reinforce some students’ opportunities to engage in learning that may not otherwise be interested or do not identify with traditional instructional methods. As Ioannou and Timotheou (In Press) report, STEAM making activities expand the potential for a diversity of roles and opportunities for engagement, increasing collective creativity opportunities. Thus, through creative engagement and collaboration, some students who may not identify as successful learners may find they are productive and good at making, resulting in students shifting their learner identity. The potential for positively influencing students’ learner identity justifies considering integrating making into the K–12 curriculum.

Conclusion

The potential range of learning activities and developmental outcomes when students work in makerspaces justifies integrating the use of the spaces into K–12 education. Typically, a wide range of possible solutions can fulfill the goals of makerspace assignments, which differs from most K–12 learning in which there is commonly one correct answer. The multiple solutions allow students to apply their knowledge, engage in problem-solving abilities, practice collaboration, and express creativity—processes that are useful both inside and outside the classroom. Because of the potential benefit to students, we need to keep exploring and empirically documenting the implementation and outcomes of makerspace learning in K–12 education to assure effective use of the spaces to maximize student learning.