The dream performance – a case study of young girls’ development of interest in STEM and 21st century skills, when activities in a makerspace were combined with drama

ABSTRACT

Background: There is a shortage of people in the STEM sector, and it has been argued that more needs to be done, especially to attract girls. Furthermore, there is a need to develop twenty-first-century skills. No studies seem to have explored the combination of activities in makerspaces and the use of drama to stimulate interest in STEM and development of 21st century skills. Purpose: This study focused on a project with a unique combination of makerspace activities and the use of drama. The research questions investigated the outcomes that could be identified from combining drama and activities in a makerspace, with regard to the development of interest in STEM and twenty-first-century skills.Sample: Ten girls aged 7–11 years participated. A project leader, a drama teacher and three female engineering students supported the activities. Design and methods: The project lasted 3 months. Data were collected in the form of interviews and observations with video-recordings and field-notes, as well as documentation of props made by the girls. Analyses were conducted using thematic coding and discussed through the lens of Activity Theory. Results: The results showed that some of the girls developed an interest in science and technology. The girls also developed twenty-first-century skills, in terms of creativity, problem-solving and cooperation. Conclusions: Positive outcomes were found in this project, blending drama and making in a makerspace learning environment. Future studies could investigate how other skills and knowledge in different STEM subjects can be developed in similar projects.

KEYWORDS:

• Makerspace
• drama
• STEM
• 21st century skills
• interest

Introduction

Stimulating students’ interest in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) has been of great concern for many years (e.g. Fitzgerald, Dawson, and Hackling 2013; Osborne, Simon, and Collins 2003). Another concern has been the need to develop twenty-first-century skills, such as creativity, critical thinking and collaboration, which are considered to be essential for the future (Partnership for 21st century learning 2015).

Several studies have reported on effects of activities aiming to stimulate interest in STEM in informal learning environments such as out-of-school activities, science centres, museums, etcetera (e.g. Christensen, Knezek, and Tyler-Wood 2015; Howarth 2014; Knowles 2014; Moreno et al. 2016; Xie and Reider 2014). However, there seems to be few reports on efforts to develop twenty-first-century skills and in particular, combined with STEM. In addition, there is little research on the effects of informal learning environments, such as in makerspaces (e.g. Blikstein 2013).

The term makerspace was originally presented in the MAKE Magazine in 2005 (Cavalcanti 2013). Such environments are being established all across Europe, with the goal of fostering interest in STEM and the competences needed in the twenty-first century. These environments focus on creative processes, using active and collaborative learning through different tools offered by community spaces with open access to high-tech manufacturing equipment (e.g. Rosa et al. 2017; Papavlasopoulou, Giannakos, and Jaccheri 2017; Davies 2017) .

In this study, a project called the Dream Performance (DP), a makerspace, was chosen as the main learning environment to investigate the effects of combining makerspace and drama. Young girls in a mid-sized town in Sweden were invited to participate. The idea was to stimulate their interest in STEM by, for instance, asking them to produce props for a planned performance. The act of making the props was supposed to stimulate the girls’ interest in STEM and support their development of twenty-first-century skills. It has been argued that making (in this case, of props) and the makerspace are components that can develop an interest in STEM and twenty-first-century skills (e.g. Blikstein 2013; Graves 2014; Krishnamurthi et al. 2013; Peppler and Bender 2013).

The reason for using drama was based on earlier research showing that drama enhances positive attitudes towards science learning (Abed 2016). The performance itself was created and conducted by the participating girls.

The aim of the study was to investigate how the girls’ interest in STEM and the twenty-first-century skills were developed during the project.

The research questions were:

1. What outcomes can be identified as a result of combining drama and makerspace activities, with regard to the development of interest in STEM?

2. What outcomes can be identified as a result of combining drama and makerspace activities, with regard to developing of twenty-first-century skills in terms of creativity, problem-solving and cooperation?

Literature review

Interest in STEM

The need for scientists and engineers in society is still a major concern worldwide (e.g. Smith 2011; Venville et al. 2013). Researchers (e.g. Anderson and Kim 2006; Archer et al. 2015) argue that more needs to be done to increase participation in the STEM field from under-represented groups (e.g. women, working-class and minority ethnic groups).

A recent report from the Association of Swedish Engineering Industries (Teknikföretagen 2016) states that despite a series of initiatives to attract more people into the engineering sector, recruitment is not sufficient. It is estimated that there will be a lack of over 35,000 engineers in Sweden in 2030. It has also been argued that the recruitment base must be broadened to attract more women.

Archer et al. (2015) discuss the concept ‘science capital’, which can be used as a lens for explaining patterns of aspiration and educational participation among young people. The concept includes several aspects, such as science-related behaviours and practices (e.g. participation in out-of-school science learning contexts) and science identity, which have been recognised as important for young people’s engagement in science (e.g. Calabrese Barton and Tan 2010; Drury, Siy, and Cheryan 2011).

