Making, Makers, Makerspaces: The Shift to Making in 20 Schools 3031098188, 9783031098185

Citation preview

Janette Hughes   Editor

Making, Makers, Makerspaces The Shift to Making in 20 Schools

Making, Makers, Makerspaces

Janette Hughes Editor

Making, Makers, Makerspaces The Shift to Making in 20 Schools

Editor Janette Hughes Faculty of Education Ontario Tech University Oshawa, ON, Canada

ISBN 978-3-031-09818-5    ISBN 978-3-031-09819-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09819-2 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

For Sylvia Harley Hughes, who fostered my passion to make as a young child.

Foreword

In his 1980 book, Mindstorms, pioneering STEM educator, researcher, and learning theorist Seymour Papert described the potential of a “computer culture” grounded in meaningful, humanizing, and digital-physical activity that could permit “more personal, less alienating relationships with knowledge” and that could improve relationships among students and teachers as they engaged, together, in learning processes (p. 177). At a time, historically, when personal computers were becoming more present in homes, schools, and workplaces, his preoccupation as a computer scientist was not with the pragmatics of how to get computers into schools so students could be prepared with the job skills of the future. Rather, having identified the way that students’ active, embodied problem solving with his LOGO software enabled them to participate in the construction of understandings, he was concerned with how to grow inclusive cultures of learning that would bring “poets and engineers” together in the exploration of questions of shared importance, using computers as mediating objects, and in ways that would strengthen the human relationships that are fundamental to children’s healthy growth and development. Importantly, as he reflected on the necessary conditions that would enable this vision for an inclusive learning society to take root, he asked: Will this context be school? More than 40  years later, we have reasons to ask the very same question. Networked computers connect us, but they also algorithmically distance us from ideas, from complexity, and from opportunities to reconcile differences and solve problems of common importance with people who may ascribe to divergent perspectives. During the first 2 years of the global COVID-19 pandemic, digital networks enabled students and their teachers to remain connected through online learning platforms, and yet, this kind of computer-mediated schooling was inequitably accessible, and even harmful to students’ and to teachers’ mental health (Vaillancourt et al., 2021). As we recover from this time in Education in Ontario and redress the disproportionate impacts of the pandemic on our students who have also been historically and systemically marginalized from and by schools because of their disabilities, their neurodiversities, and their racial, cultural, linguistic, sexual, and/or gendered identities, we must ask: will schools ever be the places where humanizing, computer-mediated cultures strengthen human relationships? With the publication of this important book, we can turn to Janette Hughes and her co-authors for insight. vii

viii

Foreword

Through their brilliant analyses, framed by Papert’s constructionism and a critical theoretical orientation, Hughes and her colleagues show us how Making in publicly funded schools can open pathways to possibility. And, by giving their readers access to the voices and practices of the Ontario educators who participated in their research, and who built Makerspaces and Maker programs in their schools, we learn how we might (re)make systems that – perhaps for the first time – establish more humanizing conditions for more students more of the time. Will this context ever be school? Hughes and her co-authors show us that yes, it can be when the systems in which schools are situated use rigorously constructed evidence to inform decisions, and when thoughtful leadership, professional learning, and essential funding and policy supports are in place. In this work, they show us how educators around this province have built Maker cultures that support meaningful collaboration, shared problem solving, inquiry, play and well-being through a shared commitment to the fundamental principles of inclusion, accessibility, and criticality. Making and the Maker movement have been rightly criticized for the ways that dominant cultural values and technophilic narratives advance neoliberal agendas in schools and perpetuate inequalities because – in truth – they are often designed to appeal to those who are already privileged in school and in society, more generally. The cases highlighted by Hughes and her co-authors intentionally disrupt dominant discourses of making, however. They bring us into the complexities of what it means to become a maker teacher; how to design activities that support the needs of every learner; how to manage the complexities of assessment of student learning using multiple, multimodal pieces of evidence; and how to centre Indigenous ways of knowing and making as a response to calls for truth, reconciliation, and the decolonization of curricula. As a scholar working in the area of maker-oriented teaching and learning in Ontario myself, I am grateful to Hughes and her colleagues for this book and for their analyses that open new directions for important future research. They offer a much needed and timely account of what is possible when researchers, educators, and policymakers focus their attention on the design of meaningful change. Of course, critical making is not the only change needed to make our schools more humanizing and inclusive. But as Hughes and her colleagues show us, making can become a systemic pillar in the development of “computer-mediated cultures” that sustain dispositions of discovery, a sense of well-being, and fundamental understandings of what it means to learn with and from one another – the poets and the engineers, together. Faculty of Education University of Ottawa Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Michelle Schira Hagerman

References Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. Basic Books. Vaillancourt, T. et al. (2021) Children and schools during COVID-19 and beyond: Engagement and connection through opportunity. Royal Society of Canada. https://rsc-src.ca/en/covid-19-policy-briefing/children-and-schools-during-covid-19-and-beyond-engagement-and-connection

Preface

We are all makers, whether we make art, write, garden, bake, knit or build birdhouses. I believe in the power of making to learn and learning to make. I’ve seen student engagement drastically increase during the making process in dozens of classrooms. I’ve witnessed students who did not achieve success through more traditional pedagogies suddenly start to do better academically. Teachers have shared their success stories from the classroom with me too. Engagement in learning has increased, discipline challenges are reduced and students want to continue making through their recess or lunch hour, and some are emerging as untapped leaders to their peers. I personally “made” my way through the first 2 years of the pandemic, turning to stained glass work through the colder months and gardening in the spring and summer. Making decreased my feelings of loneliness and isolation and my anxiety over keeping my family safe and healthy. I hope you all have a similar creative outlet to support your mental well-being. Oshawa, ON, Canada

Janette Hughes

ix

Acknowledgements

I could not have conducted this research without the support of the Ontario Ministry of Education and the Council of Ontario Directors of Education, who provided the funding. Special thanks to Brandan Zoras and Brenda Hunter for their ongoing advice and wisdom and to the inspiring Ontario Tech University STEAM 3D Maker (dream) Team. I would also like to thank the 60 participating teachers, their administrators and the 20 school district directors who shared our vision of how maker pedagogies could create rich learning experiences for all students. The openness with which these educators embraced a shift in the roles of teachers and learners and made space for their students to construct their own understandings to deepen their learning was a joy to experience. They modelled inquiry-based life-long learning and reflection, and they made this maker journey one of the most rewarding of my career to date.

xi

Contents

1 The  Ontario Makerspace Project ����������������������������������������������������������    1 Janette Hughes and Laura Dobos 2 Inquiry-Based Learning Through Making��������������������������������������������   21 Janette Hughes, Stephanie Thompson, and Laura Morrison 3 Making, Creating, and Wellness ������������������������������������������������������������   35 Janette Hughes, Jennifer Laffier, and Jennifer A. Robb 4 Fostering  Global Competencies Through Maker Pedagogies��������������   57 Janette Hughes and Stephanie Thompson 5 Empowering  Student Leaders in Makerspaces������������������������������������   77 Janette Hughes and Laura Morrison 6 Role of the Teacher-Librarian����������������������������������������������������������������   93 Janette Hughes and Laura Morrison 7 Shifting  School Culture Through Shared Leadership and Support����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  107 Janette Hughes and Laura Morrison 8 Continuing  Professional Development for Teacher-Makers����������������  121 Janette Hughes and Laura Morrison 9 Indigenous  Ways of Knowing and Making��������������������������������������������  141 Janette Hughes and Margie Lam 10 Making Making Accessible to All������������������������������������������������������������  161 Janette Hughes and Jennifer A. Robb 11 Assessment  in the Makerspace ��������������������������������������������������������������  185 Janette Hughes and Stephanie Thompson

xiii

Contributors

Laura Dobos  Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, ON, Canada Janette Hughes  Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, ON, Canada Jennifer Laffier  Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, ON, Canada Margie Lam  Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, ON, Canada Laura Morrison  Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, ON, Canada Jennifer A. Robb  Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, ON, Canada Stephanie Thompson  Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, ON, Canada

xv

Abbreviations

3D Three-Dimensional (e.g., 3D printers) CMEC Council of Ministers of Education, Canada CODE Council of Ontario Directors of Education DIY Do It Yourself FDK Full-Day Kindergarten FNMI First Nations, Métis & Inuit MoE Ministry of Education OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development OME Ontario Ministry of Education STEAM Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, Mathematics STEM Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics PBL Problem-Based Learning PjBL Project-Based Learning PD Professional Development TL Teacher-Librarian

School Districts BGCDSB CSCProvidence CSCViamonde CEPEO DCDSB GEDSB GECDSB HPCDSB HSCDSB KPRDSB KPDSB

Bruce-Grey Catholic District School Board Conseil Scolaire Catholique Providence Conseil Scolaire Catholique Viamonde Conseil des Écoles publiques de l’Est de l’Ontario Durham Catholic District School Board Grand Erie District School Board Greater Essex County District School Board Huron Perth Catholic District School Board Huron Superior Catholic District School Board Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board Keewatin-Patricia District School Board xvii

xviii

LDSB LDSB PSSBTP RDSB RCDSB SCCDSB TDSB WCDSB

Abbreviations

Lakehead District School Board Limestone District School Board Protestant Separate School Board of the Town of Penetanguishene Rainbow District School Board Renfrew County District School Board St. Clair Catholic District School Board Toronto District School Board Wellington Catholic District School Board

Chapter 1

The Ontario Makerspace Project Janette Hughes and Laura Dobos

Working in collaboration with the Ontario Ministry of Education (OME) and the Council of Ontario Directors of Education (CODE), we engaged 60 elementary teachers in Ontario in a makerspace project called “Science 3D: Discovery, Design and Development through Makerspaces”. Twenty different school districts across Ontario were invited to participate in the project, and each of these school districts selected 1 school and 3 teachers from that school to be involved. This book shares the journeys of each of these schools and participating teachers in their 2-year efforts to establish a makerspace and introduce maker pedagogies in their classroom, library, learning commons or renovated space in the school. In the following chapters, we describe the challenges the participants faced along the way, as well as the successes they experienced working with their students in this new milieu. We explore in depth our findings related to five central research questions: 1. How might educators use makerspace pedagogies to promote global competencies such as inquiry, imagination, innovation and design thinking, critical thinking, problem-solving and collaboration? 2. What challenges exist for teachers/schools in establishing a makerspace/using maker pedagogies with students? 3. What are some promising practices associated with maker pedagogy approach? 4. What supports are necessary for teachers shifting to an inquiry-based, maker pedagogy approach? 5. What impact, if any, does a maker pedagogy approach have on student achievement and well-being? In this introductory chapter, we provide an overview of the project beginning with some definitions of terms that will be used throughout the book. Although J. Hughes (*) · L. Dobos Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Hughes (ed.), Making, Makers, Makerspaces, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09819-2_1

1

2

J. Hughes and L. Dobos

maker education is becoming more widely recognized as an innovative alternative to traditional teaching and learning, it has a relatively long history, rooted in constructionist learning theory. We offer a brief historical perspective on making in education and provide an overview of the body of literature related to making in the K–8 context. Finally, we share the methodology and research design of this qualitative research study and give a very brief, high-level summary of the findings, which are elaborated in much more detail in subsequent chapters of the book.

A (Very) Brief History of Making There are several good books that provide a detailed history of making for humans, including Making is Connecting by David Gauntlett (2011); Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture by anthropologist Tim Ingold (2013); and Why We Make Things and Why it Matters by Peter Korn (2015). Throughout history humans have always made things and as Make magazine founder Dale Dougherty argues in his 2011 TED Talk, we are all makers. The earliest hunters and gatherers made tools, weapons and vessels to store resources. They built shelters and crafted clothing and items to adorn themselves and decorate their living spaces. Noted anthropologist, Ellen Dissanayake (1995), argues that what makes us human is the biological imperative we have to make the everyday “special” through artistic expression. Historically, making has also often had a collaborative aspect. The prevalence of crafts guilds in the Middle Ages, for example, is indicative of the desire of like-minded people coming together to make, create and share their work with others. And guilds still exist today; for example, in Ontario alone there are over 90 quilting guilds full of members who share a passion for sewing, fabric, colour and the aesthetics of quilts. Making has also long been a part of the education system, not only through the inclusion of the arts but also through the industrial arts dating back to the early 1900s, with a focus on wood and metal work and sewing/upholstery. A focus on skills such as electrical, welding, plumbing and mechanics were added, and many of these trades are still offered today, along with new technologies such as computer-­ aided design (CAD), control systems and electronics and programming. The development of skills in these areas is predominantly offered through secondary school electives in most school districts. The maker movement in its current reiteration was borne out of the increasing number of people who are creatively engaging in both physical (or tangible) and digital fabrication to solve an existing problem or need and to share their design and making with a community of like-minded innovators (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014). Do-it-yourself (DIY) paradigms have recently re-­ emerged and have gained popularity as a medium for creative expression (Buechley et  al., 2008; Buechley & Perner Wilson, 2012; Kuznetsov & Paulos, 2010; Tanenbaum et al., 2013) and self-directed learning (Martinez & Stager, 2013; Qiu et al., 2013; Kafai et al., 2014). Essentially, digital tools facilitate everyday creativity and making (TEDx Talks, 2016). With the Internet, particularly, there exists the

1  The Ontario Makerspace Project

3

power of making and being seen—connecting with others in geographically separate locations. As Gauntlett (2011) explains, “...the internet enables us to design and make lovely ways to show off our creative abilities, exchange ideas, and build networks of like-minded people who can support and inspire each other” (p. 3). There is no shortage of DIY websites, YouTube clips and apps that help makers at all ages and stages with whatever they aspire to build, make or create. One of the key differences between the modern maker movement and the home economics or shop classes of the 1970s and 80s is the emphasis on the design and making process, rather than on the product. Students engaged in making in schools today are not expected to replicate the teacher’s model by following step-by-step instructions; rather, they are encouraged to identify a problem or issue to investigate and to use the design process to address it.

Makerspaces, Maker Culture and Maker Pedagogies Community makerspaces have become a widespread phenomenon; however, these do-it-yourself (DIY) models, rooted in design thinking and innovation, are beginning to move into the realm of formal education. The maker movement has been associated primarily with science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) or STEAM education (where there is a focus on embedding the arts into science, technology, engineering and math); however, educators are also connecting making to the humanities, such as history, geography and language arts. The maker movement for education has broadened the level of participation in DIY activities across several demographics leading to increased activity in terms of creation of new makerspaces for practising hands-on learning, encouraging girls to participate in STEM activities and generally placing emphasis on the idea that every child can become an innovator (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014). What distinguishes a makerspace from a place where people make “stuff” is the inherent culture. A makerspace is much more than the equipment that is housed there. A makerspace should be committed to a culture of innovation while, at the same time, provide the skills and foundation that students will need to succeed in that kind of learning environment (Fleming, 2014). A maker culture promotes risk-­ taking, learning from mistakes, problem-solving and the development of perseverance when tasks are difficult. A maker culture fosters higher-order thinking skills and opportunities to share learning at local and global community levels through Maker Faires and websites such as www.instructables.com, www.thingiverse.com and www.DIY.org. Maker pedagogies promote important principles including inquiry, play, imagination, innovation, critical and creative thinking, problem-solving, collaboration and personalized learning. Maker pedagogies build on inquiry-based practices, such as project and problem-based learning (PBL), design thinking and the kinds of remixing practices often highlighted in media literacy programmes. Based on our research, we extend our own definition and understanding of PBL to include

4

J. Hughes and L. Dobos

passion-based learning, which focuses on student driven interests and inquiries that position students as agents of change in their communities.

Overview of Study A current need in this area is to define promising practices and to better understand how to utilize making for the purpose of learning (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Cohen et al., 2016). The focus of this research is on developing and observing constructionist production pedagogies that work to build capacity for investigating and affecting change and innovation in formal education settings. The research investigates the impact of maker pedagogies that facilitate the discovery, design and development (3Ds) of digital and tangible products for teachers, their students and the school community. Teachers, working in school teams of three, collaboratively explored new avenues of thought in their practice. The research questions focused on how educators can use makerspace pedagogies to promote inquiry, play, imagination, innovation and design thinking, critical and creative thinking, problem-­ solving and collaboration. With the infusion of resources and custom-designed professional development, teachers were introduced to innovative ideas and practices in maker or critical making pedagogies. Through focused professional development sessions, they developed the knowledge, skills and confidence to establish and implement a makerspace/maker culture in their classrooms/schools, where learners can congregate to design, engineer and fabricate digitally enhanced products of all kinds, both digital and tangible, and explore the uses of digital technologies in general, including mobile devices, social media, apps and games, digital circuits, 3D printing, e-textiles, programmable robots, virtual/augmented reality, the Internet of Things and artificial intelligence.

Theoretical Considerations Situated within a constructionist approach to education (Papert, 1980; Papert & Harel, 1991), digital making connects the physical processes of constructing something with digital media. Making with digital media is not new in education; teachers have been working with their students to create digital stories and other digital texts for many years. The recent advent of user-friendly digital tools augments the fabrication process, making it easier for students to create multimodal, multimedia and digital artefacts. Importantly, in terms of education, making positions students as producers rather than just consumers and reintroduces creativity into a curriculum that has been increasingly devoid of creative endeavours, particularly as policymakers and politicians call for standardized assessments and accountability (Robinson, 2011). The 2017 Horizon Report predicts that makerspaces will be a key development in technology in the K–12 context over the next couple of years.

1  The Ontario Makerspace Project

5

Indeed, the authors of the report argue that the “advent of makerspaces, classroom configurations that enable active learning, and the inclusion of coding and robotics are providing students with ample opportunities to create and experiment in ways that spur complex thinking. Students are already designing their own solutions to real-world challenges” (Freeman et al., 2017, p. 4). Makerspaces tend to include digital tools such as microcontrollers, soft circuits, wearable tech, 3D printers, programmable robots, augmented and virtual reality and more. Depending on the context of the makerspace, there may be a focus on unplugged or low-tech tools as well. These technologies position the users as creators and require participants to draw on a variety of skills including interpersonal skills, coding skills, troubleshooting skills and more (Somanath et al., 2017). The research activities described in this book draw on the concept of critical making as a vehicle for deep learning through digital technology. Critical making assumes that learning is most effective when learners are active in making tangible objects in the real world and draw their own conclusions through experimentation across multiple media, where learners construct new relationships with knowledge in the process (Kafai, 2006; Ratto, 2011). Unlike more traditional instructionist approaches to learning (where the knowledge to be received by students is already embedded in objects delivered by teachers), a focus on constructionist learning encourages learners to learn from their own active engagement with raw materials. In this project, “raw materials” include both tangible and virtual materials. Beyond simply creating objects for the sake of creating objects (e.g. creating 3D keychains), critical making concerns itself with the relationship between technologies and social life, with emphasis on their liberatory and emancipatory potential. Thus, it connects two practices that are often considered separate: critical thinking and creative expression (Ratto, 2011). Critical making emphasizes critique and expression over technical sophistication: shared acts of making are more important than the resultant object. To avoid the “dangers of trivialization” or “keychain syndrome” of “making stuff” that will end up in landfill sites, Blikstein (2013) cautions educators to shy away from the kind of quick demonstration projects typically associated with makerspaces and to move toward STE[A]M learning that is more meaningful and contextualized. It is for this reason we decided to explore makerspace pedagogies in close connection to the Ontario Ministry of Education Grades 1–8 Science and Technology Curriculum. Seymour Papert (1980), an early proponent of constructionism, proposed a “low floor, high ceiling” learning environment, where students engage in digital coding in a form that has minimal prerequisite knowledge yet offers opportunities to explore and to build concepts and relationships well beyond students’ formal grade levels. Resnick et  al. (2009) added to that early model the dimension of “wide walls” that support “many different types of projects so people with many different interests and learning styles can all become engaged” (p. 63). It is this approach to learning that is offered in child-friendly coding environments such as Scratch and digital circuit making products such as MaKey MaKey (see Fig. 1.1 and 1.2); this project engages teachers and their students with these “low floor, high ceiling” computing and manufacturing tools. Creating interactive stories, simulations, games and

6

J. Hughes and L. Dobos

Fig. 1.1  Map of participating schools. (Reprinted with the permission of Brandon Zoras)

both physical and wearable technologies entails using digital tools to identify, access, manage, integrate, evaluate, critically analyse, synthesize, create, communicate, collaborate and code. In the context of the research, “makerspaces” were established at twenty schools to promote, observe and evaluate the impact of this kind of critical building/making using digital tools, including digital text making, 3D printing, robotics, virtual/augmented reality and e-textiles. Embedded in making, especially in educational contexts, is the design process. While there are a variety of different design models that have been adapted for use in K–12 education (including the Engineering is Elementary model, the Human-­­ Centered Design Model and The Works Engineering Design Process) these frameworks, as well as all design frameworks in general, ultimately facilitate a more human-centred approach to problem-solving (Gobble, 2014; Brown, 2009; Cahn et al., 2016). Each model may vary in terms of categories or descriptions; however “...most variations include the basic tasks of problem formulation [of a real-world issue], synthesis, analysis and implementation” (Voland, 2003, p.  5). Different approaches to design thinking are taken up by different groups, depending on the purpose of the design and the population with which it is being used. The educational benefits of maker pedagogies, which focus on this kind of design thinking, reflect a pressing need to incorporate makerspaces into schools to keep pace with society.

1  The Ontario Makerspace Project

7

Fig. 1.2  Visual table of contents provided with Year 2 schools’ starter kit

Methodology and Methods This research project was participatory and action-oriented (Lather, 1991; Mertens, 2009): it was interventionist and oriented to practical change. Building on a decade of qualitative, SSHRC-funded research working with teachers and students both in classrooms and in media lab settings, we employed a mixed methods approach to data collection which “focuse[d] on collecting, analyzing, and mixing both quantitative and qualitative data in a single study or series of studies…provid[ing] a deeper

8

J. Hughes and L. Dobos

understanding of research problems than either approach alone does” (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2011, p. 5). We also drew on elements of emergent and interpretive design to investigate the phenomenon of making as learning within the context of a qualitative, case study approach. A qualitative approach was appropriate as our goal was to capture the movements, experiences and interactions of the participants, both during professional development (PD) sessions and in their own classroom and school spaces. A case study approach was also appropriate as we considered each school a case, bounded by time and space (Stake, 2005). In this way, we were able to draw cross-­ case comparisons between what we were observing in different schools and with different teachers and whether or not our observations and interpretations held true across multiple sites. Qualitative research documentation includes digital video and audio recordings, on-the-ground field notes and observational notes, and pre- and post-interviews with participants. Interviews asked participants about their attitudes, dispositions and experiences with making and technologies, as well as other media production practices. The qualitative data is enhanced by pre-project surveys completed by all participants. The research team at the Ontario Tech University’s STEAM-3D Maker Lab provided customized PD sessions, resources and face-to-face as well as on-line dialogue to help teachers discover ways to create Science 3D inquiry projects that make important connections and teach the skills and knowledge in precise and integrated ways. Many of the individual projects lasted for several months in each school, and a great deal of student learning in each of the schools was expressed in artistic and technologically enhanced ways (e.g. design and construction of eco-­ friendly homes, robotics, green screen documentaries, e-textiles, stop-motion animation three-dimensional collages, social justice-themed quilts, etc.). It is expected that there has been and will continue to be significant and sustainable ongoing benefits in teacher practice when these imaginative, integrated and innovative inquiry-­ based projects are implemented and shared throughout Ontario. The project’s qualitative work involved continuous pedagogical documentation, using both traditional and multimodal approaches to artefact collection and analysis, extensive video ethnography and individual and group interviews with teachers and administrators. Supplemental mixed method attitudinal data before, during and after participation in digital making professional development sessions, using surveys and questionnaires, was used to support and add context to the qualitative data. The surveys/questionnaires employed Likert scale and open-ended questions to establish baselines and to track changes in participant attitudes and experiences over time.