Krapp (2002) argues that a triggered situational interest could serve as a starter for the long-term development of interest. It has also been argued that out-of-school projects have the potential to increase interest among youth (Polman and Hope 2012). However, the question is whether activities conducted in out-of-school learning environments with these aims can promote a persistent interest in learning STEM. In his study, Gonsalves (2014) found that the out-of-school programme described failed to have long-term effects on the youth’s participation in science. Nonetheless, interest needs to be triggered (Hidi and Renninger 2006).

Some studies on out-of-school activities suggest that girls appreciate hands-on activities when products are created or designed (e.g. Swarat, Ortony, and Revell 2012). Blankenburg, Höffler, and Parchmann (2016) presented similar results, finding that girls were particularly interested in activities that were artistic and realistic.

Based on the above, the DP project was initiated, focusing on young girls, using making-activities in an informal learning environment (makerspace) with drama activities, with the aim for the girls to create their Dream Performance.

Important skills for the future – twenty-first-century skills

Besides the need to have a greater interest in STEM, several organisations have highlighted certain skills as being important for the future. Davies, Fidler, and Gorbis (2011) listed skills such as: thinking skills for critical decision-making and ability to cooperate with groups of people in different settings. These types of competences have been identified as twenty-first-century skills (Bell 2010; Jang 2016).

From a European perspective (EC 2016), it has been argued that STEM competences are essential for the twenty-first-century century, and more attention should be paid to problem-solving, enhancing ‘out of the box’ thinking and cooperation. In a recent report from OECD (2018) discussing the future of education and skills, problem-solving, cooperation, critical and creative thinking were on the agenda as important for the future.

Sweden is part of the European Union, and twenty-first-century competencies are part of the overall objectives in the National Curriculum for compulsory school. The curriculum emphasises that students should cooperate and adopt critical thinking. Problem-solving, analytical and critical thinking are also skills that are included in the learning objectives in the science subjects, as well as in the subject technology in the curriculum (Swedish National Agency for Education 2011).

Since this study investigates outcomes of activities conducted in an informal learning environment, the focus in not on traditional education and development of important skills for the future, but on how this can occur in an informal setting. Schwarz and Stolow (2006) highlight the role of extramural programmes as great venues to teach twenty-first-century skills. They argue that there are three main reasons for this: activities are conducted in small groups requiring teamwork, the environments are well-suited for project-based learning and they can offer real-world learning that is meaningful to students.

A particular skill often referred to when makerspaces are discussed is creativity (Maslyk 2016). The word originates in the Latin word creo, which means creating. The field of research on creativity is too extensive for detailed discussion in this paper, besides providing some examples from the literature on creativity and education. Creativity is actually a subject of debate, regarding whether it is a skill or an innate ability (Walsh, Anders, and Hancock 2013). In an OECD report, Lucas, Claxton, and Spencer (2013) state that creativity is an important outcome of schooling and includes descriptions such as: complex and multifaceted, learnable, possible to analyse at an individual level, and strongly influenced by context and social factors. Amabile (1996) discusses creativity as a method of problem-solving, building on thoughts, or products. Sawyer (2003) opines that the concept of creativity is hard to define. However, he summarises it as a process over time, resulting in products that are novel. He adds that these can emerge from elements that already exist, but are combined in new ways. Craft (2003) discusses creativity and education and argues that there are limitations of creativity in relation to education, for instance, because of the conceptual confusion. It is also challenging that creativity is not a subject of its own, but spans all subject areas, hence the difficulty in assessing (Craft 2008).

Whether or not imagination can be regarded as creativity has also been debated. Craft (2003) argues that these are separate concepts, while Sawyer (2003) discusses how creativity is developed from childhood to adulthood starting with imagination. His arguments are based on the theories of Vygotsky who theorised that children develop their imagination through play, which later on can mature into artistic and scientific creativity, or as Sawyer claims:

The development of the creative imagination, then, is based on what is usually considered creative activity: pretend play, fantasy, and the making of creative products. (Sawyer 2003, 72).

Still, despite the difficulties in defining the concept, or other educational limitations, it is found in policy documents. Moreover, Walsh, Anders, and Hancock (2013) argue that creativity is an important skill among scientist and that scientific revolutions and challenges in conventional scientific wisdom need these kinds of driving force.

The inclusion of creativity in national educational policy recommendations is the first step to nurture students’ creative potential, which is what is needed to recognise and capitalise on the opportunities that are present (Beghetto and Kaufman 2017). Sternberg (2010) argues that this can be done by encouraging students to create, invent, discover, predict, define and redefine their own problems, as well as by encouraging tolerance of ambiguity, helping students to discover what they love to do, providing an environment that fosters creativity and several other strategies.

In the DP project, one of the first steps was to invite girls that love theatre, or other forms of art to participate in the project. The intention of the project was to use the girls’ already existing interests as motivations for participation. It was also decided that the project would build on the girls’ ideas, supporting and encouraging them in their thinking and activities, for example, through making (creating), thus stimulating creativity.

Makerspaces – definition, intentions and outcomes

The concept makerspace has already been presented above, explaining the origin of the term and the cultural nature of these kinds of environments. When it comes to the physical nature of makerspaces regarding localities, these environments initially emerged from universities, but are now found, for instance, in schools, museums, industrial estates and libraries (Taylor, Hurley, and Connolly 2016). In this study, the makerspace is located in a science innovation park run by different companies.

Since digital fabrication is mentioned as one of the key activities in makerspaces, equipment such as 3D-printers, laser cutters and electronic elements are often available (Taylor, Hurley, and Connolly 2016). However, as the concept makerspace has become widespread, it no longer needs to include a pre-defined set of fabrication tools; thus, the focus is rather on having a creative space, accessible to the public where it is possible to explore, make and tinker (Rosa et al. 2017).

Some literature (e.g. Graves 2014) explicitly mentions the intention of makerspaces to stimulate interest in STEM. Krishnamurthi et al. (2013) as well as Blikstein (2013) argue that activities in makerspaces could support children’s development of science identities. In their opinion, children’s interest in the field can be raised, resulting in a wish to engage in science and feeling capable of doing so.

The justification for using makerspaces to develop twenty-first-century skills is implicit in the description of the cultural nature of makerspaces in stimulating creativity and providing participants with the opportunity to cooperate in a community (Peppler and Bender 2013), with the intent to teach students how to develop their thinking and to solve problems (Graves 2014).

Reports on the intentions of makerspaces have been presented, but what about studies on the actual outcomes of activities in makerspaces? Sheridan et al. (2014) found that even though they studied different makerspaces, some similarities were observed in the outcomes. The first was that these learning environments are multidisciplinary, thus, fuelling engagement and innovation. They gave an example of how disciplines such as sewing and electronics were combined for a girl who was creating accoutrements for a doll’s bed. Sheridan et al. (2014) found that diverse materials, processes, others’ work and the multi-disciplinarity in the environment stimulated the girl to expand her knowledge and skills in design work. The second finding showed that makerspaces had a marked diversity of learning arrangements, blending individual and group projects, structured workshops and demonstrations, as well as self-directed activities. Making was the core in all of the makerspaces; yet, the participants seemed to highlight the social aspect, referring to the spaces as being familiar, i.e. a place where you meet friends. The third finding by Sheridan et al. (2014) was that learning was closely related to the making. The value of the makerspace in which this study took place can be related to the findings of Sheridan et al. (2014). It is multifaceted, when it comes to equipment and possibilities to conduct different kinds of making. It has the traditional digital tools such as 3D-printers and laser cutters, but it is also equipped with all sorts of paint, paper, wood, etcetera, hence diverse materials. The making is the core and the social aspects, for instance, the female engineering students supporting the girls during the project.

In this study, the intention of using a makerspace as the major environment of the project is to develop an interest in STEM and well-suited skills among the participating girls. Hence, the project intentions are in line with the makerspace intentions as explained from the literature above. However, besides outcomes discussed by Sheridan et al. (2014), Taylor, Hurley, and Connolly (2016) argue that outcomes from makerspaces are difficult to track. Hence, this study is an attempt to capture outcomes from makerspace activities and thus make a contribution to research.

Drama as a strategy to develop twenty-first-century skills and to stimulate interest in STEM

This study of the DP project and the learning environment in the form of a makerspace has been presented in relation to earlier findings. However, the DP project was also grounded in the idea of using drama as a mediating artefact to stimulate the participants’ interest in STEM.

It has been argued that drama can make children/students more active and inclusive compared to traditional ways of teaching science. Drama can support both understandings of science concepts (e.g. Bracha 2007; Dorion 2009) and develop an understanding of how scientists work (McGregor 2012, 2014). Furthermore, drama can provide the opportunity to explore and investigate, but also to communicate science (McGregor 2012, 2014). Using drama also requires social interactions and cooperation between participants (e.g. Wood 1998). Abed (2016) discusses that drama can promote collaborative learning and thus increase students’ motivation to learn science. Alrutz (2004) and Abed (2016) reported that drama could successfully be used to stimulate students’ interest in learning science.

Even though there have been positive reports about the potential of using drama in science education, there are also challenges. In earlier research (e.g. Nicholas and Ng 2008), there was a concern that science used in drama may be lightweight or inaccurate. Braund et al. (2015) discussed the risk for misconceptions, either adding or embedding those already existing. McGregor (2014) emphasised that in using drama in science education, there is a need to have a combination of mind and body to communicate understandings. It has also been argued that using drama in science teaching can be challenging since it requires time to plan and conduct (e.g. Alrutz 2004; Dorion 2009).