1  The Ontario Makerspace Project

9

Setting and Participants The study took place over a 3-year period in grades K–8 classroom settings in 20 different school districts across Ontario, including schools with English, French and Indigenous students, in public and Catholic boards (see table below, in alphabetical order) and in diverse geographical locations. The school districts were selected by a committee with representatives from the OME and CODE and the research team. In Year 1 of the study, 11 schools were selected and in Year 2, another 9 schools were added for a total of 20. School districts (year 1) Durham Catholic District School Board Huron Perth Catholic District School Board Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board Keewatin-Patricia District School Board Le Conseil Scolaire Catholique Providence Le Conseil Scolaire Catholique Viamonde Protestant Separate School Board of the Town of Penetanguishene Rainbow District School Board Renfrew County District School Board St. Clair Catholic District School Board Toronto District School Board School districts (Year 2) Bruce-Grey Catholic District School Board Conseil des écolces publiques de l’Est de l’Ontario Grand Erie District School Board Greater Essex County District School Board Huron Superior Catholic District School Board Lakehead District School Board Limestone District School Board Rainy River District School Board

School location Uxbridge (rural) Stratford (rural)

No. of students 330 198

Grades SERT; 2; 6 SERT; 3; 8

Lakefield (rural)

435

TL; 4/5; 6

Kenora (rural) Pain Court (rural) Pickering (suburban) Penetanguishene (rural) Garson (rural) Pembroke (rural) Wallaceburg (rural) Toronto (urban)

170 214 450

2/3; 4/5; 5/6 5; 7 1; 5/6; 5/6

236

5; 6; 8

500 400 196 400

1; 7/8; 8 3; 4; 7 2; 3/4; 8 TL; 6; 7

Port Elgin Ottawa

230 350

Brantford Windsor

420 550

Espanola

220

1–3; 5/6; 7 5; 5/6; IT consultant FDK; 3; 7/8 FDK/ESL; 2; TL 5/6; 7; 8

Thunder Bay Kingston Fort Francis

350 783 450

Wellington Catholic District School Board Guelph

345

7/8; 7/8; 7/8 FDK; 2; 3 4; 4/5; STEM Coordinator 4; 7; 7/8

The map below indicates the location of the first-year schools (indicated by blue markers) and the second-year schools (indicated by purple markers). The aim of this selection process was to mirror the demographics of Ontario. Once the school districts were identified, a CODE liaison contacted the Director of each district and invited them to participate in the project. The Director, in turn,

10

J. Hughes and L. Dobos

contacted a Superintendent to identify a participating school within the district. Principals at these 20 schools were asked to invite three teachers per school to work in cross-curricular inquiry teams on the initiative. After the requisite research ethics approvals were secured through Ontario Tech U’s Research Ethics Board and then each school district’s ethics committee, we distributed an online survey to ascertain the teachers’ level of comfort, experience and proficiency with a variety of digital tools and their knowledge about makerspaces and maker education in general.

Data Collection Phase 1: Teacher Professional Development Sessions  Each school received support and guidance from the research team in the Ontario Tech U STEAM-3D Maker Lab to collaboratively identify and then develop an intensive Science 3D: Discovery, Design and Development school-based inquiry project. Teachers worked in teams to integrate critical making and the Ontario Curriculum expectations in science and technology. The work was to draw on and align with the Ontario Ministry of Education’s Science and Technology curriculum document as well as the Growing Success document in order to provide a foundation for the implementation of assessment and evaluation and the Achieving Excellence and twenty-first century Competencies documents. Support was provided in a number of different ways: (a) Initial 2-day professional development (PD) session at Ontario Tech U (whole group) (b) School visits by the research team (c) Follow-up professional development session at Ontario Tech U (small groups); (d) Online support through TeachOntario, Twitter, email In Year 1 of the study, we invited 33 teachers from the first 11 schools, plus their Principals to attend a 2-day project launch at Ontario Tech U.  The first day was organized as follows: 1. Welcome and introductions 2. Overview and clarifications of the research project’s goals and methods 3. Introduction to making, maker culture and maker pedagogies 4. Hands-on, inquiry-based sessions in school teams with maker tools 5. Collaboration time for school teams to reflect and consider how to move forward in their specific contexts The second day began with a short talk about critical making, focusing on issues of environmental sustainability and equity and ensuring that what students make is meaningful. This talk was followed by four more distinct sessions:

1  The Ontario Makerspace Project

11

6. Hands-on session with technology/media specialist and artist, to scaffold and design two production-based activities as an example of how to integrate making into the science curriculum 7. Hands-on session with facilitators from TVO Ontario to set up a project PLN 8. Overview of project lesson plan and assessment in a makerspace 9. Consolidation session with a question/answer period to address practical aspects of the project, such as ordering materials, submitting expense reports, timelines for submission of lessons, next steps, etc. Each of the sessions included time to reflect on the activities and to discuss and plan adaptations for meeting curricular goals. The sessions were audio recorded and key aspects of their digital making were videotaped. Through this exploratory and collaborative process, teachers were encouraged to take professional ownership of the digital making innovation. In Year 2 of the study, we invited the 27 new teacher participants and their Principals from the 9 Year 2 schools to Ontario Tech U for the project launch. In addition, we invited the 33 Year 1 teacher participants back for the second day to share their learning. Day 1 of the Year 2 project launch looked much the same as Day 1 of the Year 1 session. We provided an overview of the research project and engaged the participants in hands-on, introductory maker activities focused on augmented and virtual reality, circuit building, 3D printing and preliminary coding using MaKey MaKey and Scratch. At the end of the day, there was a session related to lesson planning and assessment in a maker environment, followed by a consolidation session with a question/answer period to address practical aspects of the project. On the second day of the Year 2 project launch, the Year 1 participants from each school gave a brief presentation that highlighted their challenges and successes and provided some tips for the Year 2 participants, about to embark on a similar journey. A notable difference in our approach in Year 2 was that we pre-purchased and put together a starter kit of equipment for each Year 2 school team to take away with them. A key finding from Year 1 was that after the PD sessions at Ontario Tech U, the participants were excited to get started; however, it took them weeks or even months to order and receive their equipment, which resulted in a loss of momentum. We had consciously decided not to provide any equipment in Year 1 because we did not want to be prescriptive in terms of what the schools decided to use; however, given the feedback from Year 1 participants, we opted to provide some basic items in Year 2 so they could begin working with their students immediately upon their return. The starter kits included: • • • • • • •

One iPad mini 4th generation Four MaKey MaKey kits Three MakeDo kits One class set of Paper circuits supplies Two Sphero SPRK Four Ozobots Two BeeBots

12

J. Hughes and L. Dobos

• One Lilypad sewing starter kit • Four various augmented reality (AR) books Phase 2: School Visits  We began our visits to the individual schools in both years approximately 4–6 months after the project launch and PD sessions. Prior to each school visit, the research team contacted the Principal and participating teachers to (1) find a mutually convenient date and (2) engage in collaborative planning of the visit, including schedule for the day and activities. Each visit included open-ended interviews with the teachers, classroom observations and additional, on-site PD based on something the teachers identified as a priority. The PD was therefore tailored to the teachers’ professional needs, giving them agency over their own learning. The research team, consisting of the Principal Investigator and at least two research assistants, travelled to each school. While the interviews were conducted with each teacher, the research assistants worked in the classes with the other teachers. These in-depth interviews allowed participants to describe their experience in their own words, encouraging metacognition about their thought processes and affective states before, during and after instruction and work. This approach enabled us to better understand the private world of the learner. We also met with the teachers at the end of the day to (1) review and discuss the progress they were making in the project and (2) consider what additional supports they needed to begin scaling up within the school and district school board. In most cases, the school teams planned Maker Faires or parents’ nights to highlight their students’ work and to showcase the shifting pedagogies they were using in their classes. Throughout the implementation of this phase of the research, teaching methodologies were recorded, analysed and reflected upon to help determine best practices in using maker pedagogies in teaching and learning. Each school also contributed ten lesson plans to a repository organized by grade. These were translated into French/English and can be found at http://janettehughes.ca/lab/current-­ projects/science-­3 d-­d iscovery-­d esign-­d evelopment-­t hrough-­m akerspaces-­2 / lesson-­plans/. Phase 3: Follow-Up PD Sessions at Ontario Tech U (Small Groups)  The follow­up sessions took place near the end of school year in Year 2. We invited all of the 60 participating teachers back to Ontario Tech U, grouped by region (northern schools, GTA schools, eastern schools, western schools). We did this for two reasons: (1) we wanted to promote regional growth and spread by facilitating collaborations with neighbouring school districts; and (2) we wanted to work with the participants in smaller groups in order to better provide just-in-time learning opportunities and support. In each case, the day began with a welcome and introductions, followed by a brief update on research findings from Year 1 of the study. This was followed by an interactive story-based, cross-curricular computational modelling session that focused on a picture book called Anno’s Seeds. In the story by Mitsumasa Anno, a Wizard gives Jack two magic seeds. If Jack eats one seed, it will provide nourishment for an entire year. If he plants and takes care of the other seed, it will give him two new seeds at the end of the year. The teacher participants used numbers, words,

1  The Ontario Makerspace Project

13

symbols, tables, graphs and code to model and communicate the various decisions Jack might make and the results of each decision. All discussion among participants was audio recorded, including their reflections on their learning and how they might use and extend the activities with their own students. This session was followed by an extension activity based on the story Weslandia by Paul Fleischman, in which the main character, Wesley, spends his summer break building a new civilization in his back yard because he does not fit into his own community. Wesley needs to consider the various aspects of establishing a new civilization, including language, economics, transport, agriculture and more. After a discussion of how Wesley attends to the various components of his new civilization, the teachers used a coding app called Sustainable Growth, developed by Hughes et al. (2017), to explore and to model and investigate relationships between flowers, bees and birds (http://eduapps.ca/civilization/growth/index.html). The app is a simulation that users control with code, to investigate the interdependent lives of flowers, bees and birds. Flowers and other plants are fertilized as bees move pollen from flower to flower. Bees eat flower pollen and nectar and make honey. Some birds eat flower seeds and/or bees to survive. The app enables users to code their own sustainable ecosystem, to edit the existing code to create their own versions and to share their code with others using a unique URL created within the app. Following the hands-on work with the Sustainable Growth app, we introduced participants to a maker challenge related to Weslandia that requires learners to use various tools and materials. Before starting the challenge, students and teachers are taken through the design learning process, as well as a variety of questions in order to create a critical learning activity. The challenge can be found at http://janettehughes.ca/lab/make-­me/. After completing the challenge, we asked participants to generate ideas in small groups by division (i.e. primary, junior, intermediate) for cross-curricular extension activities they might use with their own students. All of the group discussions were audio recorded, and the ten-page list of activities was posted on our website. These sessions offered teachers opportunities to reflect on their own digital making experiences and to experience the activities as their students might. The example of building a unit or module around a concept or theme, such as how civilizations are formed, served as a model for the afternoon session in which participants used collaborative time to work in school teams to create similar learning experiences suited to their own students and curricular goals. It is interesting to note that although we began the project with a particular interest in ways to link digital making with curricular goals related to science, over the course of the study, the focus became increasingly inter- and multidisciplinary. Phase 4: Online Support  Prior to the commencement of the project, we set up a Professional Learning Network (PLN) for the whole group using the TeachOntario platform offered through TVO.  Two TVO facilitators came to the Year 1 project launch and helped participants set up their online profiles and walked them through the platform’s key features. However, despite this support and several attempts at engaging the participating teachers in this online forum, there was very little uptake.

14

J. Hughes and L. Dobos

A number of the teachers were already using Twitter, and so, very early on in the project, we switched our PLN to Twitter and created a shared space to post digital artefacts of student learning and teacher reflection using #makeON through our Twitter account (@steam3Dmakerlab). As of March 2022, we have over 1200 followers and approximately 2500 tweets using that hashtag. Teachers used pedagogical documentation methods such as photos, videos, audio data and written notes throughout the entire process (Dahlberg, 2012; Tarr, 2011) to make their thinking and learning visible and to share what they were doing with students in their classes. These were often shared as Tweets, and these were tracked for each participant. Teachers also encouraged their students to create their own digital/tangible, multimodal artefacts to be shared with a wider community as a way of communicating about things that concerned them or interested them. Some of these artefacts were also shared on Twitter. In addition, the research team posted tips and resources, photos and lesson ideas to the Lab Twitter account based on our ongoing work with Ontario schools and beyond.

Data Analysis Analysis of the data required several different layers of coding and interpretation. In the first stage, the data were coded for various themes that related to our research questions. We coded the interview transcripts following traditional coding procedures (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) and compared themes across the different research settings in order to identify recurring and overlapping thematic and structural patterns (Black, 2007). The making processes at the PD sessions were analysed using Kafai et al. (2011) participatory competencies (technical, critical, creative and ethical practices). The multimodal artefacts created by the teachers were analysed within a framework of semiotic metafunctions (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2001; Jewitt, 2008; Burn, 2008), which considers design and production as representational, interactive and textual. Our analysis of artefacts also focused on design principles used and how these work in concert to create meaning and promote curricular learning, as well as global skills and competencies, such as critical and creative thinking, collaboration and communication. As the research progressed and was studied in successive classrooms and grades in the various school districts, an increasingly robust and sophisticated conceptualization of the relationship between digital making and learning and teaching was developed. This conceptualization informed the (re)shaping of the project activities in successive years/settings/sessions.

1  The Ontario Makerspace Project

15

Brief Summary of Our Findings After a preliminary analysis of the data, we identified many sub-themes that could be aligned under our five overarching research questions. However, upon closer examination, we recognized that the sub-themes and research questions could be further divided into four main themes. These themes can be categorized as (1) challenges, (2) supports, (3) promising practices, and (4) benefits. Each theme is briefly discussed below to both illustrate these main points and to add context. All of these themes are explored in further detail in subsequent chapters. 1. What challenges exist for teachers/schools in establishing a makerspace/using maker pedagogies with students? The main challenges identified by the teachers included: • • • •

Deciding on a focus for the makerspace and finding an appropriate space Managing materials and technologies Monitoring student progress when students were working at different paces Knowing how much scaffolding was enough to prevent students from getting frustrated • Making meaningful connections to the curriculum 2. What supports are necessary for teachers shifting to an inquiry-based, maker pedagogy approach? Professional development was identified by all the teacher participants as a key need for them when it came to adopting the maker tools and pedagogy. Many teachers commented on the value they saw in attending the professional development session at Ontario Tech U at the beginning of the project. Despite this initial session, however, several participants felt that additional professional development was necessary. The research team modified its plans for the second school visits and incorporated more advanced PD. Decisions about what to focus these PD sessions on were made collaboratively between the participants, the school administration and the research team. They also felt that they needed “permission” from their administrators to make mistakes and found that working in an environment with a failure-­ positive mindset encouraged them to experiment with the tools and activities and to learn alongside their students. For the teachers, being positioned as a learner alongside their students freed them to take risks with the technology. At times, the technology did not work or the class had to troubleshoot together, but these things were viewed as part of the learning process and not something negative. This kind of administrative support was crucial, as was the provision of collaborative planning time. The time allowed for rich discussion, technical and emotional support, knowledge and idea sharing and the creation of a positive and innovative learning culture. None of the teachers in the project worked in isolation or silos. The collaboration created a solid support network for these teachers to learn about the maker approach and tools and to successfully plan and create rich learning opportunities for their students. The role of the administrator in this kind of innovation is discussed in more depth in Chap. 7.

16

J. Hughes and L. Dobos

3. What are some promising practices associated with a maker pedagogy approach? When making a shift to a maker pedagogy approach, we identified a number of themes, in terms of promising practices, for the successful and effective adoption of this approach and its implementation in the classroom. First, teachers found they needed time to play with the maker tools—to know what they are and generally how they work. While it was not necessary to be an expert in the technology before using it in the classroom, having some sort of base idea of what the tool is and how to begin using it emerged as a positive factor when it came to best practice. In terms of inquiry in the classroom, many of the teachers in the project realized that inquiry really does mean taking a step back from the traditional “teacher” role and becoming a facilitator. Many of the teachers and their students made a slow but steady transition to a more inquiry-based approach. It took time to accept and settle into the new dynamic in the classroom—the teachers were no longer the holders of knowledge and answers. The students also needed to develop the skills aligned with self-learning. In adopting the maker approach to learning, many of the schools also adopted a passion-based learning approach. This is an approach similar to Genius Hour where students choose a topic they would like to explore, research the topic in depth and usually create something in response to the question driving their inquiry. Although the teachers found time and curriculum constraints challenging, they also found creating a space for this type of passion-based learning, which draws on a student’s internal locus of control, highly motivating and engaging for the students in their learning process. Pedagogical documentation played a large role in shifting control of the learning into the hands of the learners and also helping them develop the metacognitive skills associated with learning to learn. Reflection was a major component in the making process at all of the schools. The use of “Maker Journals” or other written/oral reflections, where students recorded their challenges, successes and final products, was instrumental in making the learning process visible to both the students and teachers. The students also constantly shared their work with others—they put their making “out there” and reached an audience greater than just the teacher. This occurred through Maker Faires, parent nights and when the students shared their work with the class, other classes and in some cases the whole school. Peer-to-peer knowledge sharing was also prevalent alongside intergenerational learning (older students teaching younger students and vice versa; students teaching teachers and vice versa). Their work was also shared with the community on social media such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and YouTube. Subject integration became commonplace with the introduction of the maker pedagogy approach. The making activities usually addressed many strands of the curriculum at once, so subject integration became a seamless process for many of the teachers involved. 4. Benefits: What impact, if any, does a maker pedagogy approach have on student achievement and well-being?

1  The Ontario Makerspace Project

17

Overall, every school reported a significant increase in student engagement and motivation. Students’ strengths and knowledge were recognized and leveraged in the maker approach, which encouraged investment in the learning process and ultimately, as a result, engagement. Many schools also reported an increase in academic achievement—especially for students who may have previously had difficulties in the traditional classroom due to various exceptionalities. The maker approach provided the space for a more personalized and inclusive learning experience for all students. In addition to providing an opportunity for many different types of students to achieve, the teachers reported that the sense of achievement that comes from the process of creating influenced students’ dedication to learning in general. The students, in many cases, moved beyond working for the sake of marks and instead elevated the learning process to something more personal and connected to the real world. Finally, participants indicated that the maker approach had a positive impact on behaviour—not only because the students were engaged in their learning but because the tools provided the students with a multitude of options for communication. In providing the students with more ways to communicate— beyond the verbal or with pen and paper—many began to flourish. 5. Benefits: How might educators use makerspace pedagogies to promote transversal skills such as creative and critical thinking, communication and collaboration? A variety of digital skills and global competencies were developed as a result of the makerspaces (the pedagogies and technologies). Across the board, problem-­ solving collaboration and the development of perseverance were consistently cited as major outcomes of involvement in the project. Teachers shared things like: “It’s really cool to teach them to be thinkers and problem-solvers, instead of having them ask how we want them to solve it”. With regard to collaboration, many teachers shared observations such as this one: “The collaboration in the classroom when the kids have to work together to solve a problem, that whole piece too with that learning skill is coming up very evident in the things they do. Collaboration is something I wasn't expecting to come out of the makerspace” and “…we’ve seen a lot of great collaboration among students”. The students’ work in the makerspaces, and the shift in mindset that is required created an environment where the students could begin to develop important skills such as perseverance, critical and creative thinking, communication and collaboration. In the chapters that follow, we examine in more depth ten of the themes that we found most compelling. Each chapter highlights case studies from schools and classrooms that participated in the research study. Pseudonyms are used for school names and teachers to protect their privacy. Themes include how making can promote inquiry-based learning and the development of global competencies, the connection between making and mental wellness and the roles of school leaders in shifting school culture through making. Chapter 9 explores how three of the schools created makerspaces and designed maker activities that reflected Indigenous ways of knowing and making, while Chap. 10 provides an overview of how some of the schools in the study used their makerspace to promote an inclusive learning

18

J. Hughes and L. Dobos

environments, developing maker activities capable of supporting a range of learning needs. The important role of ongoing professional learning related to maker tools and pedagogies is the focus of Chaps. 8, and 11 provides insights into the ways in which assessment practices shifted to align with a maker approach to teaching and learning.

References Black, R. W. (2007). Digitl design: English language learners and reader reviews in online fiction. In M. Knobel & C. Lankshear (Eds.), A new literacies sampler. Peter Lang. Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and “making” in education: The democratization of invention. In J. Walter-Herrmann & C. Büching (Eds.), FabLabs: Of machines, makers and inventors (pp. 203–221). Transcript Publishers. Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. HarperBusiness. Buechley, L., & Perner-Wilson, H. (2012). Crafting technologies: Reimagining the processes, materials, and cultures of electronics. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 19(3), 21, 21 p. Buechley, L., Eisenberg, M., Catchen, J., & Crockett, A. (2008) The Lilypad Arduino: Using computational textiles to investigate engagement, aesthetics, and diversity in computer science education. In Proceedings from CHI ’08: The SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 423–432). Burn, A. (2008). The case of rebellion: Researching multimodal texts. In J.  Coiro, M.  Knobel, C.  Lankshear, & D.  Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp.  151–178). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cahn, P. S., Bzowyckyj, A., Collins, L., Dow, A., Goodell, K., Johnson, A. F., Klocko, D., Knab, M., Parker, K., Reeves, S., & Zierler, B.  K. (2016). A design thinking approach to evaluating interprofessional education. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 30(3), 378–380. https://doi. org/10.3109/13561820.2015.1122582 Cohen, J., Jones, W.M., Smith, S. & Calandra, B. (2016). Makification: Towards a framework for leveraging the maker movement in formal education. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education international conference 2016 (pp.  129–135). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Sage. Dahlberg, G. (2012). Pedagogical documentation: A practice for negotiation and democracy. In C. P. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. E. Forman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach in transformation (3rd ed., pp. 225–232). Praeger. Dissanayake, E. (1995). Homo aestheticus: Where art comes from and why. University of Washington Press. DIY.org. (2019). [Website]. https://diy.org/ Engineering is Elementary. (n.d.). The engineering design process. https://www.eie.org/overview/ engineering-­design-­process Fleming, L. (2014). Literacy in the making: Showing how the ‘maker movement’ has a place in all disciplines. Reading Today, 32(2), 28–29. Freeman, A., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., & Hall Giesinger, C. (2017). NMC/ CoSN horizon report: 2017 K–12 Edition. The New Media Consortium. Gauntlett, D. (2011). Making is connecting. Polity Press. Gobble, M. M. (2014). Design thinking. Research Technology Management, 57(3), 59. https://doi. org/10.5437/08956308X5703005

1  The Ontario Makerspace Project

19

Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495–504. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.34j1g68140382063 Hughes, J., Gadanidis, G., & Yiu, C. (2017). Civilization: Sustainable growth [Website]. http:// eduapps.ca/civilization/growth/index.html Ingold, T. (2013). Making: Anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. Routledge. Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32, 241–267. Kafai, Y. (2006). Playing and making games for learning: Instructionist and constructionist perspectives for game studies. Games and Culture, 1(1), 36–40. https://doi. org/10.1177/1555412005281767 Kafai, Y.  B., Peppler, K., Lemke, J., & Warschauer, M. (2011). Youth, technology, and DIY: Developing participatory competencies in creative media production. Review of Research in Education, 35, 89–119. Kafai, Y. B., Lee, E., Searle, K., Fields, D., Kaplan, E., & Lui, D. (2014, March). A crafts-oriented approach to computing in high school: Introducing computational concepts, practices, and perspectives with electronic textiles. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 14(1), 1, 20 p. Korn, P. (2015). Why we make things and why it matters. David R. Godine. Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. Oxford University Press. Kuznetsov, A., & Paulos, E. (2010). Rise of the expert amateur: DIY projects, communities, and cultures. In NordiCHI 2010: Extending boundaries – Proceedings of the 6th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction (pp. 295–304). https://doi.org/10.1145/1868914.1868950 Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy within/in the postmodern (1st ed.). Routledge. Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to learn (1st ed.). Constructing Modern Knowledge Press. Mertens, D. M. (2009). Transformative research and evaluation. Guilford Press. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I.  Harel & S.  Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1–11). Ablex Publishing. Qiu, K., Buechley, L., Baafi, E., & Dubow, W. (2013). A curriculum for teaching computer science through computational textiles. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on interaction design and children (pp. 20–27). ACM. Ratto, M. (2011). Critical making: Conceptual and material studies in technology and social life. The Information Society, 27(4), 252–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2011.583819 Resnick, M., Maloney, J. H., Monroy-Hernandez, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., Millner, A., Rosenbaum, E., Silver, J. S., & Kafai, Y. (2009). “Digital fluency” should mean designing, creating, and remixing, not just browsing, chatting, and interacting. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67. Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. Capstone Publishing. Somanath, S., Oehlberg, L., Hughes, J., Sharlin, E., & Sousa, M.  C. (2017). “Maker” within constraints: Exploratory study of young learners using arduino at a high school in India. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 96–108). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025849 Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). Sage. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory, procedures and techniques. Sage. Tanenbaum, J., Williams, A., Desjardins, A., & Tanenbaum, K. (2013). Democratizing technology: Pleasure, utility and expressiveness in DIY and maker practice. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2603–2612). ACM. https:// doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2481360 Tarr, P. (2011). Reflections and shadows: Ethical issues in pedagogical documentation. Canadian Children, 36(2), 11–16.

20

J. Hughes and L. Dobos

TEDx Talks. (2016, June 2). Building real world platforms for creativity | David Gauntlett | TEDxUmeå [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/in2G1Rqat5A Thingiverse. (2019). [Website]. www.thingiverse.com Voland, G. (2003). Engineering by design. Prentice Hall.