Still, based on the positive findings presented in examples of earlier research on how drama can be used, it was justified as a tool suitable for the aims of the DP project.

Theoretical framework

Several factors in the investigated project may have impacted on the outcomes. Hence, the activity theory (AT) model, developed by Engeström (1987), served as a useful theoretical framework since the model includes several elements that are related to the outcome. The elements were considered as useful to also gain a deeper understanding of the outcomes. Moreover, AT is based on a social-cultural perspective, where activities are situated within historical and cultural contexts (Engeström 1987). In this study, the social-cultural perspective is of interest with the context from the theatre environment and the use of drama as a mediating tool. However, the drama was not used as a single tool, but in combination with making at a makerspace. The social-cultural perspective from the makerspace, serving as an environment aiming to foster twenty-first-century skills and in which the community is of importance, also justifies the use of AT as a theoretical framework for the study. Bakhurst (2009) argued that AT could be used for several purposes, both in theoretical perspectives and for practical applications. Examples of studies that have used the AT model include those by Edwards (2004), Hedegaard (2012) and Svendsen (2017), among others.

The AT model includes subject, object, mediating artefacts, rules, community and division of labour (Figure 1). The arrows between the elements in the model indicate the interactions within the elements of the system (Engeström, Miettinen, and Punamäki 1999). The object is the goal of the activity and is supposed to give it meaning, describing what is done and for what purpose (Bakhurst 2009). The outcome is the ultimate goal. The activity is mediated by artefacts (e.g. instruments used). Activity is also mediated by the community in which the activity occurs, and the rules within the community may affect the activity. The subject works as part of the community to achieve the object. Finally, an activity normally also features a division of labour (Engeström, Miettinen, and Punamäki 1999). All of the elements in the model were part of the project presented in this study, and the application of the elements in the AT model in the project is presented in Figure 2 and further explained below.

Figure 1. The AT model (based on Engeström 1987)

Figure 2. The application of the AT model (Engeström 1987) to the DP project

Method

This study is a case study providing ‘a unique example of real people in real situations’ (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison  2011, 289). Since many variables are operating in the case study and in order to catch the implications of these, several tools were used for data collection. Moreover, in striving to portray and grasp what was going on during the project, detailed descriptions of the participants’ thoughts about the situation were included (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2011). As explained above, not only were the thoughts of the participants captured (through interviews), but observations were also conducted to verify or contradict the results from the interviews.

Research context considered from an activity theory perspective

In the DP project, the object, as seen from the organisers’ perspective, was the same as the aims: stimulating interest in STEM and developing twenty-first-century skills. However, the object from the perspective of the participating girls was probably the production of a performance, including the drama part (writing a script and acting), as well as the making of props. The young girls in the study were considered as the subjects. The activity was to create a performance; hence, a mediating artefact was the use of drama. However, the idea was not only to create a drama but also to make props in a makerspace. Hence, making was another mediating artefact. Actions, or activities, were considered as mediating artefacts, since these do not need to be tools in the form of physical equipment (Svendsen 2017). Sawyer (2003) discusses interpretations of mediating artefacts, not only as physical objects but also as, for instance, the use of poetry or music (in this case, in the form of drama and making). Concerning the rules, the intention was that the project should not be technically driven, but rather driven by the story that the girls wanted to convey. During the project, it was also important that the girls should be the owners of the performance; thus, they decided what kind of performance it could be and what it should be about. The only framework was the title, ‘Dream-perception of the future’. The community of the project was based on the support of people with knowledge about theatre, science and technology. A local theatre provided a drama teacher and localities during the project. A young woman, with an engineering background, was the project leader and initiator of the project. Three female engineering students were engaged to support the girls in the project. The idea was that the students had the technical knowledge to help the girls create props, or effects that would be included in the performance. With regard to the division of labour in the project, the project manager had the main responsibility and together with the engineering students helped the girls to make the props. The drama teacher conducted exercises with the girls to help them become acquainted and learn how to cooperate. She also provided support when the girls started to create the story for the performance and guided them on how to act. The engineering students focused only on the technical support, showing the girls how different equipment worked (e.g. 3D printers) and provided materials such as paint, brushes, string, or whatever else was necessary in the making activities. The rules they followed were to only act as support, not direct the girls. The making activities were their tool, and the artefacts used have already been mentioned (3D printers, laser cutters, etcetera).