Chapter 2

Inquiry-Based Learning Through Making Janette Hughes, Stephanie Thompson, and Laura Morrison

One of the most important elements of teaching is to help students to understand the world around them. In this chapter, we begin by explaining the differences between inquiry-based learning, problem-based learning, and project-based learning and by describing their relationships to the making process. We then explain how the maker movement embraces constructionist learning through its culture of hands-on designing, creating, and innovating. We also explore the idea of passion-based learning and include a number of examples of passion projects that were created by students in the makerspace project. The chapter concludes with a step-by-step description of how teachers can implement an inquiry-based learning model in their classrooms. A wide body of educational and cognitive psychology research confirms that teaching is not just about communicating facts or mechanical skills, but that it is a process of helping students to understand the world around them (National Research Council, 2000; Borich, 2011; Westwood, 2008). Additionally, all learning should involve active thinking, and teachers must create more opportunities for their learners to construct their own knowledge by encouraging students to explore, observe, compare, investigate, and respond to their own questions and wonderings. Inquiry-based learning is both a teaching method and a skill that can be developed by students that harnesses their natural inclinations of curiosity and wonder (Watt & Colyer, 2014). Rooted in progressive, constructionist, and constructivist pedagogical philosophies, it can be used to solve problems, to answer questions, and to assist students in developing the transferable skills and global competencies that they will need in their academic and professional lives. (For more on global competencies, see Chap. 4.) Inquiry questions encourage the generation of new, open-ended questions that often allow for a number of responses or solutions (Bell et  al., 2005; Blumenfeld et  al., 1991; Savery, 2006). Inquiry-based learning is J. Hughes (*) · S. Thompson · L. Morrison Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Hughes (ed.), Making, Makers, Makerspaces, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09819-2_2

21

22

J. Hughes et al.

always present in problem-based learning and often co-exists with project-based learning. Problem-based learning (PBL) shares some of the characteristics of inquiry-­ based learning (IBL) as both are grounded in John Dewey’s belief that education begins with the wonderings of the learner (Savery, 2006). PBL began as a medical school training program and has since expanded to a number of other disciplines including elementary and secondary education. PBL’s main principle is the art of problem-solving through investigation, explanation, and resolution of real and meaningful problems (Noordin et  al., 2011). The goal is for students to find the process of creative problem-solving to be challenging, engaging, and enjoyable, which serves as an intrinsic motivator for students to learn. Project-based learning (PjBL) is a learning model that is organized around the creation of tangible products over an extended period of time. Like problem-based learning, it is focused on solving real-world, meaningful problems but also involves the learners in designing, building, and testing as well as problem-solving and decision-­ making. This hands-on, student-centered model requires learning by doing, whether at school or in the home (Colley, 2008). Although IBL, PBL, and PjBL all have different starting points in that IBL begins with questions or wonderings, PBL begins with real and meaningful problems from the environment, and PjBL begins with authentic or challenging problems which demand products, all three are similar in the skills that may be developed through these learning processes. IBL, PBL, and PjBL integrate subject-specific problem-solving strategies, learning for understanding, confronting misconceptions, metacognitive skills, active learning, creativity, communication, and collaboration (Noordin et al., 2011). As outlined above, there is much overlap between the three types of learning; however, when it comes to making, it is less important to delineate between inquiry-­ based learning, problem-based learning, and project-based learning than to ensure that the school environment embraces the culture embodied in these approaches to learning. By engaging in making, students are exploring their questions and wonderings, tackling challenges and problems, and creating and building tangible products, in a way that is authentic, motivating, and personally meaningful. In doing so, learners are building important skills such as problem-solving, design-thinking, creativity, and collaboration. The Limestone District School Board follows the cyclical design outlined by the Ontario Ministry of Education grade 9/10 Arts Curriculum (OME, 2010) when engaging in inquiry-based learning. In this model, the creative process invites learners to: 1 . Ask challenging and inspiring questions. 2. Imagine and generate ideas. 3. Plan and focus in on one solution. 4. Explore and experiment with the solution. 5. Produce a prototype/preliminary work. 6. Revise and refine the work.

2  Inquiry-Based Learning Through Making

23

7 . Present and share it. 8. Reflect on the success of the work (and start the process again, if and when necessary). At each stage of the inquiry/creative process, informal feedback from peers and teachers is provided, and individual reflection is encouraged. The feedback is a key component of the process in order to encourage continuous critical and meta-­ cognitive reflection.

The Maker Movement and Constructivism According to Peppler and Bender (2013), “the maker movement consists of a growing culture of hands-on making, creating, designing, and innovating. A hallmark of the maker movement is its do-it-yourself (or do-it-with-others) mindset that brings together individuals around a range of activities, including textile craft, robotics, cooking, woodcrafts, electronics, digital fabrication, mechanical repair, or creation—in short, making nearly anything” (p. 23). In spite of its diverse offerings, the movement shares a commitment to passion, open exploration, and creativity. It is a culture that embodies constructivism and has the capacity to change how we think about pedagogy and learning (Kurti et al., 2014) and how we teach our students. At its heart, the maker movement understands that “learning happens best when learners construct their understanding through a process of constructing things to share with others” (Donaldson, 2014, p. 1). In the context of education, it is about teaching and learning through student-centered inquiry. This paradigm shift is essential in order for schools to prepare students to become productive and marketable citizens in the global economy. As Wagner and Compton (2012) suggest, “there are essential elements of educating young people to become innovators: the value of hands-on projects where students have to solve a real-world problem and demonstrate mastery; the importance of learning to draw on academic content from multiple disciplines to solve a problem; learning to work in teams” (p. 52).

Research into Practice While engaging in traditional learning in a classroom often amounts to facts-based learning on a topic selected by the teacher with no real impact beyond the walls of the classroom, inquiry-based learning is constructivist in nature, situates student thinking and learning in all categories of Bloom’s taxonomy, and amounts to focusing on work that can make a difference in one’s local and/or global community. In the following interview excerpt from one of the first-year schools in the project, the students engaged in problem-based learning which encouraged them to connect their learning to the outside world and to engage in work that could make a real

24

J. Hughes et al.

(i.e., not just theoretical) impact. In this example, the students tackled the problem of wet snow pants in the classroom and launched their investigation using the inquiry question, “How can we solve the problem of wet snow pants in the classroom?” Teacher: It came about organically in the classroom. We came in from recess one day and our snow pants were getting wet. And they were bothering me, so I said, ‘What can we do?’ and they said, ‘We can design some new snow pants!’ Because we were doing all kinds of little things before that, and they knew that if they come up with some idea, we’d run with it. They designed and they made prototypes, and they thought of logos and stuff with snow pants that don’t get wet. Interviewer: What did they come up with? Did they work? Teacher: Well, we just made little prototypes first. The other thing about this is that it takes so long, and you’re worrying about your language curriculum and your social studies. I know you can fit things together but not always. They were really engaged in that, it was meaningful to them, it wasn’t my idea at all. (DCDSB)

The following examples illustrate the intersectionality of project-, problem-, and inquiry-based learning, especially as they pertain to making: Teacher A: So, it’s an inquiry project meaning that the students want to make something, to solve a problem, to answer a question. That’s pretty much the real world. The school board tr[ies] to make the makers shine through that because the teacher can’t really abort all these subjects or bring a subject to life without a makerspace so it helps just to make the maker way better. Just to make it shine. Teacher B: It open[s] up opportunit[ies]. (CEPEO) Teacher C: That’s kind of what I’ve been doing with inquiry. With science that’s what it basically is, I mean, anything you do you usually put a bunch of stuff at the front table and you say here’s the question, here’s the problem, here’s the stuff. How can you use this stuff to solve that problem? It’s kind of not new for me; it’s just used in different ways. (LDSB)

In terms of inquiry in the classroom, one of the teachers in the project realized that inquiry really does mean taking a step back from the traditional “teacher” role and becoming a facilitator: “Sometimes it gets to the point where I’m not teaching, but facilitating.” From this anecdote and others, it became obvious that there was a period of transition for many of the teachers to the more inquiry-based approach. It took time to accept and settle into the new dynamic in the classroom—the teachers were no longer the holders of knowledge and answers. It is important to note that there was also a transitionary period for students. One teacher explained that “The kids start[ed] to kind of be more self-motivating and [became] self-directed and that took a while, a number of months before we had the necessary rapport and they were comfortable with the materials and what they were doing.” The students needed to develop the skills aligned with self-learning, but one teacher noted from his observation of student development that “[problem-solving] is a skill that they get from using tech a lot. They learn how to problem solve while using it—like try something else and if there’s an issue they come up with I often can’t solve it either and they end up figuring it out. It’s a different mindset using it in the classroom.” So, while it took the students time to become comfortable with self-directed learning, ultimately the more they used the maker technologies, the easier it became to cultivate and rely on these skills.

2  Inquiry-Based Learning Through Making

25

 xpanding Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) to Include E Passion-Based Learning In adopting the maker approach to learning, many of the schools also adopted a passion-based learning approach. This is an approach similar to inquiry-based learning and Genius Hour where students choose a topic they are passionate about, research the topic in depth, and create something in response to the question driving their inquiry. Genius Hour is a concept normally attributed to the tech giant, Google, whose employees are allowed to spend 20% of their time working on projects of their own choosing. At Google, this has led to innovations like Gmail and Google News (https://geniushour.com/what-­is-­genius-­hour/). According to Seely Brown and Adler (2008), passion-based learning is “motivated by the student either wanting to become a member of a particular community of practice or just wanting to learn about, make, or perform something. Often the learning that transpires is informal rather than formally conducted in a structured setting” (p. 30). Of his shift to a passion-based approach, one teacher in the project explains (Fig. 2.1): I’m trying to move toward forward teaching … We’ve started doing passion projects this year. Passion to me is that you’re excited about something and then you’re going to do something with it. I have a student right now—we have a bunch of bikes in our basement— what he wants to do is rebuild [a bike] and then have a raffle at school so that a needy student at our school can take it home. And he’s a needy student himself, so it was quite a leap for him to come up with that completely on his own. It’s something that interests him—he likes working with his hands. They’re getting into some really interesting things. (LDSB)

Despite the possible time and curriculum constraints associated with passion projects as well as the challenges involved in creating a space for this type of individualized learning, the same teacher reported an increase in motivation and engagement. As passion-based learning draws on a student’s internal locus of control, it has proven to be highly effective in improving learning outcomes. It has also helped engage previously unmotivated students and/or students with exceptionalities (see Chap. 10 for more on this topic). The teacher shares these thoughts: I really started my whole shift because of my feeling that kids could not find a way to connect to the curriculum and were unmotivated by the way information was presented in class. I started by differentiating the products in the different assignments we were doing, allowing students to present information however they saw fit. That could have been an essay, slideshow, video, etc. Around the same time I started to allow students more choice in the topics they worked on. This started in writing where we would write for purpose with multiple different topics in a row, but all topics were up to the student. For example, we would write rants, but rather than telling them the subject to be discussed they could rant about whatever was meaningful to them. After seeing some success (based on student motivation), I started to see the need to give students the opportunity to explore their own interests. This is when I started ‘Genius Hour’ in my class. Students worked on projects one after the other throughout the school year and really enjoyed the time to explore interests of their own. (LDSB)

26

J. Hughes et al.

Fig. 2.1  One student’s passion project

The Inquiry Continuum: Guided, Open, and Blended Inquiries According to Watt and Colyer (2014), “Inquiry-Based Learning is not meant to be prescriptive for the teacher or the student; it is an interactive, fluid and recursive process responsive to the discipline, the teaching goals and the learning needs” (p. 11). At one end of the continuum is structured inquiry or teacher-directed inquiry, where a great deal of scaffolding is provided by the teacher throughout the process. This includes providing the inquiry questions, specifying frameworks and resources to be used and modeling the analysis of the results. Teachers may also specify how they would like the students to convey the results, either through presentation, written work, or a multimedia creation. At the other end of the continuum is an open inquiry or student-directed inquiry where students are given the opportunity to select the question, the design, the investigation, and the presentation of the results of the inquiry independently. A blended, coupled, or guided inquiry represents all of the possible features in between teacher-directed and student-directed inquiry (Watt & Colyer, 2014). As this teacher from the second year of the project states, the move from teacher-­ directed to student-led inquiry requires a shift in mindset as well: one from expecting students to always have the right answer to encouraging students to learn from their mistakes, through trial and error: And then I think [students need] explicit permission to try. Explicit permission to try and to fail and that’s part of the process, that’s part of the inquiry process. The inquiry process is having challenges, going back, starting again, redesigning, and to also acknowledge that there is a gap, there is a lag when we implement new educational strategies, that there, [are]

2  Inquiry-Based Learning Through Making

27

going to be challenges and it’s going to be difficult and it’s not going to be all successful, right away. Especially if it’s a different approach for students that they need time to readjust to the different expectations or permission to act or question or be in a different way in the space or in the learning. (LDSB)

The level of support needed for the inquiries was something that teachers at the various schools experimented with throughout the project. Often, the teachers noticed that very little scaffolding was needed: “…you can set the kids free with [the makerspace tools] and they’re going to learn on their own.” As this Kindergarten teacher confirms: I had been in kindergarten for a while, but I wanted to bring that idea inquiry, that authentic learning, problem solving approach which I think really connects well in here, really connects to what we’re doing in there is that let’s give them a problem—something purposeful that they can work on that actually they can manipulate or that’s somehow, you know, real to them. So I think that that’s been good but now a shift for me, that really isn’t a huge shift, but it’s been a really good sort of marriage of idea and a really good way to explore the concepts we’ve been covering. (LDSB)

In these scenarios, the teachers either set aside time for unstructured exploration of the tools, or they had activities set up at tech stations where the content supported concepts they were covering in class. In some schools, teachers in the project took this a step further and challenged the students to experiment with and learn about the equipment prior to using it in their classrooms (Fig. 2.2): As a school we’ve been talking a lot about inquiry-based learning and I’d really like to see a combination of that stuff. Going on and moving that down into the makerspace so our teachers stay more involved. We need to get down there so we can fool around with different materials in the makerspace, so we really need a couple champions and experts, kids that can help teachers and push them to get them started. (RDSB)

At other times, the teachers noticed that a more focused or purposeful approach to the making activities was a requirement—either because the technology was more advanced and additional support was required or because the teachers had specific curriculum connections/ subject matter they needed to cover in more depth. One educator explained: “Another thing we’re really thinking hard about as a staff is making sure as much as possible that we’re making meaningful connections to the curriculum because there’s a lot of learning skills happening in there, that’s never an issue, but to make it most connected to the curriculum is more challenging.” These teachers felt more purposeful scaffolding was necessary when it came to determining specific learning objectives and making direct curriculum connections.

One School’s Experience with Passion-Based Learning At one school in the Lakehead District School Board, passion-based learning became a fixture in the classroom with the implementation of “Learning Academies” where students in Grades 7 and 8 learn in supportive and rigorous environments while meeting the requirements of the Ontario Curriculum. The students spend one

28

J. Hughes et al.

Fig. 2.2  Tech station set up to learn the MaKey MaKey circuit kit

term in each of three different academies: (1) Global Citizenship, (2) STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math), and (3) Sports and Outdoor Recreation. The academies are focused around inquiry and/or problem-based activities that encourage students to learn through active, hands-on experience, reflect on the experience, and apply their learning to other aspects of their lives. The goal of the Global Citizenship Learning Academy is to provide students with opportunities to “cultivate involvement and understanding for the world around them and those they share it with” (LDSB promotional material). The following are potential activities with which the students could engage (Fig. 2.3): • Working at a soup kitchen. • Planning and organizing a skating party for another school. • Participating in a Christmas cheer hamper presentation at the Canadian Lakehead Exhibition. • Cleaning veteran plots for Remembrance Day. • Attending workshops on rights and justice. • Volunteering at the local animal shelter. • Making muffins and distributing them at a local school’s breakfast program through the Roots to Harvest organization. • Organizing a fundraiser for a well in a developing country in Africa. In an image provided from the participating school’s Facebook page (Fig. 2.4), students participated in food preparation and distribution for vulnerable members of their community at the Thunder Bay Regional Food Distribution Association. The goal of the STEM Learning Academy was to allow students to engage in rich, inquiry-based, student-driven activities using a variety of technologies such as Lego Robotics, MaKey MaKey, virtual and augmented reality, sewing, circuitry, green

2  Inquiry-Based Learning Through Making

29

Fig. 2.3  Students working at the Regional Food Distribution Association

screen, and a cardboard boat challenge. Students also take part in regional competitions through partnerships with Lakehead University’s engineering department as shown below in Fig. 2.4. One teacher sums up some of the benefits of this passion-based approach to teaching and learning with this anecdote from the STEM experience: We also taught the kids sewing. We taught them how to sew, so that was kind of cool. I also just did a musical with the school and so we needed things sewn for the musical. So when we were at the sewing we had them figure out a pattern for donkey ears because we did Pinocchio. So the kids are slowly starting to get, our idea is to give them more hands on learning opportunities. Not to just make it a robot/coding, which is what we are intending to do at the school, but it is just to broaden horizons and make them more hands on. I’m a very hands-on person. (LDSB)

30

J. Hughes et al.

Fig. 2.4  Students working with Lakehead University students in a bridge building competition

The goal of the Sports and Outdoor Recreation Learning Academy was to provide students with opportunities to participate in physical and experiential activities such as plant and tree identification, orienteering and mapping, geocaching, outdoor survival training, and hiking and biking on outdoor trails. Students also developed their leadership skills by volunteering at the Elementary School Special Olympics sports festival at Lakehead University. The students also participated in a cross-academy “Recycle your Cycle” project (see Fig.  2.5) that involved collecting used bicycles that they stripped, repaired, painted, reassembled, and donated to a local community. The figure below outlines the details of the project, which included learning about crowdsourcing, budgeting, community partnerships, reusing and recycling, and how to build, test, and repair bikes.

2  Inquiry-Based Learning Through Making

31

Fig. 2.5  Students and teacher repairing a bicycle in the “Recycle Your Cycle” project

Of the Makerspace project, one of the teachers involved shared: We weren’t going in as if this was a project where we were going to save a community or anything like that. I think it was more like a partnership. So they helped us find some of the bikes and brought them here and they’re working to cut trails for mountain bikes and so as we’re doing the bikes, even the repairing, at Churchill. We were FaceTiming some of the kids to talk about what we are doing and to kind of show them. So it wasn’t like us making a huge gift to give to them, it was more like a partnership with the team. (LDSB)

As another teacher from the same school stated: I would never go back to teaching in a regular classroom and I think it has everything to do with the academies as well as this program. This [Makerspace] program’s been obviously really good for our academies. But they’re just way too much fun to go back to traditional teaching and I say that—you know I loved outdoor Hands-On stuff, I incorporated a ton of STEM stuff when we did Sports and Outdoor Rec, like geocaching...well this is our first year doing the academies and having more of a hands-on approach with those focuses. So inquiry-based—yes, lots of focus in math and science as an overall umbrella. (LDSB)

By offering students authentic, meaningful, real-life problems to solve and by asking them to intentionally use design thinking, teachers are changing the quality of the learning. Students are no longer learning information simply because a teacher told them they are required to remember it; they are learning because they are interested in solving a problem to make their world a better place. Design thinking of this type has the power to transform students from consumers to producers and ideally, to create innovators and global citizens committed to developing creative solutions to global problems (Roffey, n.d.).

32

J. Hughes et al.

Getting Started Implementing inquiry-based learning in a classroom requires planning, collaboration, resources, and a deep understanding of students’ interests and abilities. Teachers must be careful to choose themes within the curriculum that are worthy of the time and effort involved and that will engage students for a longer period of time. Prior to beginning an inquiry, teachers may need time to build students’ background knowledge, to develop their inquiry skills, and to compile the necessary resources. The following steps, adapted from Alberta Learning (2004), outline the process for developing inquiry-based learning in a classroom: 1. Begin planning: From your long-range plans, select a big idea, theme, problem, or project that aligns with your curriculum and will also interest both you and your students. 2. Work with others: Ideally, schools will develop a culture of inquiry wherein all teachers and students are engaging in the inquiry process to some extent. Inquiry units can also be developed through co-planning and co-teaching, often with the partnership of the teacher-librarian or two or more like-grade teachers. 3. Engage students: Start by looking for entry points and topics that will appeal to students’ interests and/or involve an issue or problem. Consider your students’ prior knowledge and what preliminary teaching will need to be done. Be sure to consider the interests of all types of learners in your class. 4. Determine the scope: Decide on the parameters of the inquiry, what the end product or culminating task will be, and how students will demonstrate their learning. 5. Plan monitoring and assessment: Plan how the inquiry will be monitored and how the process and final product will be assessed. What do you want the students to know or be able to do and how will you know when they have learned it? Plan to incorporate peer- and self-assessment, ongoing descriptive feedback student self-reflection, and individual goal setting. How will you celebrate successes and provide next steps? 6. Identify resources: Select and arrange for the necessary tools, technologies, and resources. Consider using resources in different formats and levels to appeal to multiple learning styles and abilities. Build in time for students to familiarize themselves with the new tools, technologies, and resources. 7. Create the lesson plans: Determine the order in which the lessons of the unit and inquiry activity will be taught. 8. Determine inquiry skills: Assess students’ competencies in terms of their existing inquiry skills in order to determine if additional skills need to be taught in advance of the inquiry. 9. Begin the inquiry: Introduce the inquiry activity to the class while explaining the expectations. Keep a list of questions, issues, and problems that arise during the unit for further investigation. 10. Determine what worked: What went well, what did not go well, and what could be done better the next time?

2  Inquiry-Based Learning Through Making

33

Although learning through inquiry and making often begin with the knowledge and skills acquired and developed in school, they are equally suited for continuous, lifelong learning that extends to students’ out-of-school lives. The research shows that these types of hands-on, authentic learning environments frequently encourage students to effectively pick up new knowledge and skills as the world shifts beneath them. As this occurs, teachers take a major step forward in creating a twenty-first-­ century, global culture of learning to meet the demands of our constantly changing world (Seely Brown & Adler, 2008).

References Alberta Learning. (2004). Focus on inquiry: A teacher’s guide to implementing inquiry-based learning. The Crown in Right of Alberta. https://open.alberta.ca/publications/0778526666 Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30–33. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 369–398. Borich, G. D. (2011). Effective teaching methods-research based practice. Pearson Education. Colley, K. (2008). Project-based science instruction: A primer. The Science Teacher, 75(8), 23–28. Donaldson, J. (2014). The maker movement and the rebirth of constructionism. Hybrid Pedagogy. http://hybridpedagogy.org/constructionism-­reborn/ Kurti, R. S., Kurti, D. L., & Fleming, L. (2014). The philosophy of educational makerspaces: Part 1 of making an educational makerspace. Teacher Librarian, 41(5), 8–11. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. National Academy Press. Noordin, M. K., Nasir, A. N., Ali, D. F., & Nordin, M. S. (2011). Problem-based learning (PBL) and project-based learning (PjBL) in engineering education: A comparison. In Proceedings of the international engineering and technology education conference (IETEC ‘11). Ontario Ministry of Education. (2010). Queen’s printer for Ontario. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca Peppler, K., & Bender, S. (2013). Maker movement spreads innovation one project at a time. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(3), 22–27. Roffey, T. (n.d.). Design thinking. Retrieved March 20, 2019, from http://www.makerspaceforeducation.com/design-­thinking.html Savery, J.  R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 9–20. https://doi. org/10.7771/1541-­5015.1002 Seely Brown, J., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. Educause Review, 43(1), 17–32. Wagner, T., & Compton, R. A. (2012). Creating innovators: The making of young people who will change the world. Simon and Schuster. Watt, J.  G., & Colyer, J. (2014). IQ: A practical guide to inquiry-based learning. Oxford University Press. Westwood, P. (2008). What teachers need to know about teaching methods. Australian Council for Educational Research.

Chapter 3

Making, Creating, and Wellness Janette Hughes, Jennifer Laffier, and Jennifer A. Robb

On a daily basis, we engage in creating and making: we create food, clothes, art, tools, music, stories, and architecture. Sometimes these acts are routine and not enjoyable. Other times these acts require imagination and creativity or allow for cathartic self-expression. There are many different reasons for humankind to engage in making and creating. Regardless of the reasons, though, the act of creating new objects, tools, or aesthetic products is a beneficial and perhaps innate human need. In this chapter, we explore the beneficial aspects of “creation,” especially as they relate to well-being and human growth and how they were experienced by some of our makerspace project schools.

The Primitive Act of Creating and Making Creating, making, and artistic expression may prove to be the key to success or failure in human beings’ quest for knowledge and in exploration of the unknown. In her book Homo Aetheticus: Where Art Comes From and Why, Ellen Dissanayake (1992) presents the perspective that creative expression is an inherent aspect of the human condition, residing deep within our biology. Artistic expression reveals insights into the human mind and, at the same time, develops the mind. One example presented in her book is the manifestation of geometrical shapes in human arts; these abstract shapes did not exist in nature to be copied as we see them, yet we organize the images we see this way. Rudolf Arnheim confirms that this natural tendency of the mind to apprehend the world as well-organized forms evidence that “art, far from being luxury, is a biologically-essential tool” (Dissanayake, 1992, J. Hughes (*) · J. Laffier · J. A. Robb Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Hughes (ed.), Making, Makers, Makerspaces, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09819-2_3

35

36

J. Hughes et al.

p. 82). Artistic expression, in essence, is the manifestation of internal psychological processes and functions to sort through the human processes. In the Art of Inquiry, Ingold (2013) refers to creative expression as a process that connects us to knowing. The method is “to allow knowledge to grow from the crucible of our practical and observational engagements with the beings and things around us” (Ingold, 2013, p. 6). Collectively, the two authors, Dissanayake and Ingold, paint a clear message; the process of creative expression is natural, and the most effective way to make and create is through one’s own imagination and ingenuity, allowing the mind to be involved with every moment of the creation process from design to the manipulation of materials. As Dissanayake (1992) points out, “Once we recognize that art is intrinsic to our species… each of us should feel permission and justification for taking the trouble to live our life for its quality … art is … a fundamental behavioral characteristic that demands and deserves to be promoted and nourished … [it] is a normal and necessary behavior of human beings…” (Dissanayake, 1992, p. 225).