Research context in practice

The study took place in a city in a region in Sweden where there is a great need for STEM competence in trade and industry. Moreover, the number of students that choose these kinds of education programmes at upper secondary school is quite low. This is also true for the number of female students who apply to engineering programmes at the university in the region. Hence, from a local perspective, efforts to stimulate STEM interest are of importance. In addition, as already argued, development of 21st skills are emphasised all over Europe, also in Sweden. This project was therefore initiated to make a contribution to these efforts. The project started in the middle of March 2017 with an audition, to which girls aged 7–12 were invited through social media networks. During the following 3 months, there were two meetings every week, each meeting lasting 1.5 h. Altogether, 28 meetings were held (including the final performance), during which the girls were trained to work as a team; they practised drama, created a story (wrote a script) and made all the props needed for the performance. In the middle of the project, they went on a two-day camp to work intensively with the script for the performance. In mid-June 2017, the performance was presented for families and friends. The researcher participated only when collecting data. The process of data collection is explained below.

Participants

Ten girls aged 7–11 ended up participating in the project. Eight of the girls came to the first audition, and two girls joined the week after since they did not know about the project beforehand. The girls came from a town in mid-western Sweden, from a region with a low number of people having an academic background. Most of the girls came from families without any parent working within STEM professions, with one exception; one of the girls had a mother who was a mathematics teacher. The girls have been coded as girl 1–10 in the findings section following quotes.

The project leader, the drama teacher and three female engineering students were also considered as participants supporting the girls in the activities during the project.

Data collection and analysis

Data were analysed both from a self-report aspect (through interviews) and through observations. Accordingly, the analysis could be triangulated, and the risk of ending up with self-reports that could be too optimistic and describing intentions or ‘stated beliefs’ was diminished (Willermark 2018). Hence, combining the reports during the interviews with observations that could confirm or contradict what was reported during the interviews supported the validity of the analysis.

An initial interview at the audition allowed for the collection of information about the participating girls. The questions focused on the girls’ background, trying to capture their interest in acting, but also to determine any interest in technology. The latter was elicited by asking the girls if they thought about technology when watching a play in a theatre, or if they had any experiences from using digital technology, for instance, making movies on YouTube.

During the project, nine observations were made at the meetings, with field notes taken of what was going on, as well as video-recordings. The final performance was also video-recorded. The reason for observations was to study the process, trying to capture any development among the young girls during the project. The author of this manuscript made the observations. The field notes from the observations and the video-recordings were member checked by the project leader and the drama teacher. All of the young girls watched the video-recordings and agreed on the scenes captured. The female engineering students were not video-recorded; however, they agreed on the field notes taken in which they were mentioned.

Two interviews were conducted during the project: one with the project leader and one with the drama teacher. After the performance, a group interview was conducted with the girls, and a separate interview was held with the project leader and the drama teacher. Interview questions are listed in Appendix.

In addition, pictures of drawings and props made by the girls during the project were part of the data collection. Table 1 presents an overview of the meetings and the data collections, as well as where the meetings were held.

Table 1. Overview of the project showing activity, learning environment and data collected

Meeeting number	Activity	Learning environment	Data collection
1	Audition	University	Interview with young girls
2, 3, 4	Drama	Local theatre	No data collection
5	Drama	Local theatre	Observation
6	Drama	Local theatre	Interview with project leader
7	Drama	Local theatre	No data collection
8	Introduction to making	Makerspace	Observation
11	Drama	Local theatre	No data collection
12	Drama	Local theatre	Observation
13–18	Making	Makerspace	Observation at meeting 15, 18, and interview with drama teacher after meeting 18
19–25	Making	Makerspace	Observations at meeting 20, 22 and 24
26–27	Rehearsel	University big hall	No data collection
28	Performance	University big hall	Observation and interviews with young girls, project leader and drama teacher

Table 1. Overview of the project showing activity, learning environment and data collected.

Data (field notes and video-recordings from the observations and transcripts from interviews) were analysed by first conducting a thematic content analysis of the outcome of the activities (drama and making). The thematic coding was deductive, actively searching for evidence of the development of interest in STEM as an outcome in relation to the mediating artefacts (drama and making) and development of the specific twenty-first-century skills, i.e. creativity, problem-solving and cooperation as another outcome. Next step of the analysis was to search for evidence of how other elements (community, rules and division of labour) from the AT model were influencing the outcome. Since the combination of the mediating artefact drama and making was unique for the project, the analysis was mainly focused on the outcome, based on this combination.

Findings

Outcomes of combining drama and activities in a makerspace, with regard to the development of interest in STEM

During the initial interview with the girls, it was evident that seven of them wanted to participate because of their interest in acting. One of them was mainly interested in painting and wanted to be part of the project because of this, and she hoped that she could paint decorations for the performance. None of the girls showed any interest in STEM at the beginning of the project either in the initial interview or during the first observations. The first sign of interest in science was identified during the 15th meeting. The girls worked with sketches in the makerspace while in small groups, drawing and discussing what the props would look like. While drawing, one of the girls suddenly started to talk about school subjects she liked.