Creativity and Creating as Innovation Beyond “creating” as an innate need, the act of creating and the psychological process of creativity is recognized as being useful, particularly when it comes to problem-­solving and innovation. For example, creativity can help people overcome functional fixedness—a phenomenon defined as “the inability to see beyond the most common use of a particular object and recognize that it can also perform the function needed to solve a problem… to think about objects based on the function for which they were designed” (Smilek et al., 2013, p. 435). If someone has functional fixedness, their thoughts and views are met by psychological and cognitive barriers, which limit the mind’s capacity. Creative people can move beyond functional fixedness and see multiple uses for objects or multiple ways of accomplishing something. This helps them in academics and careers as future innovators as well as being resilient in life. However, formal education has been criticized for not relating to the creative potential in students and not allowing enough room to create without instruction. Formal education inhibits the chance of permutation process, which is inherent to the performance of creativity (Smilek et al., 2013). Titus Suciu (2014) in “The Importance of Creativity in Education” also discusses barriers to creativity and opportunities for creating. He states, “Solid knowledge in a field can be a barrier to creativity, as it canalizes thinking in a certain way” (Suciu, 2014, p. 156). Suciu mentions a process of solving problems where one does not think about the problem at hand in concrete terms but instead as an abstract problem. The ideas and solutions of abstract problems can represent the necessary stimuli for overcoming the barriers of the mind. In other words, creative thinking processes can help solve problems and circumvent functional fixedness. Once creative thinking is activated, we can begin to create and innovate in ways that are more meaningful. The benefits of developing creative thinking and creative expression are significant; thus they should in included in school curricula.

3  Making, Creating, and Wellness

37

In “Exploring the Role and Value of Creativity in Education for Sustainability” Orana Jade Sandri (2013) writes that “innovation is at the heart of moving societies toward more sustainable paths … creativity is an essential part of learning for sustainability” (p. 765). Cultivating the skill of creative thinking and using it to create or make things in schools is important for students to contribute to society. They feel a sense of accomplishment and industry from making and creating. Creative and artistic expression are, as will be demonstrated by the brief literature review that follows, very profoundly connected to our humanity. In fact, creativity and creating have been linked to the overall mental health of individuals.

Creating, Making, and Wellness The usefulness of creating goes far beyond the contexts of innovation and problem-­ solving. The acts of creating and self-expression are considered beneficial for positive mental health. Margaret Naumburg (1973), a pioneer in the field of art therapy, asserted that artistic expression was a way of making the unconscious conscious. Many influential psychological theorists such as Sigmund Freud, Carl Rogers, and Carl Jung discussed the problems of suppression or repression and the value of recognizing unconscious needs. For example, Freud (1963) stated that “unexpressed emotions will never die. They are buried alive and will come forth later in uglier ways” (p. 123). He also discussed the unconscious mind, which compromises mental processes that are inaccessible to consciousness but that influence judgments, feelings, or behavior. According to Freud (1963), the unconscious mind is the primary source of human behavior. Our feelings, motives, and decisions are actually powerfully influenced by our experiences and are stored in the unconscious. Thus, it is extremely important to be in touch with our unconscious to understand ourselves. Referring back to Naumburg (1973) then, artistic expression and creating can make the unconscious conscious thereby contributing to better self-­understanding and well-being. Jung and Chodorow (1997) also echoed this view. He believed that creativity in the form of spontaneous painting/creating was a way of experiencing the active imagination. His theory links the unknown to the known, which is very important because it is the unknown that affects us. We can bring to light the unknown and our imagination in tangible objects or images. E.M.  Lydiatt (1971), an occupational therapist who promoted self-directed art making for her patients, stated, “Art can work in the same way as active imagination, that is, the unconscious and the conscious come together in the creation of a symbol and this is health giving and restoring” (p. 138). The acts of making and creating are synonymous with play. Play is considered an active and important part of human development. Stuart Brown (2009), in his book Play: How It Shapes the Brain, Opens the Imagination, and Invigorates the Soul, argues that play is essential to our social skills, adaptability, intelligence, creativity, ability to problem solve, and more. Particularly in tough times, we need to play, as

38

J. Hughes et al.

it is the very means by which we prepare for the unexpected, search out new solutions, and remain optimistic. Play is a biological drive as integral to our health as sleep or nutrition; we are designed by nature to flourish through play (Brown, 2009). When playing, we engage in making and creating in different ways through games, skits, tools, artifacts, or expressions of identity. This form of making contributes to positive mental health as we feel a sense of purpose, self-expression, and a sense of industry. Erik Erikson, a developmental psychologist, spoke about the stages of psychosocial human development that included a sense of industry. He theorized that between the ages of 6 and 11 years old, children need to develop a sense of industry compared to a sense of inferiority. Through social interactions, children begin to develop a sense of pride in their accomplishments and abilities. This may include how well they do in school, what talents they have, and also what skills they can develop, such as making or creating through innovation. For example, children might develop skills in imaginary play, knitting, art, music, dance, gardening, robotics, or coding. Knowing they are capable of accomplishing certain things brings a healthy sense of industry. Friends and classmates play a role in how children progress through the industry versus inferiority stage. By feeling competent and capable, children are able to form a strong self-concept which contributes to positive mental health. It is in the transitional space of playing, making, and creativity that healing and psychological growth can take place. According to Lydiatt (1971), it is in this holding environment where a child can feel secure and can gain mastery over their world. The reality principle is put on hold, and one can use their imagination to make whatever they like. Feelings of competence, creative power, control, growth, relaxation, and pleasure are achieved. Allowing children to express themselves in their own way reinforces their individuality and uniqueness. Respect for the art piece created, which is the extension of the self, is an important element for encouraging freedom to be oneself.

Research Studies Related to Creating and Mental Health A number of research studies have been conducted to investigate the benefits of creating and making on mental health over the lifespan. Overall, these studies point to the emotional and psychological benefits of the creative process. Some even discuss the biological benefits of creating and artistic expression. A study on neurology by Roberts et al. (2015) found that pursuing creative passions into old age could preserve the mind and deter dementia. Researchers discovered that people who engaged in artistic activities, such as painting, drawing, and sculpting, in both middle and old age were 73% less likely to have memory and thinking problems, such as mild cognitive impairment, that lead to dementia. The study also revealed that those who participated in craft-based activities such as sewing, woodworking, and ceramics in midlife and old age were 45% less likely to develop cognitive issues. Creative activities also help the brain recover after illness,

3  Making, Creating, and Wellness

39

injury, or stress. According to Konopka (2014), various artistic disciplines have also helped patients with diverse disorders that include developmental or acquired, medical, and/or psychiatric conditions. Being creative also enhances connectivity in the brain (Moore et al., 2014). The act of doing something creative employs various parts of the brain. The default mode network (the “resting” brain state) generates ideas. The salience network helps to identify which ideas get passed along to the executive control network for consideration. Next, the executive control network evaluates ideas, directs attention, and oversees decisions and choices. Thus, the creative process engages different parts of the brain and forces them to communicate with each other. Moore et al. (2014) give the example that people with musical training have improved connectivity between the two hemispheres of their brains. Creative activities have been shown to improve overall emotional health. Stuckey and Noble (2010) conducted a systematic review of art and mental health and found one of the benefits was that creativity increases our control over emotional pain and depression. This is due to the self-reflection and greater understanding of oneself that often comes with making. Making promotes connecting with oneself in a way that one could not otherwise. Similarly, Bolwerk et al. (2014) found that creative activities can mold personality traits—known as psychological resilience—in a way that helps individuals handle outside stressors. For example, the creative activity of knitting has been found to increase positive feelings and resiliency. Riley et  al. (2013) peeked into the minds of 3,500 knitters worldwide. The results show a significant relationship between knitting frequency and feeling calm and happy. More frequent knitters also reported higher cognitive functioning. Additionally, knitting in a group impacted significantly on perceived happiness, improved social contact, and communication with others, thus leading to greater coping skills and resiliency. There are other health benefits to creativity. Researchers Zawadzki et al. (2015) found that healthy leisure activities generate a more positive mood, greater feelings of interest, reduced stress, and lower heart rate. They theorize that leisure activities evoke the nervous system’s relaxation response. As a result, hobbies improve mental health. In addition, boredom and disengagement have been linked to poor health behaviors. This includes drug and alcohol use, smoking, and unhealthy eating. Creativity and making can also support emotional and social development. Creating has been linked to reduced stress and anxiety. A recent study by Conner et al. (2016) found that people who practice a creative activity once a day are happier than those who do not and skill level is not a factor. Even if they do not excel at what they are doing, they still experience the benefits of creativity. The study involved 658 university students who kept a diary for 13 days. Each day, they reported how much time they spent on creative activities, as well as their emotional state on each of the 13 days. The findings suggested that those engaging in creative activities feel more enthusiastic and experience a greater sense of “flourishing” following creative days. Moreover, this sense of well-being catalyzed more creative activity. Thus, the researchers describe this as an “upward spiral for well-being and creativity” (Conner et al., 2016, p. 15). These findings support everyday creativity as a means of cultivating positive psychological functioning.

40

J. Hughes et al.

A study of university students by Sandmire et al. (2012) examined the psychological effects of making art. One week before final exams, 57 participants were randomly assigned to either an art-making group or a control group. Art-making activities included painting or coloring predesigned mandalas, free-form painting, collage making, still life drawing, and modeling with clay. Before and after the study, the students’ anxiety levels were tested with an anxiety psychological assessment. The art-making group experienced a decrease in anxiety following the activity. Hence, even a brief time spent doing creative activities can reduce anxiety (Sandmire et al., 2012). Carrie Barron (2012), a physician, expresses the benefits of using our hands when creating and making. She points out that when we make, repair, or create things, we feel vital and effective. When we are immersed in a deeply absorbing task, we lose self-consciousness and pass the time in a contented state. She discusses the research that shows that hand activities, from knitting to woodworking to growing vegetables or chopping them, are useful for decreasing stress, relieving anxiety, and modifying depression. Functioning hands also foster a flow in the mind that leads to spontaneous joyful, creative thought. She states, “Peak moments occur as one putters, ponders and daydreams. One can be tickled, moved or transformed by a thought or idea along the way as well as by the endpoint” (Barron, 2012, para. 2). If we can treasure doing as much as having done, we provide new avenues for success, self-esteem, or self-repair.

Research into Practice  he Role of Creativity in Facilitating Wellness T and Cognitive Development As we visited participating schools over the course of the project, many of the teachers emphasized the impact of the creativity elicited by making on students’ cognitive development and emotional well-being. Four main themes emerged through these conversations, namely, how making and creative expression (1) promoted the development of problem-solving and innovation, (2) provided opportunities for deep learning and knowledge-sharing, (3) facilitated engagement and perseverance, and (4) offered numerous mental health benefits for students at all levels. Our findings have been presented below in accordance with these themes. Creativity, Problem-Solving, and Innovation  In order to thrive in an ever-­ changing and unpredictable world, our students must become adept problem-­ solvers, applying their knowledge and skills to a wide variety of global issues. Explored more deeply in Chap. 4, critical thinking, problem-solving, and innovation have been identified by scholars and government officials as skills that are absolutely necessary for our students to acquire and develop throughout their education. Although these skills are documented on every report card and can be found

3  Making, Creating, and Wellness

41

described in almost every curriculum document, one teacher from Limestone District School Board explained that the emphasis on creativity within maker ­pedagogies helped facilitate problem-solving in ways that more traditional teaching methods had failed to do: Even better is the design piece, the engineering piece. It probes and prompts incredible questions. I find myself deviating from the original plan all the time because we’ll be talking about one piece of technology, and then the kids will say, ‘well, how would that work for maybe creating a decrease in the amount of pollution that is in the ocean?’ I’m like, ‘it’s funny that you mention that because prototypes have already been created by Amazon’. So we’ll stop everything, we’ll put it upon the SMART Board®, we’ll look at some of the visuals, and the kids will be like, ‘well, wouldn’t it make more sense if it was solar powered?’ They just naturally move in such creative and cool ways. You want innovation to happen, and that’s where our world is going. It’s these brilliant minds who are willing to risk and fail, and fail, and fail to be able to create such great pieces of technology. We want to build that in our kids, and this is the only way to do it. It’s really the only way to do it. Set them up to fail. We are setting them up to fail, but we are defining ingenuity and creativity in the process. I can’t create that any other way or in the curriculum. That’s what’s going to create minds like this tomorrow. (LDSB)

As described in Chap. 1, maker pedagogies draw extensively upon the design process which, in all of its forms, encourages research, testing, and iterating upon the original design until the maker is satisfied with the result. Having used this model with her students over the course of the project, this teacher explains how questioning and problem-solving have become ingrained in her students; they are primed to analyze, improve, and suggest alternative applications, even without being assigned to do so. And even more encouraging is that their teacher felt empowered to go “off-­ script.” Rather than stifle their creativity in the pursuit of planned curricular objectives, she harnessed it to promote the development of these essential problem-solving skills. This sentiment was echoed by the vice principal at another school who cautioned against quashing students’ creative expression: And I think too, if we really want kids to buy into a lot of these practices, we have to be really careful we don’t three-paragraph them to death at the end of it. Kids will instantly say, ‘wait a minute, I know where this is heading’. I think we have to be careful not to do that to them because we will rob them of their creativity and innovation. (HPDSB)

In this passage, the vice principal recommends embracing the learning and creativity that takes place through making, as opposed to using it simply as a lead-up to a more traditional assignment, like a three-paragraph essay. While not refuting the importance of literacy and the value of creative writing, if students are constantly being asked to produce a written piece about their maker projects, they will come to recognize that the creativity and innovation they display through making is considered less valuable than their writing skills, and these rich opportunities for deep learning will be lost (Fig. 3.1). Speaking with a fifth-grade teacher from another one of our project schools, the impact of making on creative expression and innovation becomes especially clear: My experience with makerspace has been really interesting, because when I attended the training, I realized I had already been doing some of the things in my classroom before,

42

J. Hughes et al.

Fig. 3.1  A student and teacher work together on the green screen at HPCDSB especially in Science. I was really excited to be able to continue that throughout the year and learn different ways to incorporate the technology to engage the students more. It has been mind-blowing because I cannot believe what my students have come up with and how innovative and creative they have been, how much better they have understood the concepts they have been learning in class. It’s really been quite amazing and an eye-opener. (CSC Providence)

Despite her prior experience facilitating hands-on learning through the Ontario Science curriculum, this teacher was taken aback by the innovative potential demonstrated by her students once she embraced creativity and implemented maker pedagogies across subjects. By providing increased opportunities for her students to be creative, they began to devise their own solutions to problems, reinforcing their learning and developing essential future-ready skills. Unfortunately, the rigid, teacher-centric approach to education currently in place throughout our province (and beyond) can often inhibit students’ creative expression and communicate that only a small subset of knowledge and skills are considered valuable. This is in direct opposition to the educational directives provided by the Ministry of Education (see Chap. 4). If we truly want students to be adaptable, critical thinkers capable of innovating and solving grand problems, we must provide opportunities for them to ask questions and exercise their creativity in ways that we, as educators, may not have imagined. Learning and Cognitive Development through Creativity  As outlined by the theoretical framework underlying maker pedagogies and further reinforced by Ingold (2013), the process of knowledge-building is strongly connected to hands-

3  Making, Creating, and Wellness

43

o­ n, creative endeavors. By building contexts in which students feel that their creativity is valued, educators can facilitate deep, meaningful learning opportunities. At several of our project schools, this link between creativity and knowledge manifested itself as students taking charge of their own learning. As one teacher recalled: We’ve used [making] in social studies to build models of towns that we have built in simulation on our computers, we've built structures, like tower building competitions and bridges. Yesterday we made a dragster racing competition where the kids learned about things like friction on their own. I just had to sit back and watch them learn. (KPDSB)

Although students may not necessarily know the precise terminology or understand the theory behind concepts like friction without teachers’ guidance, allowing learners to discover and explore them in creative scenarios like this teacher’s dragster racing competition creates motivation and a more meaningful entry point to learning. Furthermore, encouraging students’ creativity can also facilitate conceptual connections that teachers haven’t accounted for: I think what’s exciting is to create more open-ended tasks for students and to view the classroom in a similar fashion to how we view the playground or a sandbox: there are all kinds of tools to create with, and all kinds of opportunities to show what you know. To have that open-ended task where students work with different tools together and come up with things we never could imagine ourselves as educators, I think that's what's so exciting about the future. There are so many ways kids can show their thinking now. (HPDSB)

Connecting with Brown’s (2009) conceptualization of play and its role in human development, this teacher found that learning opportunities that promote creativity and choice support the development and sharing of knowledge in ways as unique as our students. When we encourage students’ creative expression in school, we are likely to be amazed by the things they come up with and the learning that transpires, as described by the teacher below: As I said, the students are grasping concepts easier. Like when we would work with the Spheros; if we forgot what an angle was but then we did it with a Sphero, they would remember what they did. They grasp everything easier and can go back to the activity and apply that to what they're doing, homework-wise or on a test. They seem to be more creative too, at the start of the year to write a story they had trouble, and now that we had a chance to do makerspace and they’ve had liberty to use their imagination, they went the extra mile. It’s great to see them doing these kinds of things and obviously we’ll help them along the way, but that innovation is great to see. (CSC Providence)

This emphasis on choice and imagination was reiterated by another teacher in our project: Students weren’t confined. They had their own thoughts, and—some of the kids in grade 3, as soon as you give them a specific, they freeze. I think when we were kids we were allowed to run, use our imagination, and I think they still have the desire to use it and we stifled it. When we bring up green screens, we take 3 steps back and we go ‘just do it’, we are actually letting them be eight year olds. Some of their projects might not look great, but they’re really what an eight-year-old project should look like. I think that’s the difference, when we

J. Hughes et al.

44

allow them to do their own work they’re actually at their level, their ability, their creativity, their interests and I think that makes a huge difference. (GEDSB)

While curriculum expectations and lesson objectives help ensure students are prepared for the learning to come in subsequent years, including too many guidelines can actually constrain students’ ability to develop and represent their knowledge. As this teacher communicated, educators must avoid micromanaging their students’ work and allow for their natural creativity and imagination to come through in order to get a true representation of their learning. The role of creativity in students’ learning also goes beyond imagination and choice to the inclusion of hands-on activities that prompt students to manipulate materials and create physical products. As one of our project teachers described: Having that ability to have a lot of hands-on learning is helping them to develop academically and socially, so they’re learning a lot of different skills and they’re building on what they’re doing. It’s interesting to see what they can figure out and learn on their own. (KPDSB)

This aligns with Barron’s (2012) observations that engaging in creative activities which require the use of our hands facilitates numerous benefits, including feelings of self-efficacy, reduced stress, and deep learning. Although much of the professional development and funding provided through this project focused on digital or technology-enabled making, several teachers expressed that the opportunity for students to be hands-on played a much more significant role than the technologies involved. One teacher from St. Clair Catholic District School Board explained, “some students are not interested in digital. They're more interested in working with their hands and going through the inquiry process that way, and that's okay.” Similarly, another teacher noted (Fig. 3.2):

Fig. 3.2  Students creating parabolic string art

3  Making, Creating, and Wellness

45

We also learned early on that it isn't just about technology that hooks up to computers, or that is mechanical. We have some students that are working on some knitting projects and are using those materials that are more hands-on, and we hope we’re accessing all areas of the brain in the process. (KPDSB)

Having fashioned a culture that invites and values students’ creative expression in the pursuit of learning, several schools took notice that students began requesting opportunities to demonstrate their understanding of curricular concepts in a hands­on way. One teacher remarked: It does just take extra imagination about how we as teachers are going to program this, but then giving the students the opportunity to say ‘can I use this type of technology to show my learning in this type of way’ is so valuable. So the students are like ‘can I create a film’ instead of saying ‘should I create several paragraphs for you to read?’ We want them to realize that these are equally valuable and shows their learning equally as their writing skills. They are showing their knowledge of a concept—so for example in history, instead of writing a timeline you can create a heritage minute video. Those are equal. (GEDSB)

Not only were the participating teachers successful in leveraging maker pedagogies and technologies to promote students’ creativity; they demonstrated that creative expression was equally as important to learning as more traditional academic assignments. In this context, students felt safe to venture beyond the box and suggest alternative learning tasks that they felt could more adequately showcase their learning than what teachers had originally had in mind. Many of the teachers in our study commented on the ways in which the emphasis on creativity within maker pedagogies differed from more traditional models of education and the benefits that students stand to reap from a pedagogical shift. These two teachers described how imagination, creative thought, and play are seen as valuable in early elementary but are quickly overshadowed by skills that are perceived to be more academic: Often, with our new FDK program that allows students to be creative and collaborative together, and we say Grade 1 we’re going to stop that, well the makerspace project allows that to continue on, that creativity that intentional thinking about what they’re doing and working together with their peers. All that process is allowed to continue on through projects like this. (HPCDSB) I think my kinder-centric brain just thinks kids are wired that way, and I think sometimes as educators, once students get past Grade 2 those opportunities start to dry up a little. I don’t think they would if we, as the adults, allowed them to keep going and realized all the learning that you can find in that. (GECDSB)

Although research on play and creativity in learning is prevalent, school-based learning is typically thought of as a more formal, prescriptive process. As explored in Chap. 2, education is moving toward models that engage students in active, inquiry-based learning, but creative expression and innovation are only beginning to be widely recognized as important to students’ educational development (see Chap. 4). Implementing maker pedagogies gave these teachers’ license to explore students’ creativity, imagination, and innovative thought and to reinforce the learning that took place through these processes across all grade levels. Emphasizing the value of creative learning beyond Kindergarten, the teacher from GECDSB

46

J. Hughes et al.

continued on to say that “there will be 30-40 [curriculum expectations hit] in one little activity,” so teachers need not be concerned about losing instructional time to indulge students’ creative expression. Another educator describes the frustration that arises from approaches to education that emphasize a unidimensional definition of learning: A maker is innate in human nature. Unfortunately, a lot of schools say, ‘if your ability is to make it this large we say you know what, maybe only make it this big, this is what we say you can make’. A lot of our students fall outside of that small circle, where they can make something—it just can’t be a paragraph, it can’t be a five paragraph essay but they can make me a video, they can make me a script, they can make me a set, they can make me something else that shows their learning and that shows their knowledge. (GEDSB)

Traditional models of education that rely on primarily written assignments, standardized testing, and rigidly structured learning benefit only a small subset of children. As we visited our participating schools, we heard from numerous teachers about students who struggled with these types of learning contexts, and the opportunities that maker pedagogies created for diverse student populations (see Chap. 10). This teacher’s anecdote echoes Dissanayake’s (1992) work in recognizing that making and creating are both innate and essential for humans to thrive yet are inadequately represented in our educational system. If we, as educators, wish to promote student wellness in addition to their academic success, it is imperative that we draw upon and encourage students’ intrinsic desire for creative expression. Similarly, a teacher described the complications that arise from being too prescriptive in the classroom: I think there’s more freedom in the way we let kids do that now. I remember going to Home Economics in this room as a kid, and it was very prescriptive. ‘You’re doing this, you’re making this, here’s how it looks when it’s done. Oh, yours almost looks like that.’ Whereas here, there’s freedom: make what you want and then we’re going to find the learning. We’ll see the learning, we’ll find the connections afterwards. You do want to start with curriculum, but if you say, ‘we’re going to do this lesson, and it’s going to focus on expectation 17.1 and…’, you drive down that very narrow road. You lose those kids and you’re losing the learning that’s happening from different angles. (GECDSB)

When our vision of what constitutes learning is as narrowly defined as it is in the above teacher’s example, we encourage memorization and replication, not learning. These are the very antithesis to the creativity and artistic expression that make us who we are. The curriculum documents set out by the Ontario Ministry of Education neatly consolidate the concepts that we, as a society, have deemed to be requisite knowledge. However, the ways in which individual students achieve these expectations will differ, and our educational plans must afford them the ability to get there in their own way. One pressing issue is that, although the schools directly involved in our project have begun embracing students’ creativity in learning and promoting this approach within their school board, the same cannot be said for all secondary schools. Astutely, one of our participating teachers described this struggle: There is still a large gap though, because you’re willing to try and you understand that the hands-on learner using the Sphero for math is going to understand. But then we have Grade