‘Chemistry is so fun. It’s possible to mix chemicals and flowers can change colours!’ (Girl 6)

‘Wow, do you have chemistry! We only have science’, a girl responded. (Girl 7)

When signs of development of interest in STEM were sought after, the drama teacher argued:

I have not noticed that they have talked specifically about technology, for instance, at the makerspace, but they have experienced different machines, tools and materials and they have all been very active. (Drama teacher, interview after 18th meeting).

Although the field observations did not display many signs of growing science interest, it was noted that when the activities became more focused on making of props in the makerspace, all the girls wanted to be active in the making and the use of technical equipment (field notes). The drama teacher confirmed this:

One of the girls only wanted to paint from the beginning, and after the camp she wanted to work with the script. After a while, all of the girls were very eager to make props for the performance and making was really engaging. (Drama teacher, final interview).

There were other episodes and comments that related to the development of interest in STEM, showing that the girls seemed to enjoy identifying themselves as scientists. In the 18th meeting, the observing researcher noticed that during the whole session, one of the girls wore a pair of goggles, even though it was not necessary. When asked by the observing researcher about why she wore the goggles, she responded:

‘I needed them at the beginning when I was spraying paint on some balls, but then I kept them on just because it was fun wearing them; I feel like a scientist’. (Girl 8)

The drama teacher commented on the girls’ development regarding how they could relate to a technology environment:

I think the girls now can identify with several things, such as what it is like to be in a makerspace environment and maybe they can think, if they face a problem in the future, “I can fix this”. They have gained a foundation, they probably do not know if they are going to work with science or technology in the future, but they maybe can imagine themselves within the world of technology. (Drama teacher, final interview)

The project leader presented some examples of changes she had noticed:

Well, you know recently, when one of the girl’s birthday was approaching, her mother told me that she wanted a toolbox as a gift and this was something totally new. I was also told that the daughter now says that she wants to be a scientist, because there are female scientists. Then, we have this other girl, she only wanted to act, and her mother told me that she is making different kinds of models at home. The latest construction was an airport and it was particularly important with the x-ray, controlling that people do not carry dangerous stuff. (Project leader, final interview)

Evidence of how the community influenced the development of interest in STEM among the girls was mainly found from how the engineering students seemed to affect the girls. This was reported when one of the girls mentioned the role of the students, but referred to them as the technology girls.

‘The technology girls have taught us a lot about technology and how we can create different things, to use 3D-printers. That was interesting’. (Girl 3)

The project leader also stated that the engineering students had played an important part.

The girls really looked up to the students; they were like idols and some of the girls said that they wanted to be like them. (Project leader)

Any identification of how the rules and the division of labour influenced the outcome, in terms of developed interest in STEM among the girls, was not explicit in the data.

Outcomes identified from combining drama and activities in a makerspace, with regard to the development of science interest skills in terms of: creativity, problem-solving and cooperation

Creativity

During one of the first meetings, the girls where challenged by the drama teacher to imagine a place and how this would look in the future and then illustrate it as a freeze-frame picture. The task was individually based. However, it appears that the girls tried to copy each other because when they explained their pictures of places in the future, most of them presented similar portrayals, e.g. dogs or rabbits in a park. (Field notes from observation).

In conversations with the drama teacher after the session, she was of the same opinion as the observing researcher, which was that the girls seemed to have difficulties imagining environments, or scenarios in the future. The drama teacher stated:

Maybe the task was too difficult for the girls at this stage. I need to be more specific to stimulate their imagination. (Drama teacher, 5th meeting)

Observing drama activities later on, the researcher noticed a change with the girls. The drama teacher had divided them into small groups and asked them to show what could happen in a future factory and in a future home. The future factory group chose to mime and after the presentation, the girls explained what they had shown. Their scene was a factory in which animals were produced from eggs.

The future home group presented a drama with dialogue and acting. The scene was about a family watching TV and how they could talk to the TV and decide what would happen in the TV show, hence a new way of controlling media.

At the same meeting, the project leader challenged the girls’ imagination:

Project leader: What do you think people will do in the future?

Girl 4: I think you can paint only by thinking.

Girl 5: I think you can control a computer only by looking at it with your eyes.

Girl 7: I can calculate everything in the future and then I will be able to help people … and I will live in a laboratory with a lot of buttons.

In the following meeting, the drama teacher used process drama about a school in the future. The girls were asked to decide what the school would look like and how things worked in the classroom. Many of the ideas the girls presented were about controlling different things by pushing on different buttons, by using lasers, or simply by thinking.

During the makerspace observations, the girls showed many examples of creativity in their making of props. They made drawings and thereafter, with the help of the project leader and the students, they produced the props using technology equipment as well as different materials, in the form of wood, styrofoam and plastics (for 3D-printing). Some examples of props and the making are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Examples of making of props

When the girls shared what they had learnt during the project and what they believed would be important skills in the future, one of them said:

‘People need to be creative in the future, but we (referring to themselves by pointing at the others) are already creative’. (Girl 5)

Problem-solving

Examples of problem-solving were mainly observed during activities in the makerspace.