3  Making, Creating, and Wellness

47

8 students going into high school and there’s that gap of, ‘how do we appropriately set them up for success’? They are hands-on learners, but sometimes they’re not able to do that in every course or every subject that they take on in their life, so how do we prepare them for that also? That’s kind of a struggle. (BGCDSB)

Just as other teachers observed a shift in pedagogical practices from Kindergarten into later primary and junior grades, a similar transition exists from intermediate to secondary, raising concerns about how students will respond when they are afforded fewer opportunities to demonstrate their learning in hands-on, creative ways. Although we would advocate for the inclusion of student-driven making and creative expression at all academic levels, this particular obstacle is beyond the scope of this project. Despite this challenge, one of our teachers noted that the inclusion of creativity and imagination as a pedagogical choice is not new. While the tools and technologies may have changed, educational research has long supported the value of making in the classroom: I think what’s really refreshing too is that, although these are new tools and examples of innovation, it’s not new pedagogy. We've always believed that students learn best when they’re building, students learn best when they collaborate, and these are tools that can really make that happen. Kids will learn and they will create. They will create, they will collaborate, and because of those conditions, they will be engaged and reach a greater level of understanding than through any other traditional measure. (HPCDSB)

As many of our participating teachers realized, making, creating, and artistic expression are typically undervalued as tools to support student learning. Providing meaningful opportunities to explore learning objectives through the manipulation of physical and digital materials promotes inquiry and passion-based learning, makes abstract concepts concrete, and reduces barriers to learning by enabling students to engage with these concepts at their own level. Promoting Engagement and Industry  Artistic activities are naturally engaging, as they invite creative self-expression and sharing oneself with others. As educators, ensuring that students are engaged in the classroom is paramount to maximizing their learning, but engagement serves another purpose as well: fostering a sense of industry and accomplishment that contributes to students’ wellness, resiliency, and willingness to persevere through challenges. Although increased engagement as a result of the maker project was a common theme in most of our participating schools, several teachers commented more specifically on the impact this engagement had on their students. For example, the two teachers below discussed the wide-­ reaching impact of their dragster racing assignment: Teacher A: “We also have a day-care in the building, which ironically is at the end of the route that we like to use for the dragster races, so they’re cheering and screaming in delight, and it’s all on-task noise. So it takes getting used to, but I think that it’s not irritating anyone, it's just a change. It’s a neat way to build a community too.” Teacher B: “There are multiple classes out there cheering, celebrating what the kids worked hard to create.” (KPDSB)

48

J. Hughes et al.

When this activity was initially planned, these teachers hadn’t considered the effect of neighboring classrooms; they were simply looking for space that would allow students to race and evaluate their completed dragster vehicles. However, the community support that arose through other classrooms’ unexpected participation in the project served an important purpose in bolstering the confidence and pride students’ felt about their completed projects. Recognition and appreciation of students’ creative works are essential in encouraging students to express themselves and their personality, and the teachers at this particular school recognized the positive impact this had on their school community. Another school reported a similar experience with a typically quiet and reserved student: One of my students became obsessed with Scratch Jr. and he showed us how to make a video game which had all of these incredible, really complex things that we hadn’t talked about in class. He made a Super Mario-style game and he ended up teaching 4 other classes, and then we had an arcade day where a whole bunch of classes and kids came and we had all the iPads out and kids played different arcade games. And that was student-driven - that wasn’t me, that was him on his own, learning something, bringing it back, being the teacher, going to the class next door, teaching them, and my class being mentors to them. He is a pretty calm, really shy kid, and you could really see it on his face—the pride he had. He was very keen and already keyed into this thing, but that confidence that he got from being number 1, having his work being shared as a model for starting off a project, he was really keen and really excited, and he was very proud to be able to go around to different classes. (Limestone DSB)

This powerful anecdote illustrates the impact of sharing creative works with others. Although the student had been sufficiently engaged by his classroom work with Scratch Jr. to independently extend his coding knowledge and create a sophisticated video game, his desire to share his work with his classmates snowballed into him becoming a mentor for other classrooms as well as the inspiration for an event to showcase students’ digital works. The resultant sense of industry and accomplishment from helping others had a positive impact on his pride and confidence as a maker. Several teachers also discussed the role of increased engagement that ensued from this project in encouraging student buy-in and academic output. As articulated by one of our participants from Durham Catholic District School Board, “The thing I appreciate the most about the whole maker ideology is the level of engagement that I’ve seen. That is the biggest thing that I’ve seen for kids and for learning, is the sense of engagement that comes with it.” In addition to the sense of accomplishment and confidence as a young learner, engaged students were more willing to take responsibility for their learning, helping to facilitate the student-driven environment that is the hallmark of any good makerspace. The following quotes illustrate two teachers’ experiences with this (Fig. 3.3): I’ve noticed student engagement for the most part. They really like doing the hands-on and working with tools—they really enjoy that. When things are going well for us, we’ve had a really good experience. Sometimes it gets to the point where I’m not teaching, but facilitating—The kids start to kind of be more self motivated and become self directed. (RDSB)

3  Making, Creating, and Wellness

49

Fig. 3.3  Students exploring the Bloxels game creator with their teacher

The first time you present the piece of technology, you step back and you give them a foundation and then they explore. Through their own personal creative process, you become the learner with them, sometimes the learner beside them, and sometimes simply the learner and they become the teacher. That’s a pretty powerful thing for kids—to get them really excited about their own learning. Their engagement piece has exploded, it’s absolutely incredible to watch. So, I am incorporating technology in almost everything that we do, and I am giving the kids so many more opportunities for them to display their learning in creative ways. (Limestone DSB)

In each of these examples, immersing students in a learning environment that emphasized making and creativity enabled teachers to step back and act as a facilitator and in some cases as a co-learner alongside their students, given the level of engagement that transpired. Learning through hands-on activities, students were more willing to take risks, explore, and share what they learned with others without explicit instructions from their teacher. Another teacher described how the pedagogical shift that occurred over this project has helped them reach students who were chronically disengaged: It’s been a great experience trying to find a way to do different things. I have a lot of boys in my room, so it’s how can I get them excited to come to school, excited about learning. A lot of hands-on things, so I can create a classroom for that—pushed the robotics earlier in the year with a lot of the kids and we enjoyed that, the block programming that we did a lot of digital things with, you can see now I’ve turned into the woodworking experience here and it’s been a lot of fun, we made crosses first as practice. They made those and it went great, so we tried this as a culminating activity for science. It’s great to have an interesting, hands-on, project-based idea for everything that we've done. (SCDSB)

Issues with student attendance are common in schools serving lower-socioeconomic communities or those with a higher percentage of students with special needs (see Chap. 10). In these cases, engaging activities can incentivize students to attend

50

J. Hughes et al.

class, thereby increasing their chances of academic success and reducing the likelihood that they will engage in problematic health behaviors (Zawadzki et al., 2015). This teacher was able to identify the maker activities students were most engaged by and utilize them to “get [students] excited to come to school” instead of missing out on valuable creative, social, and educational opportunities. Given the importance of students becoming flexible, responsive, lifelong learners in our unpredictable society, we were thrilled when one of our participating teachers identified the role of creativity and making in piquing students’ desire to learn: I think the creativity, having purpose for making, looking at their age and, as teachers, letting go of what we think the final product should look like are all important. It’s good knowing that they are using all the different tools and not needing everything to be perfect and letting them make their own square rather than us always making their square on a piece of paper and having them cut exactly on the lines. I think innovation and creativity and the Makerspace allows our kids to finally do that. I have a boy who is very smart but he doesn’t like paper-based tasks at all, but he built a hotel for our city and had an elevator and then when he realized that his elevator wasn’t going to be functional he made it into a diving board area with a pool so the people of the city could then be pulled up and jump off the diving board. He persevered and figured out how it worked. I told him ‘don’t worry, you’re not going to have to look at elevators until next year’, and he said, ‘but I think I can make one now’. Now he has a tool for next year, and next year he won’t be afraid of it whereas kids that don’t have the experience with using those tools and materials, you become afraid of ‘what if I make a mistake’. For this boy the elevator kept tripping on him so he used a circular item instead of what he could have used. Teachers have got to let the project happen and that’s going to make the difference in the creativity, and not say creativity has to look like what we see in the news or what we see on Pinterest. (GEDSB)

This teacher had engaged her third-grade students in a city-building project inspired by recent events in their local community. One of her students wanted to include an element that he had not yet formally learned about in school (elevators and pulley systems). Although his teacher provided reassurance that this concept was beyond his current grade level, the student was determined to make his elevator work, and while his may not have been the most ideal solution, he was able to utilize his creativity and engagement in the project to arrive at a functional prototype instead of giving up on the idea altogether. Anecdotes like these highlight the value of making and creative expression in promoting beneficial qualities for students’ academic success and emotional well-being, including curiosity, perseverance, and a growth mindset. Making, Creativity, and Mental Health  As environments that encourage artistry, imagination, and creative self-expression, makerspaces have the potential to offer restorative benefits for students’ mental health and wellness. This was echoed by several of our participants. One such teacher from Keewatin-Patricia District School Board described their makerspace as providing “the academic piece, but it’s also used as an incentive for kids, and as mental health support if we have certain kids who have trouble getting work done.” Others affirmed the positive impact that making had on their students’ mood, including a teacher from CSC Providence who said, “when they do engage in those projects, then you see them being more positive

3  Making, Creating, and Wellness

51

when they come to school instead of dragging their feet in the hallway—they want to be there and be involved.” While engagement certainly plays a part in students’ disposition, the narratives expressed by our participating schools support established research on the positive influence of creativity on mental health. Recognizing these benefits, one school aligned their participation in this project with an ongoing student wellness program. Their principal explained: We have a very high participation rate and so as we focus on student well-being, this maker, this engagement piece, this hands-on it fits really nicely into that overall umbrella. We have pretty well zero behavioral issues if you walk in, and maybe later we’ll get a chance to do that. They’re all engaged, cooperating and playing together and doing whatever so it just fits in quite nicely with our overall focus on mental health and student well-being. (BGCDSB)

In addition to the making itself, the administrator identified several other elements of their makerspace that support their school’s wellness initiative, namely, collaboration, play, engagement, and social support. By recognizing the value of making for student well-being, this school was able to capitalize on this project in more ways than one. Several teachers also described the role of their school’s makerspace in assisting students with calming and self-regulation (Fig. 3.4): Some people talked about having some kids who had difficulty during the day and just stood there and used the LEGO® wall, and this was the first time they had seen them calm all day long. Little things like that that show you what’s relevant and why you would need it. I have students who struggle with reading but can do the coding and are going further because they will persevere with it. I think all of those things keep coming into play. They’re more independent and they know self-regulation all of the sudden. When they’re engaged in something, they’re actually geared to work. (GEDSB) Our students as well, with regulation it’s an opportunity for them to focus in, be calm, and to regulate again. (HPDSB)

Fig. 3.4  GEDSB students working on the LEGO® wall

52

J. Hughes et al.

Research has long illustrated the impact of creativity and making on mental health, particularly in the area of psychological healing and growth (Brown, 2009; Freud, 1963; Lydiatt, 1971), and while the maker movement and pedagogies supporting this project appear to be new, these therapeutic practices have been in place for many, many years. These teachers’ stories lend further credence to this body of work, illustrating that opportunities for students to participate in hands-on, creative activities can be essential for promoting mental health and well-being in our schools. Several teachers also commented on the personal growth they witnessed in students, particularly in terms of overcoming anxieties related to schoolwork and their school’s shifting climate. One teacher shared how some of their students were initially hesitant about interacting with the new tools, technologies, and pedagogies inspired by this project but became more receptive with time and exposure: Even some of the students who are successful when it comes to pencil-and-paper type work have become so accustomed to that type of work that they are almost afraid to take risks and to explore those curiosities. I have had some students who really excel when it comes to pencil-and-paper work and have done an amazing job with makerspace activities as well, while some of them have really needed a push to get out of that mold. It’s interesting. (DCDSB)

As with anything unfamiliar, many of the students involved in our project had reservations about the “new” maker approach to teaching and learning. Some, as exemplified in the above example, were so accustomed to traditional paper-and-pencil style work that they had difficulty transitioning to a more open-ended, hands-on learning style. However, our participating teachers quickly saw students grow out of this fixed mindset and thrive in their maker environment. A part of this growth could be attributed to the sharing and social support students experienced in these spaces. As one teacher noted: I’ve noticed so many positive things with my kids. They’re supportive of each other, they’ll say ‘that was a really good thing that you did!’ and you don’t usually see that if students are at their desks writing, right? But they see them making these things, they’re able to voice what they’re doing, they have increased stamina and persistence, it’s amazing. (DCDSB)

Recognition and appreciation are crucial factors in students’ feelings of security and success in artistic spaces, but this kind of peer-to-peer feedback can be difficult to provide during traditional academic assignments. However, when students are engaged in making a physical or digital product, progress is visible at all stages, creating countless opportunities for their classmates to share and celebrate each other’s work, reinforcing students’ confidence and feelings of accomplishment.

Getting Started with Making for Mental Health and Wellness While few of our project schools began this study expecting a significant impact on students’ mental health and well-being, their stories illustrate the value of imagination, creativity, and making for human growth and wellness from Kindergarten to

3  Making, Creating, and Wellness

53

Grade 8. The following recommendations for leveraging creative expression within your school’s makerspace or culture have been consolidated from the narratives provided by our participating teachers and administrators: 1. Make space for creativity: The school day never seems long enough, but students need time to grapple with creative ideas. As some of our teachers discovered, imagination can strike right in the middle of a lesson! To avoid dismissing students’ creativity, it is important to take note of these ideas and return to them at a later time, if need be. Consider having students keep “genius journals” in which they can develop their thoughts or running a STEAM club that enables students to bring their ideas to life! (Fig. 3.5) 2. Let students take the wheel: As time permits, stepping back and letting students steer the direction of the conversation or activity can yield surprising results. Their minds work in amazing ways and devise things that we, as educators, may have never considered. The results are even more staggering when we hand students a piece of technology that we may not be 100% comfortable with! Being comfortable with learning alongside your students (or becoming the student yourself) encourages them to pursue and value their own inspirations.

Fig. 3.5  Example of a maker journal from one of the participating schools

54

J. Hughes et al.

3. Embrace no-tech and low-tech options: Although popular media suggests otherwise, making doesn’t always include technology! While students may jump at the chance to use programmable robots or digital design software, others may enjoy woodworking, knitting, or building with cardboard and other recyclables. Creativity, in all of its forms, deserves a place in your makerspace. 4. Provide opportunities for students to share their maker projects: Recognition, appreciation, and peer support provide valuable reinforcement for budding makers. Some students may not be comfortable sharing their creative work, and that’s okay! Carving out time and space for students who wish to share can help build a sense of community, reinforce students’ confidence and self-esteem, and demonstrate that creativity and imagination are things to celebrate. Modeling positive, constructive feedback prior to sharing sessions is crucial for helping students respectfully communicate their thoughts. 5. Promote a growth mindset: For many students, the fear of failure (especially in artistic contexts where their mistakes will be visible to themselves and others) can be overwhelming. However, setbacks are an important part of the design process! Books like Rosie Revere, Engineer (Beaty & Roberts, 2013) and Engibear’s Dream (King & Johnston, 2012) are just two examples of resources that are effective in creating a failure-positive culture in your classroom. The art of creating and making is an innate and biological need amongst all humans. The way in which we engage in creativity may be different, but the need to do so has remained constant throughout time. Creating new objects, games, art, music, plays, or technologies allows us to use our imagination and feel a sense of accomplishment and industry. It helps us develop our self-concept. Research suggests numerous social, emotional, and physical benefits from the processes of making and creating. Thus, schools, parents, and communities should provide greater opportunities for children to engage in creative pursuits. In the words of D.W. Winnicott (1971), psychoanalyst, pediatrician and creativity expert, “It is creative apperception more than anything else that makes the individual feel that life is worth living” (p. 65).

References Barron, C. (2012, May 3). Creativity, happiness and your own two hands: How meaningful hand use enhances well-being. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ the-­creativity-­cure/201205/creativity-­happiness-­and-­your-­own-­two-­hands Beaty, A., & Roberts, D. (2013). Rosie Revere, engineer. Abrams Books for Young Readers. Bolwerk, A., Mack-Andrick, J., Lang, F. R., Dörfler, A., & Maihöfner, C. (2014). How art changes your brain: Differential effects of visual art production and cognitive art evaluation on functional brain connectivity. PLOS ONE, 9(7), e101035. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101035 Brown, S. (2009). Play: How it shapes the brain, opens the imagination, and invigorates the soul. New York: Avery. Conner, T. S., Deyoung, C. G., & Silvia, P. J. (2016). Everyday creative activity as a path to flourishing. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13(2), 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743976 0.2016.1257049

3  Making, Creating, and Wellness

55

Dissanayake, E. (1992). Homo aestheticus: Where art comes from and why. University of Washington Press. Ingold, T. (2013). Making: Anthropology, archeology, art and architecture. Routledge. Jung, C. G., & Chodorow, J. (1997). Jung on the active imagination. Princeton University Press. King, A., & Johnston, B. (2012). Engibear’s dream. Little Steps Publishing. Konopka, L. M. (2014). Where art meets neuroscience: A new horizon of art therapy. Croatian Medical Journal, 55(1), 73–74. https://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2014.55.73 Freud, S. (1963). General psychology theory: Papers on metapsychology. Macmillan Publishing. Lydiatt, E.  M. (1971). Spontaneous painting and modeling: A practical approach in therapy. Constable. Naumburg, M. (1973). Introduction to art therapy. Teachers’ College Press. Moore, E., Schaefer, R. S., Bastin, M. E., Roberts, N., & Overy, K. (2014). Can musical training influence brain connectivity? Evidence from diffusion tensor MRI. Brain Sciences, 4(2), 405–427. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci4020405 Riley, J., Corkhill, B., & Morris, C. (2013). The benefits of knitting for personal and social wellbeing in adulthood: Findings from an international survey. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 76(2), 50–57. https://doi.org/10.4276/030802213X13603244419077 Roberts, R. O., Cha, R. H., Mielke, M. M., Geda, Y. E., Boeve, B. F., Machulda, M. M., Knopman, D.  S., & Petersen, R.  C. (2015). Risk and protective factors for cognitive impairment in persons aged 85 years and older. Neurology, 84(18), 1854–1861. https://doi.org/10.1212/ wnl.0000000000001537 Sandmire, D. A., Roberts Gorham, S., Rankin, N. E., & Grimm, D. R. (2012). The influence of art making on anxiety: A pilot study. Art Therapy, 29(2), 68–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/0742165 6.2012.683748 Sandri, O.  J. (2013). Exploring the role and value of creativity in education for sustainability. Environmental Education Research, 19(6), 765–778. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462 2.2012.749978 Smilek, D., Sinnett, S., & Kingstone, A. (2013). Cognition. Oxford University Press. Suciu, T. (2014). The importance of creativity in education. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov: Economic Sciences Series V, 7(2), 152–158. Stuckey, H.  L., & Noble, J. (2010). The connection between art, healing, and public health: A review of the literature. American Journal of Public Health, 100(2), 254–263. https://doi. org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.156497 Winnicott, D. W. (1971). Playing and reality. Tavistock Publications. Zawadzki, M. J., Smyth, J. M., & Costigan, H. J. (2015). Real-time associations between engaging in leisure and daily health and well-being. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 49(4), 605–615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-­015-­9694-­3

Chapter 4

Fostering Global Competencies Through Maker Pedagogies Janette Hughes and Stephanie Thompson

According to the Ontario Ministry of Education (OME, 2016) discussion document, Towards Defining 21st Century Competencies, educators in Ontario classrooms are increasingly being asked to equip students with the knowledge, skills, and competencies that they will need to prepare them for the undefined and complex challenges they will face in their academic and professional futures. It is important to define these terms clearly in order to differentiate them and to demonstrate their relationship to one another (Ananiadou & Claro, 2009). The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’s DeSeCo project defines competencies as a concept that is much broader and that may actually encompass knowledge, skills, and attitudes. According to Rychen and Salganik (2003), “a competence is more than just knowledge or skills. It involves the ability to meet complex demands, by drawing on and mobilising psychosocial resources (including skills and attitudes) in a particular context. For example, the ability to communicate effectively is a competence that may draw on an individual’s knowledge of language, practical IT skills and attitudes toward those with whom he or she is communicating” (p. 4). The European Commission defines skills as being able to perform tasks and solve problems, while competencies involve the adequate application of learning outcomes in a defined context such as education, work, or professional/personal development. Furthermore, competencies require the use of cognitive elements such as the use of theory, concepts of knowledge, as well as technical skills, interpersonal and organizational skills, and ethical values (CEDEFOP, 2008). Despite widespread use of the terms “21st century competencies,” “transferable skills,” and “global competencies” in the field of education, there is still a great deal of debate among researchers and policy-makers as to how best to prepare Ontario

J. Hughes (*) · S. Thompson Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Hughes (ed.), Making, Makers, Makerspaces, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09819-2_4

57

58

J. Hughes and S. Thompson

students for learning, living and working in the twenty-first century (CMEC, n.d.; OME, 2016; C21 Canada, 2015). Early conceptual frameworks for twenty-first century skills were developed by the Partnership for 21st century Skills (2009), the North Central Regional Education Laboratory (NCREL), and the OECD (2008). In addition, several researchers have developed lists of competencies specifically related to “digital literacies” that support learning core subject areas through the use of digital tools and technologies (Dede, 2005; Hughes & Morrison, 2014). More recently, several provincial ministries of education have been working on defining twenty-first century competencies (cf. Alberta, 2011; British Columbia, 2021; Ontario, 2016), by building on the work of Fullan and Scott (2014) and some of these earlier frameworks. On the whole, there is consensus that we want to help students be critical and creative, collaborative, connected, and communicative, so that they can contribute meaningfully to Canadian society (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014). This chapter focuses on six global competencies as outlined by the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC), in relation to how they align with maker pedagogies. Each of the competencies is described in turn and is followed by a Research into Practice section which highlights examples of how the teachers in the project have employed maker pedagogies to help develop these competencies, skills, and attributes in their students: 1. Critical thinking and problem-solving. 2. Innovation, creativity, and entrepreneurship. 3. Learning to learn, self-awareness, and self-direction. 4. Collaboration. 5. Communication. 6. Global citizenship and sustainability. According to CMEC, global competencies are “overarching sets of attitudes, skills, and knowledge that can be interdependent, interdisciplinary, and leveraged in a variety of situations both locally and globally” (CMEC, n.d., para. 5). Today’s teachers are tasked with developing these competencies in their students in order to equip learners with the skillset “to meet the shifting and ongoing demands of life, work and learning, to be active and responsive in their communities, to understand diverse perspectives, and to act on issues of global significance” (CMEC, n.d.). CMEC’s mandate is to “prepare students for a complex and unpredictable future with rapidly changing political, social, economic, technological, and ecological landscapes” (CMEC, n.d.). These uncertainties have placed the responsibility of equipping students with the requisite knowledge, skills, and attitudes firmly in the hands of educators. Global competencies will help students to perform in both their academic and professional lives, become and remain active in both local and global communities, embrace new technologies, communicate and collaborate with colleagues, and embrace new opportunities (CMEC, n.d.). Additionally, there is increasing recognition that global competencies lead to deeper learning in students as they provide students with the means to adapt to constantly shifting demands and to become lifelong learners. As these key competencies are cross-disciplinary and interdependent, they may lead to positive effects in both student achievement and

4  Fostering Global Competencies Through Maker Pedagogies

59

well-being. Furthermore, due to an increasing number of occupations requiring both skills that are specific to their discipline as well as social and interpersonal skills, these competencies are vital in “preparing students to live, work and contribute to a world that is becoming increasingly interdependent” (CMEC, n.d.). The six sections that follow demonstrate how the development of each of these competencies was observed in the Makerspace project, with corroborating data obtained through observations and interviews.

Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Critical thinking in today’s world can be described as the “ability to design and manage projects, solve problems, and make effective decisions using a variety of tools and resources” (Fullan, 2013, p. 9). Thinking critically and solving problems asks students to “acquire, process, interpret, rationalize, and critically analyze large volumes of often conflicting information to the point of making an informed decision and taking action in a timely fashion” (C21 Canada, 2012, p. 10). To provide students with opportunities to develop these skills, teachers are challenged with designing educational experiences that address real-world problems and local issues for which there may be no clear answer (Drake, 2014). Authentic learning of this type requires students to engage in an inquiry process in which they “see patterns, make connections, and transfer what they have learned from one situation to another” (CMEC, 2017). For today’s students, growing up and eventually gaining employment in the knowledge and digital era increasingly requires the development of effective problem-­solving and higher-order thinking skills; teachers must therefore strive to provide their students with opportunities to think logically and to solve ill-defined problems by “identifying and describing the problem, critically analyzing the information available or creating the knowledge required, framing and testing various hypotheses, formulating creative solutions, and taking action” (C21 Canada, 2012, p. 10). In order to develop those competencies and for deep learning to occur, students should be given opportunities to solve authentic, real-life, complex problems that are meaningful to them. By engaging in making, students are exploring their own questions and wonderings, working through challenges and problems, and creating and building in a way that is authentic, motivating, and personally relevant. In doing so, learners are building important transferable skills such as problem-solving and critical thinking. Teacher-guided or student-led inquiry-based learning can help to build the skills that help students to solve problems (Watt & Collyer, 2014) as well as to “construct, relate, and apply knowledge to all domains of life such as school, home, work, friends, and community” (MOE/CMEC, 2017). (For more information on inquiry-based learning, please see Chap. 2.) In the section below, the teachers in the project elaborate on how the students extended their learning as well as developing their critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

60

J. Hughes and S. Thompson

Research into Practice The following example from the Huron Perth Catholic District School Board demonstrates the extension of student learning from the school environment to the home; these students were delving deeper into projects that fueled their passion while continuing to hone their critical thinking and problem-solving skills (Fig. 4.1): Teacher 1: I think they take that learning home with them too. I hear kids talking about what they’re excited about here and what they’re asking for at home, and what they want to try next. What they think they could do differently from the day before, they’re taking that learning not from the 9-3 but home and it’s nice to see that it’s making a difference to them. Teacher 2: It shows how real that is, because a kid's never gone home and said ‘wait mom and dad, let me write 3 paragraphs about that’. I’m not trying to diminish how important writing is, I’m just trying to highlight the fact that there are just as important skills that the makerspace has shown are possible in skills. Problem-­ solving and critical thinking, it’s really what we’re trying to nurture. (HPCDSB) This conversation explains how the project led to an extension of the learning in order to further build the problem-solving and critical thinking skills through student-­directed STEAM learning: Teacher 1: We put in for a TLLP [Teacher Learning and Leadership Program] for next year to continue it at the classroom level like with classroom teachers. I’m doing it only as a facilitator because the stuff is here but there are three classroom teachers who have their own classroom and their TLLP proposal is that we want to look at the impact of engaging in an hour every week of self-directed STEAM learning [to see] if that will have an impact on their ability to problem solve and

Fig. 4.1  A student from HPCDSB programs Dash & Dot robots

4  Fostering Global Competencies Through Maker Pedagogies

61

think critically in other curriculum areas and the development of an assessment tool for that. So we didn’t want it to end at the end of this year. Teacher 2: That was how we saw that we could continue this. (GECDSB) This example illustrates the dissemination of the learning from the project as well as the eagerness of the teachers to continue the momentum and further build the problem-solving and critical thinking skills in their students.

Innovation, Creativity, and Entrepreneurship Creativity can be described as the production of effective solutions to problems or new and interesting ideas and artifacts across domains (Amabile, 1996; Zhou & George, 2001). According to Henriksen et  al. (2018), creativity is “closely connected not only with the artistic world and the creation of products, but also with science, engineering, innovative thinking and problem-solving” (p.  3). Teachers play an important role in fostering creativity and providing opportunities for creative practices as well as developing the capacity needed for their students to create new knowledge or products (Henriksen et al., 2018) in their academic and professional lives (Cachia et al., 2010). In order to be successful in school, work, and life, individuals must be able to use their creativity to adapt and to generate new ideas, theories, knowledge, and products; innovation, creativity, and entrepreneurship are necessary in order to turn ideas into action (CMEC, 2017). According to the Ontario Ministry of Education, in the classroom this is demonstrated by inviting students to “contribute solutions to complex economic, social, and environmental problems or to meet a need in a community in a number of ways including; enhancing concepts, ideas, or products through a creative process, taking risks in their thinking and creating, discovering through inquiry research, and by hypothesizing and experimenting with new strategies or techniques” (CMEC, 2017). The following section offers a number of examples of how the makerspace project helped to foster a school environment where innovation, creativity, and entrepreneurship were not only encouraged but flourished.

Research into Practice Through the frameworks of inquiry-based learning and constructionism, makerspaces are uniquely positioned to provide opportunities for students to explore their creativity, to investigate and solve problems, to make discoveries, and to take risks. As Hughes (2017) states, “makerspaces are creative spaces where people gather to tinker, create, invent, and learn” (p. 1). These examples illustrate not only the importance of encouraging student creativity in the classroom but also allowing students to innovate, explore, and exercise their imaginations:

62

J. Hughes and S. Thompson

Interviewer: How do you feel personally about green screen now? Teacher: I love how I can use it in my classroom. I’m interested in incorporating it more now that I see how engaged they are with it. Interviewer: You’re now finding ways to integrate different subjects, which is obviously a goal. Teacher: When we looked at our goal for the school we thought first about using it as inquiry, we didn’t want to focus on the curriculum but I think I can use it more and more, especially when the kids are creative but not the drawing type – they have different aspects of creativity and I’m tapping into a different type of learning for them. (SCCDSB) Several of the teachers at Grand Erie District School Board felt similarly: Teacher 1: One of the learning skills that we really have to help students grow in is with initiative. With Makerspace, it’s not a learning skill that you need to help them with anymore; the initiative is there. Interviewer: Where do you think that comes from? That motivation? Teacher 2: I think when we were kids we were allowed to run, use our imagination and I think they still have the desire to use it and we stifled it. When we bring up green screens, we take 3 steps back and we go ‘just do it’. We are actually letting them be eight-year-olds. Some of their projects might not look great, but they’re really what an eight-year-old project should look like. I think that’s the difference, when we allow them to do their own work, they’re actually at their level, their ability, their creativity, their interests and I think that makes a huge difference. Interviewer: In terms of maker and creativity, do you think that there are a lot of opportunities there for teachers to be able to look at what the students are doing and to be able to figure out how to assess creativity? Teacher: We’ve used these words very continually – process, and product and we’re missing one of the other words and that one is purpose. Is there a purpose behind what we’re creating and that’s what innovation is because change based on change’s sake is not useful, but change based on a need is. And that’s where a purpose comes in. I think it’s very hard to measure creativity but it’s much easier to measure purpose. Are they creating something that is innovative, do they have a purpose, does it serve a purpose and can they identify what that purpose is? Kids can build a bridge but then I say okay but this bridge must serve a purpose. (GEDSB) Outside of the interviews, entrepreneurship, innovation, and creativity were also evident across the schools during their makerfaires. It was during these events that the researchers had opportunities to experience some of the projects the students had been working on. At École Ste. Catherine’s makerfaire, the students presented their work according to tech category – low-tech, mi-tech (medium tech), and high-­ tech. In the low-tech category, some students recreated Caine’s Arcade, a cardboard arcade made by Caine Monroy and hosted at his dad’s auto-parts store (Mullick, n.d.). One of the most notable and creative games seen that day was the

4  Fostering Global Competencies Through Maker Pedagogies

63

Fig. 4.2  A student plays the low-tech “whack-a-mole” game created by a group of students

whack-a-mole. In this game, two students acted as the human-powered machine bringing the moles up and down depending on the player’s whacking response (Fig. 4.2): The students designed the structure, the artwork and advertising, and the game’s functionality resulting in an engaging and true-to-life version of the mechanized game found in real arcades. As this was a low-tech station, the students were challenged to come up with an unplugged version which led to this creative, human-­ powered work-around. The activity challenged the students to think creatively and outside (the cardboard) box. Working within constraints like this has the power to help students develop the type of creative thinking skills that will be transferable to other activities and scenarios – both within the walls of school and beyond. To foster entrepreneurship, the teachers in CEPEO created a Dragon’s Den project that spanned several months in order to encourage students’ passion-based projects. Of this initiative, the lead teacher explains: My next step is for my students [who] will have to go through this Dragon’s Den which is going to be like four people [judging]....so the student has to submit their project and if it doesn’t go through Dragon’s Den, instead of saying, ‘no you guys suck’ it’s going to be ‘hey you reinvest there and come back and we might be able to get you to the next step.’ It’s to make...them live a successful project with the tools they want and what they want to do. (CEPEO)

The teachers at this school went on to explain that the student projects needed to have “an impact on either the school community or the outside – it’s not just making a project to make a project.” They also clarified that the projects had to be “realistic – we don’t want them to start something and at the end...they just [don’t finish] – Together let’s size it down to our community and the most impact we can have on that community.” This sentiment is echoed by the teacher at Keewatin-Patricia District School Board in the following quotation, who emphasized the importance of guiding students toward using their creativity to answer questions, to solve problems and to set goals:

64

J. Hughes and S. Thompson My next step is to take a look at the activities that we’re currently doing, and then using the ministry document with the Cs, and trying to make sure we’re incorporating as many opportunities to be learning those Cs and be guiding our students in that direction where our students have all those opportunities to be creative ... to be questioning and problem solving and goal setting. More of those lifelong skills that we hope will make them super employable when they’re done. (KPDSB)

As this teacher expresses, it is important to ensure that students are participating in critical making and not just creating objects for the sake of creating objects. Crichton and Carter (2015) believe, “unless educators intentionally pursue innovation and creativity as learning outcomes, makerspaces will become ‘imagination ghettos’ where issues of access, purpose, and ownership resemble those common in the cloistered environments of early computer labs and many of today’s shops and students are tasked with cookie cutter activities and trivial projects to complete” (p. 3). Critical making connects two practices that are infrequently associated with one another: creativity and critical thinking. It purports that learning is enhanced when students are using technologies and making tangible objects to solve problems, to bring about social change and to make positive contributions to the world, while constructing new knowledge in the process (Ratto, 2011).

Learning to Learn, Self-Awareness, and Self-Direction For students to be described as self-directed in their learning, they should be on a path to developing perseverance, resilience, and self-regulation. Teachers can encourage the development of these skills by teaching students to believe in their own abilities, to have a growth mindset and to practise self-reflection, metacognition (learning to learn), and goal setting to target and achieve results (CMEC, 2017). Students learn self-regulation and reflection skills in order to monitor the progress of their own learning and also to recognize that learning is a lifelong process (CMEC, 2017). They also demonstrate self-direction in their learning by developing their own educational, vocational, and personal goals and persevering to overcome challenges in order to meet those goals (CMEC, 2017). Schools that have adopted a maker culture promote “risk-taking, learning from mistakes, problem-solving, and developing an ability to persevere when tasks are difficult” (Hughes, 2017, p. 2). In the examples below, the teachers in the project share their observations about the growth they witnessed in their students in terms of their mindsets toward challenge and their willingness to persevere with difficult tasks.

Research into Practice One of the recurrent themes that came out of the project was the development of increased self-awareness and self-directed learning in students of all ages. As one teacher comments, “a lot of my kids are hands-on learners so having that ability to

4  Fostering Global Competencies Through Maker Pedagogies

65

have a lot of hands-on learning is helping them develop academically and socially. So, they’re learning a lot of different skills and they’re building on what they’re doing, so it’s interesting to see what they can figure out and learn on their own.” A colleague from the same school agreed about the benefits of self-directed learning: “I think that student engagement has gone through the roof, because it’s kind of like the learning has been turned over to them in some cases, so that they’re being able to have more time for inquiry learning, but besides the student engagement, I think the teachers are realizing there are so many ways that I can engage my students into what I need to teach them, and therefore it makes their job as a teacher that much easier.” Additionally, encouraging students to adopt a growth mindset shifts the traditional pedagogical paradigm from avoidance of failure to encouragement of trial and error as this teacher describes: I think when you look at evaluating creativity it needs to include whether they willing to accept the fact that they are going to make mistakes and that’s okay just as long as there is learning from those mistakes. For some kids it’s really difficult for them to accept that in themselves and it’s a learning stage so that needs to be part of the creative evaluation – that they understand the mistakes are okay. (GEDSB)

In the following example, the teacher shares an anecdote about a student who demonstrates both perseverance and improved self-regulation skills as a result of his knowledge in using MaKey MaKey: At Christmas time, we had one boy who was a leader with MaKey MaKey and he had to teach the music teacher how to use the MaKey MaKey, and he had to help with getting everything ready because they were being minions and they were playing the piano on stage. He was spectacular, he was a great leader he was able to persevere and finish all of his work. He really showed that he had a key interest in this and he made sure that he showed everyone he was up to the challenge. He corrected some of the students who have the reputation of being ‘the good’ students, ‘No, no, you have to make sure that you do this’. I have had my students who struggle with hands-on learning who were able to explain different concepts to people. I have students who struggle with reading but can do the coding and are going further because they persevere with it. I think it’s all of those things that keep coming into play. They’re more independent, they know self-regulation all of a sudden. When they’re engaged in something, they’re actually geared to work and giving me stuff that I’m like, ‘could we have done this two weeks ago?’. (GEDSB)

On the importance of encouraging perseverance, another teacher describes her observations of the development of this skill in her students: That’s what I noticed most, in the beginning they were nervous if things would work, so they wanted me to help them all the time, but once they got the hang of just trying it, figuring it out, knowing that I’m not going to fix the problem for them, then they would persevere. Then they would work the whole time. We set it up kind of like a genius hour, once a week – that’s what we would do, and they would all decide what they wanted to do and they would go get their materials and get started. (RCDSB)

This teacher describes how students learned to persevere from observing others in the classroom: They had to go get materials, move around a lot more. A lot had to research. But eventually, students saw others succeed with their creations, and students showed perseverance and succeeded. There were so many things that could go wrong, many challenges. For example, with the electric circuits. Is it the battery? Is it the wires? At the end it worked, perseverance paid off. (CSC Viamonde)

66

J. Hughes and S. Thompson

Perseverance was a skill with which many students were not as familiar at the beginning of the project as this teacher explains: They want something that’s produced immediately that’s going to be great, and when it isn’t, it’s harder on them, and so we have to work through that and that’s persevering also. I read them the book Rosie Revere Engineer and we talk about the first try all the time. No reason to be upset, just try something different and carry on. Maybe it won’t work in the end and that’s ok, just try something different, something new. With some of my students who aren’t as strong academically, this is their chance to shine. I have a couple of students who have a little bit of difficulty with academics, and they’re putting those little bits together and figuring it out, and it’s amazing and they’re so proud of themselves. It’s really good for that whole motivational aspect of school. So that carries over to the academics when we talk about how we persevere with the makerspace and we need to do that in language and math also. (RCDSB)

It was clear by observing the students in their makerspaces and during their makerfaires, as well as listening to the teachers talk about their experiences, that a shift in mindset toward self-awareness and self-direction was occurring at several of the schools in the project. The teachers found that developing a maker mindset was helping to create a culture where the students could build important skills such as self-awareness, self-direction, and perseverance.

Collaboration Increasingly, collaboration is becoming a skill that is invaluable in both academic and professional settings. Collaboration leverages the various personalities, skills, talents, and knowledge of individuals in a way that maximizes outcomes (CMEC, 2017). According to C21 Canada (2012), it is the ability to interact in a positive and respectful way, to work in a team, and to manage and resolve conflicts with the goal of creating new ideas and products. In the context of a classroom, collaborative environments allow students to acquire important lifelong teamwork skills by developing their cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal competencies, by establishing positive peer relationships and by learning from one another through co-construction of knowledge, meaning, and content (CMEC, 2017). In a makerspace environment, students are encouraged to develop this competency by providing them with a forum to share ideas; to work as a team to design, build, and create; and to learn with and from one another. As Smith (2017) elaborates, “participants in makerspaces collaborate freely in the design and fabrication of an impressive variety of objects, from environmental and energy monitoring equipment, to furniture; from human prosthetics, to sports equipment; from bicycles, to eco-houses; from wind turbines, to beehives; and all sort of things in between” (p. 7). In the section below, the teachers describe some of the surprising results they noticed during the project in terms of collaboration among their students.

4  Fostering Global Competencies Through Maker Pedagogies

67

Research into Practice Kurti et al. (2014) believe that “great educational makerspaces embrace the power of collaboration” (p. 11). A number of the participants remarked on the frequently unanticipated benefit of improved student collaboration skills as a result of the makerspace project. As this teacher’s observation demonstrates: “The collaboration in the classroom when the kids have to work together to solve a problem, that whole piece too with that learning skill is coming up very evident in the things they do. Collaboration is something I wasn’t expecting to come out of the makerspace” (HPCDSB). Others discovered increased collaboration among mixed groups within their classrooms as shown in these excerpts from an intermediate classroom and a kindergarten classroom, respectively, in the Grand Erie District School Board: I really hope to see that the girls are more empowered by technology and that the boys are more embracing of everyone. There’s mixed abilities, there’s not the idea of rigid masculinity where they have to be in charge, they have to be the programmers, they have to be this, but they work especially on their collaboration skills, they can work on compassion and those ideas. Whereas you look at the girls and generally they show more in their collaboration and compassion but will shy away from opportunities to be the leaders, and the boys will take that opportunity more often than not. But to see it equal out, I will give them a whole bunch of different opportunities. I think this initiative has really helped them. (GEDSB) I think in kindergarten sometimes you even see where boys go down one path and try something and girls go down and try something else. I know with the Santa one where they were having to code and make the elf dance, I had one of my junior kindergarteners say, ‘No, the dance goes like this’, and he would show them and say, ‘Now you have to do that, you have to make him do that.’ So it was collaboration but you had junior kindergartener and a senior kindergartener and a couple of the girls, but the one little boy with the best dancing just wasn’t very good at the reading part, so he was having some of the senior kindergarteners move it while he was showing them the dance moves. They created some pretty cool dance moves for the elves and stuff. So, yes, there’s a difference but once you bring in the Makerspace stuff they work together, and you see a difference, it’s not a divide, it’s a collaboration. (GEDSB)

The two examples above also highlight the importance of addressing potential gender stereotypes in the classroom and specifically, in the makerspace. As Shapiro and Williams (2012) write, “considering the phenomenon of stereotype threat can lead to an understanding of how stereotypes can undermine women’s and girls’ performance and interest in STEM domains” (Introduction, para. 1). The early acknowledgement of this threat is also necessary in order to begin to change mindsets and to highlight possible avenues of intervention (Shapiro & Williams, 2012). In the following case, the teacher pinpoints a direct relationship between the introduction of the makerspace and improved collaboration among his students (Fig. 4.3): When we talk about collaboration, I had a difficult class who had trouble collaborating together. We put into place 1 hour of makerspace in the classroom, and we could see even the students who didn’t collaborate at all could go into a group and work together. This is really a positive from the makerspace project. Those students that were reticent to work with others could easily do so in the makerspace. (CSC Viamonde)

68

J. Hughes and S. Thompson

Fig. 4.3  Students collaborate on making at the CSC Viamonde Makerfaire.

According to Kurti et al. (2014), “today’s science is not a solo sport” (p. 11), and the best way to meet challenging situations is for individuals to pool their strengths to move forward. The same principle can be applied to the work done in a makerspace. In order to solve important and difficult problems and challenges, maker culture encourages students to share their knowledge, to help one another, and to work in teams. The result of this collaborative effort can lead to creative solutions and innovative inventions that never would have been developed on an individual basis (Kurti et al., 2014).

Communication Effective communication involves the reception and expression of both oral and written meaning in different contexts, with different audiences and for different purposes (CMEC, 2017) in a manner that is clear, concise, and meaningful. Additionally, it requires students to “ask effective questions to acquire knowledge, listen to, understand and ensure all points of view are heard, voice their own opinions, and advocate for ideas” (CMEC, 2017). Increasingly, it also involves understanding local and global perspectives as well as cultural and societal contexts (CMEC). Across the elementary curriculum in Ontario, there is considerable emphasis on the development of these skills in all subject areas, but in a traditional classroom, tasks are often assigned that lack authenticity, relevance, or inspiration

4  Fostering Global Competencies Through Maker Pedagogies

69

for the students. In contrast, as Dougherty (2012) explains, “when you’re making something, the object you create is a demonstration of what you’ve learned to do, thus you are providing evidence of your learning. The opportunity to talk about that object, to communicate about it, to tell a story about it is another way we learn at the same time we teach others” (pp.  12–13). This is another example of how maker pedagogies can enhance student achievement and well-being by allowing students to explore their passions and to elaborate on their learning (see Chap. 2 for more on passion-based learning). In the section below, the teachers describe how the makerspace project helped to develop their communication skills and also had a positive impact on student behavior.

Research into Practice There is a great deal of overlap between the competencies of collaboration and communication and the skills required to be proficient in these areas. The teachers in the following two examples discuss how their students developed both of these skills as well as teamwork by working in the makerspace: In the older grades too, it’s just that a lot of people are very opinionated, so when they are doing collaboration for them to be able to share their ideas and you know ‘I want to try my Ozobot this way, I think we should design the maze this way, I think it’d be better this way’ for them to come together with an idea – that’s what I found was very challenging for them to be able to problem-solve that way. So it’s interesting to see the different conversations. (WCDSB) Students learned how to collaborate, since the work was done in teams. If we want to make something good together, we have to propose ideas; we have to be able to work in a team together. Communication improved, as well as teamwork. At the start, students had trouble understanding what to do, but once they had an idea, some weren’t sure in the group, but others in the group could explain what was to be done in the project. Collaboration was a big plus for this project. (CSC Viamonde)

The maker tools also had a positive impact on behavior – not only because the students are engaged in their learning but because the tools have provided the students with a multitude of options for communication. One teacher from Evergreen Public School offered this anecdote to illustrate the communication affordances of students learning to code: Ever since we started doing Scratch and Scratch Jr., [a student] had an incident with another teacher where he didn’t use kind words, so he, as his own idea, grabbed the scratch junior iPad and made an apology letter. So it was like ‘I’m sorry for yelling at you’, and not only did he just have that, he had it interchanging seasons and this animated whole thing and showed it to her. Someone with low engagement, struggles with reading, fine motor skills etc., he made this on his own and was so excited about it. (KPDSB)

These examples illustrate that by providing the students with more ways to communicate – beyond the verbal or with pen and paper – many have begun to flourish as a result of this new type of learning opportunity.

70

J. Hughes and S. Thompson

Global Citizenship and Sustainability The Ontario Ministry of Education citizen education framework (see Fig.  4.3) emphasizes the importance of citizenship education in a student’s overall education. It recommends that teachers provide their students with ample opportunities to develop the attitudes, skills, and knowledge associated with responsible local and global citizenship. Global citizenship and sustainability are highly desirable competencies as they encourage students to look beyond their own personal needs as they seek to become engaged citizens “with an appreciation for the diversity of people, perspectives, and the ability to envision and work toward a better and more sustainable future for all” (CMEC, 2017). Some of the skills that students are encouraged to build include decision-making, advocacy, stewardship, conflict resolution, inclusiveness, equity, and respect. Teachers can facilitate the development of these skills through maker pedagogies centering on collaborative and innovative problem-solving, exploring issues related to societal rights and responsibilities, and making connections to local, national, and global communities. In the following section, the teachers from several schools describe in detail how their students were involved in a number of initiatives that raised their awareness of the importance of global citizenship.