In one meeting, the girls made a video-recording for the play, where a fortune-teller made a fire in the palm of her hand. The project leader showed them how to do this experiment. The girls were excited, but also afraid that it would hurt. Finally, one of the girls found the courage to try. After the experiment, she did not want to do it again for the video-recording, as she felt that it hurt a little. One of the girls came up with a solution:

‘Why can’t we make it like a stunt, as they do in movies?’ (Girl 3)

They decided that the project leader should have the fire in her palm, and they would make it looks like as if it came from the palm of the girl acting as a fortune-teller. Another example of problem-solving was when the girls created a car made of styrofoam for use in the performance. The project leader asked the girls how they were going to make it moves. Two of the girls started to work on a solution. They solved the problem by attaching a fishing line to the car and then moved it by pulling the line.

Cooperation

During the observations, it was noted that the girls were trained to get to know each other and learn to collaborate through different kinds of drama exercises. They also collaborated on the different prop making activities. A typical example is an observation from the 19th meeting. One girl was sewing and another girl asked if she could help. The first girl gladly accepted the help. Another example was when some measurements were needed to make a box lid. Two girls collaborated on measuring and discussed how to create the lid. The drama teacher confirmed this observation about cooperation among the girls:

Not many girls knew each other in the project when it started, but now they can all work with anyone in the group. They seem to be confident and enjoying themselves. The have let go of some of their personal need for control and cooperate very well. (Drama teacher, interview after 18th meeting).

After the performance, all girls responded that it was great to participate. They mentioned the joy of making new friends, acting and making of props. For example:

‘It was great, because we were together, and we did something fun’. (Girl 1)

‘It was fun to make new friends, and it was great to act and make things’. (Girl 3)

‘I have learnt that it is easier to come up with ideas and solutions to problems when you do it together with others’. (Girl 7)

In the examples presented, it has been shown how creativity was developed when drama and making were used as mediating artefacts. Evidence of how the community affected the development of creativity (outcome) was, for instance, how the drama teacher changed her instructions to support the girls in this development. Several examples have also shown how problem-solving and cooperation (outcomes) were developed within the community, based on the support provided to the girls. Identification of how rules and division of labour influenced the outcome, in terms of developed twenty-first-century skills among the girls, was not explicit in the data.

Discussion

This study of a project combining makerspace activities and drama (mediating artefacts) has explored outcomes in terms of developed interest in STEM and developed twenty-first-century skills, with a special focus on creativity, problem-solving and cooperation. Findings are discussed below in relation to the AT model.

Stimulated interest in STEM?

The outcome, in terms of developed interest in STEM among the participating girls, did not only to relate to the activities in the project. One of the girls mentioned how she enjoyed chemistry during one of the meetings, albeit this related to her experiences of the subject in school. Still, there were other findings on developed interest in STEM that seemed to connect to the project and elements included. For instance, the drama teacher talked about how activities had resulted in the girls’ engagement, both in drama and makerspace sessions. This confirms drama as a mediating artefact in stimulating interest in STEM (Abed 2016; Alrutz 2004). The drama teacher also mentioned the effect of the makerspace environment, which is in line with the ideas of makerspaces as environments that can stimulate interest in STEM (e.g. Blikstein 2013; Graves 2014; Krishnamurthi et al. 2013). Hence, drama and making as mediating artefact seem to contribute to a positive outcome, in terms of the development of interest in STEM. A relevant question is whether interest in STEM was stimulated or mainly interest in science and technology. Only a few episodes observed showed science content. Nonetheless, the girls sometimes identified themselves as scientists, and some kind of science capital (Archer et al. 2015) seemed to be gained throughout the project. Some maths were included in the making of props, without being emphasised by any participant.

Development of twenty-first-century skills, in terms of creativity, problem-solving and cooperation?

As stated in the discussion about development of interest in STEM, the mediating artefact in terms of drama and making seemed to affect the outcome. When it comes to the development of twenty-first-century skills, it is argued that the community played a role in terms of the development of twenty-first-century skills. Support from the drama teacher, project leader and students, as well as the relationships between the girls probably had an influence on creativity, problem-solving and cooperation. The initial idea that the girls should create the story seemed to be followed, both regarding the story and the props made. The adults stuck to their roles as guides (division of labour) and refrained from making decisions, at least during the making activities. The drama activities, especially at the beginning of the project, were more directed from the drama teacher, focusing on how to get the girls more acquainted and work as a team. Regarding creativity, it is argued (based on the definition made by Sawyer 2003) that the girls did develop this skill and were able to produce a performance, including props, which were new artefacts borne out of the girls’ imagination. Development of problem-solving and cooperation was found as outcomes and thus confirm earlier studies that drama (e.g. Abed 2016; McGregor 2012, 2014) and activities in makerspaces (e.g. Davies 2017) can promote this kind of development. The data showed no evidence on how the rules affected the outcomes of the development of twenty-first-century skills.