Research into Practice Several schools in the project were engaged in projects that addressed various political, social, or economic issues within their communities. As described in Chap. 2, the intermediate students at one of the schools in RDSB participated in various academies, structured around the curriculum while also embracing a maker mindset, including a Global Citizenship Academy, with the goal of “contributing to society and to the culture of local, national, global, and virtual communities in a responsible, inclusive, accountable, sustainable, and ethical manner” (CMEC, 2017). One of the activities was to create reusable bags to send home food to children in need within their community. One of the teachers explains in more detail: The Global Citizenship Academy is making bags – it used to be known as ‘blessings in the backpack,’ and so it’s a program that sends food home with children in need every Friday so that their families can have food over the weekend. So when they started [this program, they were] using backpacks and they found that kids were being identified and they didn’t like the backpack so now they’ve just been using the black bags but the cost is too high and they’re running out of money and they have like a hundred kids that they still can’t support. So we thought with the donations that we got we offered to make them reusable bags that they can just go inside the kids’ backpacks, so that’s what we’re going to be using the whole sewing area for starting next week. (RDSB)

Another project adopted by the same school was to refurbish bikes from donated old bikes and spare parts and give them to a local community in need. The teacher in charge of this initiative elaborates:

4  Fostering Global Competencies Through Maker Pedagogies

71

These kids don’t have a simple bike, like the kids in this community might have six or seven sitting in their garage. And then the most important part in my opinion other than the socioeconomic stuff and the Northern Reserve philosophy is the kids actually have to fix them. They actually had to use tools and take them apart. So we went to a high school shop, first of all we went and trained them, so they were in groups. One person from each group is a mechanic so we went with the mechanics to this bike co-op place to show them how to strip the bike down everything from gears, to pedals, to brakes, to ball bearings, to bearings, to changing tires, the whole thing. Brakes are a nightmare. I used to fix bikes all the times and it was really easy to do it by yourself but when you have 35 kids or so around you it’s interesting. And they don’t know how to use tools, and they don’t know how to use hammers, and they don’t know how to use those things so it was really interesting. You say to a child okay so I need a three-quarter inch socket and they would bring you back a three-quarter inch wrench, and I said no no I need the socket, and a Robertson screwdriver…‘a what’? So anyway the learning was huge the hands-on was huge and we took all three classes so there were 80 kids all working on bikes at the same time. (RDSB)

In the Grand Erie District School Board, one school community was heavily impacted by spring flooding and used the experience to create an authentic learning experience of building a sustainable city that considered environmental impacts in its construction and design. One of the teachers shares her anecdote: When we built our city we had a river that ran through our city and they had to build four bridges and they had to make sure that they were able to go back and forth. The reason for that was because we had just had the flood at the time and one of the bridges at the time was blocked off for all of us. So some of us had to drive either through Paris or find different ways to get back into this community. For my kids it was we need more than one bridge to keep us going back so it is convenient for the city and because again looking at the flood they knew that they had to make barriers and put walls up by the residential sections so that the flooding didn’t get to the people and didn’t ruin everybody’s houses. Some of them were evacuated from their homes. I think the creativity, the purpose, and looking at their age, and again as teachers letting go of what the final product should look like and saying you know what I get that styrofoam looks like snow but maybe not so much snow and our little city here. It’s good knowing that they are using all the different tools and not having everything needing to be perfect and letting them making their own square rather than us always making their square on a piece of paper and having them cut exactly on the lines. It’s not having everything look so perfect 100%. I think innovation and creativity and the makerspace allows our kids to finally do that. (GEDSB)

Another important component of global citizenship is teaching students about the importance of stewardship, the environment, and sustainability with the goal of creating citizens that support quality of life for all, now and in the future. The following two examples demonstrate how the students considered both sustainability and the impact on the environment of their projects: My students had to design a pipeline because for grade 8s one of our topics is fluids and they have to recognize that our control of fluids in society is very essential and with oil spills you have to be cognizant when you’re building pipelines. I told my students that I would love for them to build me a perfect pipeline so it doesn’t interfere with any cities, or any reserves, with little damage to the environment and I said I know that you can make me a perfect pipeline. I believe in you but you can also make me the worst pipeline in the entire world and tell me why it’s the worst pipeline in the entire world. And they did and some of them decided to make their pipeline out of Pixie sticks and that was what their pipeline was going to be made out of. They were talking about how that would be so detrimental to the

72

J. Hughes and S. Thompson environment. It’s releasing the idea of I need a perfect project and that there are many different ways to achieve perfection. (GEDSB) Even better is the design piece, the engineering piece, it probes and prompts incredible questions. I find myself deviating all the time because we’ll be talking about one piece of technology, and then the kids will say, ‘well how would that work for creating maybe a decrease in the amount of pollution that is in the ocean?’ I'm like, it’s funny that you mention that because prototypes have already been created by Amazon. So we’ll stop everything, we’ll put it up on the Smartboard, we’ll look at some of the visuals, and the kids are like, ‘well wouldn’t it make more sense if it was solar powered?’ They just naturally move in such creative and cool ways – you want innovation to happen and that’s where our world is going. (LDSB)

In both these examples, the students took an active role in considering environmental impacts in the design of their products, illustrating a heightened awareness of what it means to be an ethical and responsible citizen and how they as individuals can make a difference in their local or global communities. According to C21 Canada (2015), until quite recently, the view of education was that the role of the teacher was to deliver the curriculum through direct instruction with the assistance of textbooks, while the role of the student was to reproduce what was taught. This view of teaching and learning has been gradually transforming into a more social process which sees students and teachers working together as partners, with the support of consultants, experts from outside of the school, and digital technologies. In this transformative view, “collaboration, creativity, innovation, entrepreneurial know-how, and ethical citizenship infuse teaching and learning” (C21 Canada, 2015, p. 9). Students and teachers work together to “co-design” their work, which is often based on individual student interests and passions. The following anecdote from the Limestone District School Board clearly articulates this teacher’s assessment of the benefits of maker pedagogies as she describes how a number of the six global competencies described in this chapter have been developed in her students as a result of the project: With the 21st century new requirements, the concept of teaching, the sense of collaboration, the sense of resilience, perseverance and all those things, it can be really challenging to do in the structure and curriculum environment. We can use words like you can do it, challenge your mindset, it’s fixed right now, but unless you give a child an incredible... I don’t know... You’re not going to get those things from them. You know what I mean. So if I give them an engaging activity and it’s STEAM based, it’s all hands on, it’s incorporated all strands of the curriculum, and they want to finish. There’s a drive that I can’t recreate in a regular classroom setting. So there will be ups and downs with giving up, persevering, or going back, watching and getting frustrated, and then seeing how cool the activity is and then driving themselves back into it. Or how their team is starting to fail because they’re missing a member, and seeing how teammates respond to that and encourage them back into their group without my intervention at all. It’s just naturally guiding them based on those competencies. Do you know what I mean? That’s the incredible piece of it, because the kids are so engaged in the activity. Those things are naturally happening. And when they fail being able to flip it into, we talk a lot about key innovators in history in my classroom anyway, and just had the foundation of innovation is failure. And getting that across to the kids and teaching any strand, let alone strand by strand, is truly impossible, But when they are building something and it doesn’t work but somebody else’s groups works, it’s a celebration of their success, and then there’s a re-evaluation of what they’ve built. It’s super natural, it’s instinctual and it’s unlike anything I’ve ever seen, it really is. (Limestone DSB)

4  Fostering Global Competencies Through Maker Pedagogies

73

Today’s learning environment, which now encompasses makerspaces as well as students’ out-of-school lives, extends well beyond the classroom, and has been redesigned for students to “think, research, analyze, develop and improve their ideas, and demonstrate deep understanding through the work they produce” (C21 Canada, 2015, p. 9). Teachers are approaching the curriculum, assessment practices, resources, tools, and connections to the community in a new way in order to foster deeper learning. Teachers are engaging students and activating their curiosity, creativity, and critical thinking skills by focusing on issues that matter to students (C21 Canada, 2015).

 ext Steps for Implementation: Global Competencies N in the Classroom In 2018, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), through its Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and in partnership with the Asia Society Centre for Global Education published Teaching for Competence in a Globally Changing World (Asia Society/OECD, 2018). This document outlines the PISA framework for global competencies as developed by OECD. The framework outlines four dimensions of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values that educators are encouraged to integrate into their teaching practice in order to develop global competence in their students: 1. Examine issues of local, global, and cultural significance. Globally competent students are able to develop informed opinions about issues such as poverty, immigration, equity, the environment, political conflicts, racism, etc. They can use knowledge from all curricular subject areas to formulate questions, analyze data, evaluate points of view, and explain situations. They are also able to select relevant, trustworthy evidence to back up their ideas and competently use a variety of media to communicate these ideas. 2. Understand and appreciate the perspectives and world views of others. Students who are globally competent consider world issues from multiple points of view and understand how access to power, wealth, and knowledge affect opportunities for individuals and social groups. 3. Engage in open, appropriate, and effective interactions across cultures. Globally competent students appreciate that people from different cultural backgrounds might interact in different ways and are sensitive to the needs and feelings of others. 4. Take action for collective well-being and sustainable development. Students who are globally competent respond appropriately and responsibly to local, global, or cross-cultural issues. They are empowered to be influencers and agents of positive change both within their community and digitally. They investigate issues, raise awareness and funds, and concern themselves with the plights and hardships of others as well as environmental and stewardship concerns. (Asia Society/OECD, 2018).

74

J. Hughes and S. Thompson

Makerspaces have the capacity to lower barriers and inspire opportunities for novel forms of socially responsible activity. They can encourage participation, openness, and community and can contribute to a culture for innovation democracy. Through the myriad projects that its participants undertake, makerspaces can ignite a wide variety of social and technical development as well as contributing democratizing capabilities and driving transformative social innovation (Smith, 2017). As summed up by Kurti et al. (2014), “maker education fosters curiosity, tinkering, and iterative learning, which in turn leads to better thinking through better questioning. This learning environment fosters enthusiasm for learning, student confidence, and natural collaboration. Ultimately, the outcome of maker education and educational makerspaces leads to determination, independent and creative problem solving, and an authentic preparation for the real world by simulating real-world challenges” (p. 11). This chapter has provided a number of authentic examples of how teaching and learning through maker pedagogies and a school environment infused with a maker culture can demonstrate the development of a number of global competencies that Ontario students need to acquire in order to be effective, productive, and enthusiastic members of their local, regional and global societies.

References Alberta Ministry of Education. (2011). Framework for student learning: Competencies for engaged thinkers and ethical citizens with an entrepreneurial spirit. Albert Government. https://open. alberta.ca/publications/9780778596479 Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Westview Press Harper Collins Publishers. Ananiadou, K. & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD countries (OECD education working paper no. 41). OECD Publishing. https:// doi.org/10.1787/218525261154 Asia Society/OECD. (2018). Teaching for global competence in a rapidly changing world. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264289024-­en British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2021). Core competencies. https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/ competencies C21 Canada (Canadians for 21st Century Learning and Innovation). (2012). Shifting minds: A 21st century vision of public education for Canada. https://www.c21canada.org/wp-­content/ uploads/2012/11/Shifting-­Minds-­Revised.pdf C21 Canada (Canadians for 21st Century Learning and Innovation). (2015). Shifting minds 3.0: Redefining the learning landscape in Canada. http://www.c21canada.org/wp-­content/ uploads/2015/05/C21-­ShiftingMinds-­3.pdf Cachia, R., Ferrari, A., Ala-Mutka, K., & Punie, Y. (2010). Creative learning and innovative teaching. Final report on the study on creativity and innovation in education in the EU member states (JRC report no. 62370). Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi. org/10.2791/52913 CEDEFOP. (2008) Terminology of European education and training policy: A selection of 100 key terms. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. https://www.cedefop. europa.eu/files/4064_en.pdf Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (2017). CMEC Pan-Canadian global competencies descriptions. https://www.ontariodirectors.ca

4  Fostering Global Competencies Through Maker Pedagogies

75

Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (n.d.). Global competencies. https://www.cmec. ca/682/Global_Competencies.html Crichton, S. E., & Carter, D. (2015). Taking making into the schools: An immersive professional development approach. In Handbook of research on teacher education in the digital age (pp. 412–438). IGI Global. Dede, C. (2005). Planning for “neomillennial” learning styles: Implications for investments in technology and faculty. In J.  Oblinger & D.  Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the net generation (pp. 226–247). EDUCAUSE Publishers. Dougherty, D. (2012). The maker movement. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 7(3), 11–14. Drake, S. M. (2014). Designing across the curriculum for “sustainable wellbeing”: A 21st century approach. In F. Deer, T. Falkenberg, B. McMillan, & L. Sims (Eds.), Sustainable well-being: Concepts, issues, and educational practice (pp. 57–76). Education for Sustainable Well-Being (ESWB) Press. https://www.eswb-­press.org/uploads/1/2/8/9/12899389/sustainable_well-­ being_2014.pdf Fullan, M. (2013). Great to excellent: Launching the next stage of Ontario’s education agenda. Ontario Ministry of Education. http://michaelfullan.ca/wp-­content/ uploads/2016/06/13599974110.pdf Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. Pearson Publishing. Fullan, M., & Scott, G. (2014). New pedagogies for deep learning. Collaborative Impact SPC. Henriksen, D., Henderson, M., Creely, E., Ceretkova, S., Černochová, M., Sendova, E., & Tienken, C. H. (2018). Creativity and technology in education: An international perspective. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23(3), 409–424. Hughes, J. (2017). Meaningful making: Establishing a makerspace in your school or classroom. In What works? Research into practice. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/ research/meaningful_making.html Hughes, J., & Morrison, L. (2014). At the intersection of critical digital literacies, YAL and literature circles. ALAN Review, 42(1), 35–43. Kurti, R. S., Kurti, D. L., & Fleming, L. (2014). The philosophy of educational makerspaces: Part 1 of making an educational makerspace. Teacher Librarian, 41(5), 8–11. Mullick, N. (n.d.). Caine’s arcade. https://www.nirvan.com/cainesarcade OECD. (2008). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD countries. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd-­library.org Ontario Ministry of Education. (2016). 21st century competencies: Foundation document for discussion. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). P21 framework definitions. http://www.battelleforkids.org Ratto, M. (2011). Critical making: Conceptual and material studies in technology and social life. The Information Society, 27(4), 252–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2011.583819 Rychen, D. S., & Salganik, L. H. (Eds.). (2003). Key competencies for a successful life and a well-­ functioning society. Hogrefe & Huber Publishers. Shapiro, J. R., & Williams, A. M. (2012). The role of stereotype threats in undermining girls’ and women’s performance and interest in STEM fields. Sex Roles, 66(3–4), 175–183. Smith, A. (2017). Social innovation, democracy and makerspaces (SPRU working paper no. 2017–10). University of Sussex. Watt, J.  G., & Colyer, J. (2014). IQ: A practical guide to inquiry-based learning. Oxford University Press. Zhou, J., & George, J. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 682–696.

Chapter 5

Empowering Student Leaders in Makerspaces Janette Hughes and Laura Morrison

In this chapter we examine the potential role of peer helpers in maintaining a school makerspace. First we provide a brief overview of research related to the benefits of peer tutoring and peer-to-peer interaction and how role theory might be used to inform how to involve student leaders in the operational aspects of a makerspace. We subsequently discuss the establishment and training of STEAM Teams, groups of students who acted as mentors in the makerspace, in three schools. We conclude with a discussion of the benefits of this approach for schools. Early in the first year of the research project with the first 11 schools, 2 things became quite clear. Firstly, regular monitoring, organization, and maintenance of the makerspace and its host of materials and equipment posed a significant burden on the teacher responsible for these. Secondly, peer-to-peer interaction, where students supported each other in maker projects and activities often before asking the teacher for help, became a natural feature of the maker environment. In every school, student leaders emerged, who could be relied on to assist the teacher with organization and maintenance of equipment (i.e., ensuring equipment like robots were plugged in so they would be charged for the next group to use them; keeping maker centers tidy and stocked) and to help troubleshoot and problem-solve technical issues that arose. In some cases, student leaders even helped in other teachers’ classrooms to provide additional support too, often for students in younger grades. After observing these phenomena in year one of the research project, we decided to explore the idea of school-created “STEAM Teams” that could function in a more formal way to take on these kinds of roles. Peer tutoring and mentorship are an important practice that yields many positive benefits for the student on the receiving end and the student in the position of leadership. This type of practice/relationship/dynamic finds its roots in history in both J. Hughes (*) · L. Morrison Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Hughes (ed.), Making, Makers, Makerspaces, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09819-2_5

77

78

J. Hughes and L. Morrison

informal settings (i.e., in social groups between more established and new people, in the homelife between older and younger family members) and in formal settings (at the beginning of formal education, in apprenticeship programs and in internships). Karcher and Berger (2017) explain that the practice of peer mentoring in the older style “… single-room school setting allowed older youth to interact with, befriend, support, encourage, and serve as role models for the children in their class. When classrooms were stratified by grade, those natural mentoring relationships between children and youth became less common” (p. 3). Peer teaching has been practiced for centuries—an assertion reinforced by Topping (1996) who claims that “Peer tutoring is a very old practice, traceable back at least as far as the ancient Greeks” (p.  322). Topping (1996) goes on to explain that outdated definitions of peer tutoring inaccurately aligned the peer tutor with that of a “surrogate teacher” (p.  322). However, later (and more accurately), “… it was realized that the peer tutoring interaction was qualitatively different from that between a teacher and a student, and involved different advantages and disadvantages” (p.  322). This is echoed by Fisher and Frey (2019), who explain that “Peer tutors do not have the same relationship with tutees that the teacher has” (p. 584). Bell et al. (2009) indicate that it is precisely because a tutor is not in the role of teacher that an interesting dynamic emerges—a tutor must strike a delicate balance of knower (and the inherent power associated) with peer (and the equality and collaboration associated with that). Fittingly, the authors refer to this as the “collaborative dance” (p. 136) of peer tutoring where equality, mutual respect, and “linguistic politeness” (p. 136) are of paramount importance. As the subtle and not-so-subtle outcomes of the tutor practice are better understood through research, the definition of peer tutoring continues to expand. There have been a variety of studies on peer teaching that have, to varying degrees over the past 40 decades, proven the effectiveness of the method in terms of student academic achievement (Bar-Eli & Raviv, 1982; Allsopp, 1997; Robinson et al., 2005; Thomas et al., 2015; Marieswari & Prema, 2016). Consistent findings that have emerged from the research include that peer tutoring is particularly effective: when the subjects/content include math, reading, and social studies (Leung, 2019; McMaster et al., 2006; Robinson et al., 2005; Spencer, 2006), for students with disabilities and/or behavioral disorders (Bowman-Perrott et  al., 2013), and when the tutors and tutees are of the same sex (Leung, 2015, 2019). In the most current education context where STEM and making are garnering much attention for their promises of preparing students with the skills and competencies needed for the future of work, Lang et al. (2018) explain how peer teaching is important in improving STEM pathways in school. They explain that it is a central feature of the maker movement (a movement intricately tied to STEM): “The Makers’ Movement is based on socio-cultural pedagogies of student-led learning and peer-to-peer mentoring in action” (p.  47). So, as schools begin to implement makerspaces and their pedagogies, it is becoming increasingly timely, relevant, and important for them to also adopt the practice of peer tutoring—not only for the benefits it can have for the tutee and tutor but also the sustainability and spread it can affect in terms of classroom-­based support and teacher professional development (Hughes, 2017a).

5  Empowering Student Leaders in Makerspaces

79

To further explore the intricacies of this relationship between tutor and tutee in the context of making, below, the theoretical perspectives involved in peer tutoring are discussed in addition to the benefits for a tutee and a tutor and the impact student leaders can have on the spread of making as it relates to teacher professional development in a school setting.

Perspectives on Peer Tutoring and Making Socio-Constructivism From a theoretical perspective, peer tutoring relies on a socio-constructivist approach to cognitive development (Topping, 1996). In a peer tutoring relationship, learning occurs in the context of “supported (or ‘scaffolded’) exploration through social and cognitive interaction with a more experienced peer” (Topping, 1996, p. 324) and within the tutee’s zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). In the context of making, the determination of the zone of proximal development is driven by the learner, in keeping with the maker ethos of agency-building and student-­centered learning, through the tool(s) with which they choose to engage and the scope of the project they choose to take on. As a result, the tutor responds to these cues with the appropriate support—either through questioning strategies, appropriate resources, advice, or direct instruction/intervention, when necessary (Hughes, 2017b). In this sense, learning shifts to “just-in-time” instruction as opposed to “just-in-case” and students are engaged in their learning within the context of a more democratic relationship between “knower” and “seeker of knowledge” (Hughes et al. 2018a, b).

Roles and Role Theory Role theory suggests that individuals act according to the roles assigned to them (Leung, 2015). Role theory in the context of peer tutoring is a divisive topic as, on the one hand, it can suggest that those assigned the role of tutee may feel inferior and therefore may not be as responsive to the support provided by a peer (Leung, 2015), while on the other hand, role theory could indicate great gains for the individual positioned as tutor due to the perceived power in this status and the responsibilities one is required to adopt in this role. For example, in articles by Fisher and Frey (2019) and Topping (1996), to be in the role of tutor or “teacher” is to become more familiar with the content (in a variety of new ways) and, in effect, to learn twice. Topping (1996) explores this concept as it relates to Sternberg’s (1985) theory of intelligent performance. During peer tutoring, the following skills might be developed:

80

J. Hughes and L. Morrison …the meta-cognitive skills of planning, monitoring and evaluating and the associated use of declarative, procedural and contextual knowledge; and the cognitive processes of perceiving, differentiating, selecting, storing, inferring, applying, combining, justifying and responding. Just preparing to be a peer tutor has been proposed to enhance cognitive processing in the tutor—by increasing attention to and motivation for the task, and necessitating review of existing knowledge and skills. Consequently, existing knowledge is transformed by re-organisation, involving new associations and a new integration. The act of tutoring itself involves further cognitive challenge, particularly with respect to simplification, clarification and exemplification. (p. 324)

In a maker setting, this all rings true in terms of the responsibilities a facilitator, mentor, or tutor would need to take on and the subsequent learning that could unfold for this individual (Hughes et al., 2018a, b). This was precisely the case in the study conducted by Hughes et al. (2018a, b) where a graduate student in education mentored pre-service students in a makerspace on the use and application of the makerspace’s various technologies. The graduate student was able to learn more about complex technologies, like the Arduino, as a result of being placed in the position of mentor. While role theory might suggest that those positioned in the role of mentee might feel a lack of power or agency, in the maker setting, this is effectively counterbalanced through the student-centered approach to learning. This approach emphasizes a culture of democracy-, agency-, confidence- and identity-building. Self-efficacy plays a large role here as both the mentee and mentor work together in a transformation-based environment to realize an artifact or concept brought forward by the mentee.

Benefits of Peer Tutoring on the Tutor and Tutee In The meta-analytic review of social, self-concept and behavioral outcomes of peer-assisted learning (PAL), where Ginsburg-Block et  al. (2006) examined the effects of peer tutoring and cooperative learning “…on socioemotional outcomes for elementary school students,” the authors found that “academic PAL interventions result in positive, small-to-moderate effects on social, self-concept, and behavioral outcomes. In addition, significant positive relationships were found between these social and self-concept outcomes and student achievement” (p.  746). Peer tutoring has the power to not only influence academic success but also to help students develop their inter- and intrapersonal skills—skills deemed increasingly important in today’s context (Strauss, 2017; OME, 2016). Similarly, in the meta-­ analysis conducted by Bowman-Perrott et al. (2013) examining the effects of peer tutoring across 26 single-case research experiments, their findings suggest “peer tutoring is an effective intervention, regardless of dosage, grade level, or disability status. Among students with disabilities, those with emotional and behavioral disorders benefited most” (p. 39). Hancock (2019) explains that among the many benefits of tutoring, students learn how to build positive and productive relationships with

5  Empowering Student Leaders in Makerspaces

81

their peers, they can develop confidence and self-esteem, and, through collaborative problem-solving, they can learn about important social skills like empathy. In general, students can learn a lot from their peers (Nuthall, 2007). Topping (1996) explains that the: Pedagogical advantages for the tutee include more active, interactive and participative learning, immediate feedback, swift prompting, lowered anxiety with correspondingly higher self-disclosure, and greater student ownership of the learning process. The ‘pupil/ teacher’ ratio is much reduced and engaged time on task increased. Opportunities to respond are high, and opportunities to make errors and be corrected similarly high. In addition to immediate cognitive gains, improved retention, greater meta-cognitive awareness and better application of knowledge and skills to new situations have been claimed. Motivational and attitudinal gains can include greater commitment, self-esteem, self-confidence and empathy with others … From a social psychological viewpoint, social isolation might be reduced, the functionality of the subject modelled, and aspirations raised, while combating any excess of individualistic competition between students. (pp. 324–325)

Similar themes were discussed in the study by Bowman-Perrott et  al. (2013), which found that peer tutoring is beneficial across subject areas (from math to social studies). They indicated that “The success of peer tutoring for both tutors and tutees is likely from incorporated instructional features such as frequent opportunities to respond, increased time on task, and regular and immediate feedback” (Bowman-­ Perrott et al., 2013, p. 39). These supports are not always available in a traditional classroom where time with the teacher is limited, hence the pedagogical affordance of including peer tutoring both in the classroom and outside of it. In a maker setting, informal peer tutoring has proven effective in terms of the development of student confidence and agency. Studies from Hughes (2017b) and Hughes and Morrison (2018) have indicated that the act of knowledge sharing and the subsequent adoption of leadership roles increased students’ confidence—moving them from peripheral to central figures in the classroom community (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998).

 enefits of Student Leaders for Teacher Professional B Development and School Spread In this section, we talk about the concept of “spread” as it relates to the spreading of ideas, skills, and culture within a community. And, in this particular context, we discuss spread as it relates to the natural uptake of the maker pedagogies and their associated technological tools throughout the school community by teachers, staff, and students as a result of the STEAM Teams. The spread took many forms, including: • Students formally sharing their knowledge with other students and teachers in classrooms.