Critical reflections on the use of activity theory

In this study, a combination of mediating artefacts was used, namely, drama and making. However, it was not possible to draw a conclusion that it actually was the combination that had an impact on the outcomes. A question to be raised is whether the outcomes would have been the same if using only one of the artefacts. On the other hand, the use of drama was important as this served as a tool to attract the girls to participate since they initially were interested in theatre. The use of drama also served as a tool to create meaning for the making activities, and both of the tools became connected. Other relations within the AT system were the connection between the community, the mediating artefacts and the outcomes. The makerspace culture is based on sharing and cooperating; thus, the community is of importance. The division of labour seemed to focus on the girls being the owners of the project. However, as mentioned, the drama teacher was more in charge, at least in the beginning of the project. It is also important to remember that not all meetings were observed. Thus, the question remains as to how the division of labour worked in all the meetings. Furthermore, it was also not possible to identify how the rules in the project were followed and how they affected the outcomes. Finally, the relation between all of the elements in the AT system as difficult to identify since the model was used to try to capture the whole project in one AT system. Maybe, the focus should only have been on specific activities during the project and showing AT systems for each of the activities.

Conclusions and limitations

This project studied was complex involving many factors such as: makerspace activities and drama, as well as the development of interest in STEM and twenty-first-century skills Because of the complexity, determining outcomes of the project was challenging.

The findings are positive, albeit, situational. Also, it could be of interest to find out how, or if, the triggered interest (Krapp 2002) in STEM will develop and how, or if, the experience of participating in the project will have an impact on the girls in the future.

The use of AT as a theoretical framework seemed suitable based on the elements involved in the project. However, AT should have been used in another way as explained above.

A limitation of the study was that only 10 girls participated, and most of the making activities were related to technology, rather than science. However, this study is unique in that it analyses outcomes of a project in which makerspace activities are combined with drama as mediating artefact. Future studies could explore how extramural activities in this form could add more technology and science to the processes.

Ethical considerations

All of the participants in the study were informed that their participation was voluntary and it was emphasized that the participants’ identities would be protected throughout and after the completion of the projects. All the collected data were handled in such a way that the participants’ identity would not be traceable and the data kept save. Since the participants were children permissions were made by their parents to participate.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Appendix

First interview with participating girls

Questions:

1. What’s your name?

2. How old are you?

3. Why do you want to participate in The dream performance?

4. What do you hope that you will be doing in the project?

5. What do you want to work with when you grow up?

6. What are your parents working with?

7. Have you been involved in any performances before? If, so, what?

8. Do you watch anything on YouTube? If so, what do you watch? How often?

9. Do you watch movies? If so, what kind of movies? How often?

10. If you watch movies, do you think about the different effects in the movies? If so, what?

11. Do you make and record movies by yourself? If, so, how do you do that?

12. Do you visit theatres? If, so, do you think about how the stage looks?

13. Do you have any role model? If so, who is that and why do you think this person is a ‘good’ role model?

Interview with project leader after six meetings

Questions:

1. What have you done so far in the project?

2. What is the status of the girls?

3. What thoughts do they have about the future?

4. How do they cooperate?

5. Have the girls shared any ideas or thoughts related to science or technology?

6. Can you notice any kind of development among the girls? If so, what?

7. Can you notice any development of twenty-first-century skills among the girls? If so, what?

8. What is going to happen next?

Interview with drama teacher 1 month before the performance

Questions:

1. What where your thoughts about this project from the beginning?

2. Did the girls know about the aim of the project from the start?

3. What kind of development have you identified among the girls, so far?

4. What are your thoughts now, with 1 month left until the performance? Will you fulfil the aim of the project?

5. What do the girls talk about during the meetings?

6. What is going to happen next?

Interview with the girls after the performance

Questions:

1. What did you think about participating in this project?

2. The performance was about the future. How much of the story do you think could be real and what is fantasy?

3. What do you think is important to know in the future?

4. What have you learnt from participating in this project?

5. What do you think about the engineer students that participated? Were they helpful?

Interview with the project leader and drama teacher after the performance

Questions:

1. What are your thoughts now after the performance?

2. Did you fulfil the aim of the project?

3. Would you do anything different if you started all over? If so, what?

4. What role did the engineering students play, according to you?

5. What role did drama have in the project?

6. What role did the activities at the makerspace have in the project?

7. What do you think the girls have learnt in general from participating?

8. What do you think the girls have learnt in terms of the development of twenty-first-century skills from participating?

9. If you would make anything different running the project again, what would that be?