82

J. Hughes and L. Morrison

• Students informally sharing their knowledge with other students and teachers outside the classroom in the context of a club, informal making drop-in sessions, at a maker or science fair (or equivalent). • Teachers formally sharing their knowledge with their students in the classroom and with other teachers during staff meetings, PD sessions, etc. • Teachers informally sharing their knowledge with other students in the context of clubs, informal making sessions, etc. and teachers informally sharing their knowledge with other teachers by inviting them into their classrooms and discussing their maker-related work at lunch and other breaks. Just as Lang et al. (2017) framed their study focusing on the integration of ICT in the classroom in a way that allowed “…teachers to be relieved of the pressure to be the ICT expert and empowered the students to take more responsibility for their own learning and that of their peers” (p. 1495), we wanted to relieve the teachers in our study (and to a greater extent) the teachers in their schools, of this pressure by sharing the responsibility of spread and integration with the students, as well. We felt that if both the teachers and students were actively seeking formal and informal opportunities to connect with their peers and others (as listed above), then the increased exposure to the maker tools and pedagogies from the middle (the teachers) and the grassroots (the students) would increase the likelihood of adoption throughout the school community. Increased exposure means increased likelihood of adoption. As teachers are busy people, juggling a variety of responsibilities every day, we knew there needed to be an added level of support and collaboration, so that all the responsibility of spread did not solely rest on their shoulders after the conclusion of the research study. Lang et al. (2017) recommend the following for encouraging the use of student-centered learning and digital technologies in the classroom: • Aim to not be the expert in the room; • Allocate play-time into the class schedule where students get to explore tools and applications by providing them with little more than a general introduction with access to further information through the Internet, YouTube, devices, other resources; • Set up collaboration and group work to ensure that sharing can take place throughout everyday tasks as well as project work; • Allocate time for peer demonstrations of new knowledge to the whole class and within groups; • Develop processes where expert students work with peers who are less experienced and/or from different backgrounds. This facilitation of student-led learning combined with peer coaching builds opportunities for knowledge creation in all classrooms (pp. 1497–1498). In the study on making with marginalized youth conducted by Hughes et  al. (2018a, b), it was also found that allocating initial playtime with new technological tools is necessary in order to help students move past the novelty of the items and to start seeing and using the tools for educational purposes. A framework of collaborative learning (among students and teachers) can facilitate knowledge-building as it

5  Empowering Student Leaders in Makerspaces

83

relates to the STEM/STEAM subjects, content, and activities and encourage spread. In a study by Lang et al. (2017) pre-service teachers involved in a STEM club initiative (where students, pre- and in-service teachers learned from one another in a club setting) all reported that “participation in the STEM club contributed to increased confidence in their ability to use digital technology effectively in their teaching” (p. 52). As Lang et al. (2017) explain, pre- and in-service educators can reciprocally learn from one another in just the same way that students learn from one another: “using creativity and experimentation in student-led classroom environments” (p. 1499). Similarly, Libow and Stager (2013) explain that “Tinkering is a powerful form of learning by doing, an ethos shared by the rapidly expanding maker community” (p.  3). They go on to assert that “… every classroom can become a makerspace where kids and teachers learn together through direct experience with an assortment of high- and low-tech materials” (p. 3). It is this bidirectional flow of learning that is a characteristic of the maker ethos that makes tapping into student leaders as a source of spread so effective. Teachers may not always have the time or opportunity to attend off-site maker professional development or to learn various maker technologies outside of the school day, but student tech leaders can provide a much needed bridge. These leaders can provide a type of organic professional development that is context-based and that benefits both the students and their teachers. This is especially important in light of observations from Dr. Hagerman of the University of Ottawa, “that teacher professional development could be improved to better support this kind of [maker] approach to teaching” (Bolkan, 2018, p. 23). And what could be more meaningful than embedded, context-based, and just-in-time support?

The STEAM Teams Student leaders were important in helping to spread making in our study—use of the tools, the maker mindset, and the pedagogy. We already know from research (Hargreaves et al., 2018; Hughes & Burke, 2014; Hughes, 2017a; Lieberman et al., 2017) that effective school change comes from the top, from the middle, and from the grassroots. Each stakeholder plays an important role in shaping change. We wanted to provide the schools with the opportunity to equip student leaders with the necessary skills and knowledge to further encourage the spread of STEAM learning and making in their schools (and potentially beyond—at the board level, in other schools, and in their communities). As a result, we invited interested schools to send a group of eight to ten students for leadership and technology training. Four schools in the project signed up to participate in our STEAM Teams initiative. This initiative envisioned selected students from grades 5, 6, and 7 as student leaders that could assist back at their schools in the following ways:

84

J. Hughes and L. Morrison

• As just-in-time classroom support teachers could draw on when making in their classrooms. • As leaders in curriculum connections with making activities. • As extracurricular maker leaders (i.e., leading a robotics or making club). • To assist with maintenance of equipment. • To assist with monitoring of equipment (incoming/outgoing). These three grades were purposefully chosen as these were the oldest grades in each of the schools, barring the grade 8 students, who would all be leaving for secondary school the following September. This model allows for mentorship, consistency, and growth, as each new school year three new grade 5 students will be on-boarded as the newest STEAM Team leaders (mentored by the previous year’s team).

The STEAM Sessions We offered the STEAM Teams training toward the end of the second, and final, year of the makerspace project. Understanding that maintenance of the makerspace and encouraging spread within the schools was going to take added support after the official research had ended, we wanted to help establish some additional on-site support. Having a variety of student leaders—from various grades, experiences, and backgrounds—was the obvious choice for developing that support system. We already had developed three teacher leaders at each school through the project, and we understood the positive academic and socio-emotional impacts of encouraging student leadership (both for the leaders and those with whom they interact). Each school ended up selecting 3 students per grade, totaling 9 students per school and making for a total of 36 students, overall. One of the schools opted for their STEAM Teams training to occur in our lab’s makerspace, while the other three (schools located farther away) opted for our team to conduct the training at each of their respective sites (Windsor, Chatham and Pembroke). The sessions lasted a single day, starting at 9 a.m. and going to approximately 3 p.m. We know from research (Money et al., 2011; Karcher & Berger, 2017) that purposeful and structure training at the beginning and throughout the tutoring and mentorship process is vital in terms of ensuring efficacy of the program. Though as Leung (2015) and others point out, the frequency and duration of the sessions should be limited for maximum effect. Our lab’s team of teacher-researchers first worked with the selected students to unify them as a group through a visioning process—a practice supported by the widely acknowledged Tribes program (an education-­ based program for establishing effective learning communities). This program offers a scaffolded structure along with suggested activities to fuse groups of learners together by building trust and support in the hopes of encouraging connection, engagement, and achievement. As a result, during the STEAM Teams training session, the students were divided into smaller STEAM Teams (groups of three, with one student from each grade) and asked to collaborate on the creation of a logo, a

5  Empowering Student Leaders in Makerspaces

85

STEAM Team name and a slogan or cheer. We did this because creating a group identity and performing that identity for others is one way that students can forge a bond as a group, collaborate, and experience connection, acceptance, and trust. It is also a way to help students establish social presence within a larger group—a vital component in a learning community (Garrison, 2009). Garrison (2009) defines social presence as the “ability of participants to identify with the community, communicate purposefully in a trusting environment and develop interpersonal relationships by way of projecting their individual personalities” (p. 352). In order to help students build this social presence, we had them work in smaller groups to get to know one another and then to collaborate to present their collective identity to the larger group. After the groups shared these identities with one another, they were each assigned a different technology to begin learning. These were considered the students’ “expert” stations. At these stations, the students were guided by one of three lab facilitators in learning the new technologies and developing ideas for ways these technologies could be incorporated into the classroom (via lessons and activities) and the school, in general. The students were not explicitly taught the technologies (i.e., via direct instruction) but rather were guided through a mix of inquiry, constructivism, and collaborative learning. This was purposeful in that we wanted the students to experience these pedagogies firsthand, so that when it came time to “teach” their peers in the afternoon they were able to take the role of mentor or facilitator as opposed to direct-instructor—a role we have often witnessed students take when teaching their peers unless guided, otherwise. In order to draw the students’ attention to the features of these pedagogies, we asked them questions about their experience throughout the learning process, highlighting salient features of each of the pedagogical approaches (i.e., just-in-time versus just-in-case instruction; prompting and questioning techniques; trial-and-error, and collaborative learning approaches). While we did not expect the students to be able to immediately implement these types of pedagogies, we did want to plant a seed and encourage them to think differently about how they might approach helping their peers learn the maker tools. In the afternoon, the students “team taught” one another using the teaching and learning approaches employed in the expert groups (inquiry and constructivism, mainly). The students were encouraged to act as “just-in-time” support and to guide their peers through the problem-solving process. Again, the students were not suddenly experts in this regard; however, this exercise did provide them the opportunity to practice taking a less direct-instruction (or “I’ll do it for you”) approach and caused them to pause and think about how they might facilitate learning differently (i.e., what they might have to say or ask to encourage the learner through the process, him or herself). Interspersed throughout the day were team-building activities that emphasized the skills and competencies we were focusing on with the technologies. Chief among these were problem-solving, collaboration, critical thinking, communication, reflection, innovation, and creativity. For example, as one team-­ building activity, we had the students (in their smaller STEAM Teams) attempt to move their entire team “across a path of burning lava” (i.e., from one side of the room to the other) using only a few pieces of cardboard of varying sizes. None of

86

J. Hughes and L. Morrison

the students could touch anything but those pieces of cardboard (otherwise they would “fall into the lave”), and the entire team had to make it across successfully. This activity had the teams working collaboratively, thinking creatively with the use of the cardboard and problem-solving logistics. Below, we share some examples of STEAM Team activities in three of the participating schools (using pseudonyms).

Blakefield The Blakefield students were hand-selected by the school’s teacher-librarian. She chose students who were natural leaders, who had potential and a variety of skills (like good communication and problem-solving) and who could work well together. Since the initial STEAM Teams training, the leaders at Blakefield have been working with two teachers in a lunchtime robotics club. Of this club, one teacher shared: I was able to meet with most of the students who participated in the STEAM Teams training and a few other students who were interested in working with the group. Another teacher and I started lunchtime robotics club where we explored how we could incorporate robotics in our STEM Fair. This group of students did an excellent job demonstrating to other students how to use various robots and other technologies.

The STEAM Teams students in this case were able to act as leaders from the middle where they both assisted their teachers in co-learning the robots and they were also able to assist their peers at the STEM Fair. The STEM Fair was an ideal opportunity to demonstrate to other staff and students how fun and engaging the robots could be—potentially planting seeds of ideas for incorporation into classroom activities and student projects. In addition to the STEM Fair, this same teacher explained that, “Students who participated in the lunch meetings [the robotics club] were able to mentor a few new students who indicated an interest in working with the group.” The STEAM Teams students took on the responsibility of mentoring new students in their own time in order to encourage greater interest in the technologies and participation—a result, we believe, of the leadership training we incorporated at the beginning of the initiative, which had the students reflect on what leadership looks and feels like (see example brainstorm in Fig. 5.1). The initiative also had a positive impact on the entire grade seven cohort, as the teacher explained that, “For the rest of this school year the grade 7 students will get the opportunity during one period each week to explore and use the various robots and other technologies that we have.” He went on to explain that, “We would really like these students [STEAM Team] to share more of their knowledge with other students and staff at our school.” Blakefield has future plans to continue to draw on the STEAM Team as a resource for technology support and teaching and learning.

5  Empowering Student Leaders in Makerspaces

87

Fig. 5.1  “What is a leader?” brainstorm

Princess Elizabeth At Princess Elizabeth, the STEAM Team has had a variety of unique opportunities to showcase and share their knowledge in the school community and beyond. Their teacher librarian shared, “The STEAM Team has…taken a leadership role in the PE Maker Club we started last year. They are in charge of making announcements, putting out technology and helping students within the club when needed.” In this case, the STEAM Teams created support for the teacher librarian (by helping to facilitate the club) and they were able to experience not only mentoring others with the technologies but taking on other responsibilities like making announcements and overseeing the organization and monitoring of the tools. These rich opportunities allow the students to both learn more about the technologies through teaching and also to develop new skills, associated with positions of leadership. The teacher librarian also explained that the STEAM Teams students were provided the opportunity to share their knowledge beyond the context of their school community and to have an international influence. She shared, “Our students hosted a tech event for visiting teachers from our reciprocal learning school in China. During nutrition break, the team chose various technologies they wanted to share and teach the visiting teachers. They did an amazing job of communicating their knowledge even with the language barrier.” Like the students at Blakefield, the students at Princess Elizabeth have been able to experience leadership from the middle—both peer teaching and also teaching their teachers. In terms of integration within the classroom, “The team members have assisted students with STEAM activities within their own classrooms…” So, they have been

88

J. Hughes and L. Morrison

able to provide the “just-in-time” support often needed when including a variety of technologies in the teaching and learning processes. With a heavy ratio of one teacher to many students, having the extra expertise and assistance can be crucial for deciding if and when technologies get included. The teacher librarian went on to explain that, “It takes time for teachers to introduce the tech to classes as establishing classroom communities is a priority at the beginning of the year. Right now, the team is developing a short presentation for teachers to share how they could be used in classrooms throughout the school.” This has provided the students with the opportunity to develop their meta-cognitive skills in reflecting on how they could best be utilized by teachers, their collaboration skills by working together on this presentation, and their communication skills in presenting their plan—all inter- and intrapersonal skills necessary for success in academics and society at large. Additional opportunities for the development of agency and confidence have included allowing the students to map out and plan what they see for the future of the team: “As we are still relatively new to this school year, we are still in the planning process to see where the students would like to take this team.” The teacher librarian also shared that it is important to be responsive to the team and the investment levels of the individual students: “One member in particular does not seem to be invested in the team. We have added a new student to our school who demonstrates strong leadership and initiative. I think it is important to be responsive to the team as interests may change.” To encourage the health of the team and its continued impact in the school community, it is important to constantly check in with the student leaders, manage expectations, interests, and commitments and to adjust, where necessary.

St. Ernesto Since the creation of the STEAM Teams at St. Ernesto, the school has started a sewing club where members of the STEAM Team can assist their peers with learning the machines and troubleshooting any issues that arise. The principal of the school explained that the STEAM Team members also “provide some classroom support” but that the school is in “the process of formalizing this process” as they see the students’ integration in the classroom settings will be important for spread, adoption, and transfer. In the meantime, the school has been “… busy getting our wellness student committee up and running. STEAM will assist in these activities when appropriate such as recording for FB videos and suggest STEAM related activities.” The cross-collaboration of the STEAM Team with other clubs and initiatives has been supported and encouraged. And these have and will provide the students with a variety of different opportunities to develop different types of skills. Finally, the STEAM Team has been working closely with their Pathways teacher to learn about 3D printing and the Tinkercad program in hopes of sharing their knowledge with other students and staff. The group recently received this printer

5  Empowering Student Leaders in Makerspaces

89

Fig. 5.2  Learning about 3D printing and Tinkercad

through a TLLP grant. The STEAM Teams are finding and developing their own opportunities for knowledge development (Fig. 5.2).

Discussion/Conclusion For each of the STEAM Teams, focused “training” or “professional” development at the beginning of the initiative proved important in terms of helping the students bond as a group, learn more about the various tools available in their makerspaces, understand a bit more about the pedagogies associated with making and the maker tools, and, connected to this, understand a bit more about curriculum and subject-­ area connections. This initial training facilitated a smooth integration of the STEAM Teams in their respective school settings where, equipped with this knowledge and insight, they could then assist their peers and the other teachers. As Hancock (2019) states, the next step after selecting mentors, “…is to make sure they are trained. Having well-trained mentors ensures they are prepared for the role and are able to guide mentees correctly” (n.p.). And, once back in their school contexts, it was clear that students were well able to provide the correct guidance (i.e., assisting in the STEM Fair, helping out in the maker clubs), but it also became clear that the students were filling their roles and responsibilities connected to leadership, in general. Perhaps, as role theory suggests, filling the roles designated to them. Another important outcome of the STEAM Teams was that purposeful planning became important for at least two of the four schools. Both Princess Elizabeth and St. Ernesto reported that they wanted to thoughtfully map out where and how the students could be used to maximize impact. Establishing clear goals and objectives and a structure for achieving these are highly important in any peer tutoring or mentoring scenario (Andrews & Manning, 2016; Hancock, 2019; Leung, 2015). What will be important in the coming year is for the STEAM Teams themselves to

90

J. Hughes and L. Morrison

monitor their own progress and the health of their teams (engagement, interest, efficacy) and for their teachers to check in with them and to hold them accountable, as well. In addition to supporting the development of the students’ meta-cognitive awareness, reflection skills, and goal setting skills, the teachers will also need to establish additional professional development opportunities for the students to keep them engaged and growing and their knowledge relevant.

References Allsopp, D. H. (1997). Using classwide peer tutoring to teach beginning algebra problem-solving skills in heterogeneous classrooms. Remedial and Special Education, 18(6), 367–379. Andrews, M., & Manning, N. (2016). A guide to peer-to-peer learning: How to make peer-to-­ peer support and learning effective in the public sector? https://www.effectiveinstitutions.org/ media/The_EIP_P_to_P_Learning_Guide.pdf Bar-Eli, N., & Raviv, A. (1982). Underachievers as tutors. Journal of Educational Research, 75(3), 139–143. Bell, D.  C., Arnold, H., & Haddock, R. (2009). Linguistic politeness and peer tutoring. The Learning Assistance Review, 14(1), 37–54. Bolkan, J. (2018). Integrating makerspaces throughout the curriculum. The Journal. https://thejournal.com/articles/2018/09/04/integrating-­makerspaces-­throughout-­the-­curriculum.aspx Bowman-Perrott, L., Davis, H., Vannest, K., Williams, L., Greenwood, C., & Parker, R. (2013). Academic benefits of peer tutoring: A meta-analytic review of single-case research. School Psychology Review, 42(1), 39–55. Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2019). Peer tutoring: “To teach is to learn twice”. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 62(5), 583–586. Garrison, D. R. (2009). Communities of inquiry in online learning: Social, teaching and cognitive presence. In C. Howard et al. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distance and online learning (2nd ed., pp. 352–355). IGI Global. Ginsburg-Block, M. D., Rohrbeck, C. A., & Fantuzzo, J. W. (2006). A meta-analytic review of social, self-concept, and behavioral outcomes of peer-assisted learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 732–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-­0663.98.4.732 Hancock, E. (2019). How to start an effective peer-to-peer mentoring program in your school. Reset Fest. https://resetfest.com/how-­to-­start-­an-­effective-­peer-­to-­peer-­mentoring-­program-­in-­ your-­school/ Hargreaves, A., Shirley, D., Wangia, S., Bacon, C., & D’Angelo, M. (2018). Leading from the middle: Spreading learning, well-being and identity across Ontario. CODE Consortium. http:// ccsli.ca/downloads/2018-­Leading_From_the_Middle_Summary_Final-­EN.pdf Hughes, J. (2017a). Meaningful making: Establishing a makerspace in your school or classroom. What Works? Research Into Practice. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/ research/meaningful_making.html Hughes, J. (2017b). Digital making with “at-risk” youth. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 34(2), 102–113. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-­08-­2016-­0037 Hughes, J., & Burke, A. (2014). The digital principal. Pembroke Publishers Ltd. Hughes, J., & Morrison, L. (2018). Works of heart: Revisiting creativity and innovation through maker pedagogies. Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, 3(2), 150–160. Hughes, J., Morrison, L., & Dobos, L. (2018a, October). Re-making teacher professional development. Paper presentation of Higher Education in Transformation (HEIT) Conference. Hughes, J., Morrison, L., Mamolo, A., Laffier, J., & de Castell, S. (2018b). Addressing bullying through critical making. British Journal of Education, 50(1), 309–325.

5  Empowering Student Leaders in Makerspaces

91

Karcher, M.  J., & Berger, J.  R. M. (2017). One-to-one cross-age peer mentoring: National Mentoring Resource Center model review. http://nationalmentoringresourcecenter.org/images/ PDF/One-­to-­One_Cross-­Age_Peer_Mentoring_Model_Review.pdf Lang, C., Craig, A., & Casey, G. (2017). A pedagogy for outreach activities in ICT: Promoting peer to peer learning, creativity and experimentation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(6), 1491–1501. Lang, C., Powell, G., Ibrahim, F., & Moore, N. (2018). Connecting teachers, students and pre-­ service teachers to improve STEM pathways in schools. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 26(8), 45–66. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. Leung, K.  C. (2015). Preliminary empirical model of crucial determinants of best practice for peer tutoring on academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(2), 558–579. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037698 Leung, K. C. (2019). An updated metaanalysis on the effect of peer tutoring on tutors’ achievement. School Psychology International, 40(2), 200–214. Libow, M.  S., & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom. Constructing Modern Knowledge Press. Lieberman, A., Campbell, C., & Yashkina, A. (2017). Teacher learning and leadership: Of, by, and for teachers. Routledge. Marieswari, M., & Prema, N. (2016). Effectiveness of peer tutoring in learning English among tutors and tutees of Class VIII students in Kancheepuram DT. English Language Teaching, 9(11), 1–5. McMaster, K.  L., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.  S. (2006). Research on peer-assisted learning strategies: The promise and limitations of peer-mediated instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22(1), 5–25. Money et  al. (2011). Best practice identified for peer support programs. Defense Centers of Excellence: For Psychological Health & Traumatic Brain Injury. https://hawaiivet2vet.org/ yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Best_Practices_Identified_for_Peer_Support_Programs_ Jan_2011.72110842.pdf Nuthall, G. (2007). The hidden lives of learners. New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2016). 21st century competencies. Ontario Public Service. Robinson, D.  R., Schofield, J.  W., & Steers-Wentzell, K.  L. (2005). Peer and cross-age tutoring in math: Outcomes and their design implications. Educational Psychology Review, 17(4), 327–362. Spencer, V. G. (2006). Peer tutoring and students with emotional or behavioral disorders: A review of the literature. Behavioral Disorders, 31(2), 204–222. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond I.Q. Cambridge University Press. Strauss, V. (2017, December 20). The surprising thing Google learned about its employees—And what it means for today’s students. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ news/answer-­sheet/wp/2017/12/20/the-­surprising-­thing-­google-­learned-­about-­its-­employees-­ and-­what-­it-­means-­for-­todays-­students/ Thomas, A.  S., Bonner, S.  M., Everson, H.  T., & Somers, J.  A. (2015). Leveraging the power of peer-led learning: Investigating effects on STEM performance in urban high schools. Educational Research and Evaluation, 21(7–8), 537–557. Topping, K. J. (1996). The effectiveness of peer tutoring in further and higher education: A typology and review of the literature. Higher Education, 32(3), 321–345. Vygotsky, L.  S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. MIT Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.

Chapter 6

Role of the Teacher-Librarian Janette Hughes and Laura Morrison

In this chapter, we explore the key role that teacher-librarians play in establishing and maintaining makerspaces in schools that house their maker tools and materials in libraries. Through open-ended interviews and on-site observations, we identified three key responsibilities that teacher-librarians took on to ensure the smooth operation of the makerspaces, including setting up tools, materials, and activities, collaborating with teachers to plan maker activities related to curricular goals and facilitating the spread of maker culture throughout the school. One of the key outcomes of our research project with 20 schools across Ontario was the establishment of makerspace; however, only 3 of the participating schools had a space that could be repurposed as a designated makerspace. In most cases, the library was the obvious place to store the tools and materials in terms of logistics so that all of the teachers and their students could access them. In some cases, the materials and tools were placed on mobile carts that could be taken to individual classrooms. Regardless of how each school decided to organize the maker tools and materials, we made three key observations very early in the research project related to the importance of having a central administrative and academic figure involved in the process of establishing and maintaining the makerspace and taking the lead on developing a maker culture in the school community: (1) the teacher-librarian, library technician, or tech lead in the school played a critical role in setting up the makerspace and keeping it functional (i.e., setting up and maintaining the space and equipment); (2) these central figures also collaborated with teachers to plan making-­ related activities, which, in turn, encouraged spread of the maker pedagogies and culture throughout the school; (3) the library and those maintaining the space had fewer curriculum constraints (i.e., greater flexibility when it came to subject-­ integrated activities). So, the library became the obvious choice (and stayed the J. Hughes (*) · L. Morrison Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Hughes (ed.), Making, Makers, Makerspaces, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09819-2_6

93

94

J. Hughes and L. Morrison

obvious choice) for most schools as the place to house the makerspaces for maximum functionality, spread, and impact.

Importance of the Library The prevalence of makerspaces in a variety of public settings (schools, libraries, museums) has been steadily on the rise (Peppler et al., 2016; Blakemore, 2018), but no matter where these spaces are located, they all have one thing in common – they offer individuals a new way of learning via personal interest and multiple entry points (Hsu et al., 2017; Wapner, 2016). Libraries are a particularly significant space in the maker movement as they are symbols of democratic learning through equal-­ access and open-source knowledge (Enis, 2015; Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Wapner, 2016). As Wapner (2016) explains, libraries play an important role in the development of entrepreneurship – public libraries can be leveraged “…to further advance the innovation economy” (p. 1). Libraries provide access to a wide variety of technological tools for prototyping (i.e., 3D printers) and activities (like coding) “…that are becoming increasingly necessary for participation in the innovation economy” (p. 15). In terms of school libraries and encouraging these types of global competencies, Blakemore (2018) discusses how “Using the children’s literature that is readily available in the school library offers an authentic framework in which design thinking can occur” (p. 69). She also explains that this literature can inspire making and help students through the design process  – most obviously the problem-scoping stage. McCormick and Hynes (2012) explain that literature mirrors the challenges real-world designers face, which can facilitate students’ engagement in the design process. School libraries, more specifically, also stand apart from traditional learning as they are not as tightly constrained by subject-specific curriculum expectations and/ or rigid learning timelines. As Flintoff (2017) articulates, “The contemporary purpose of a library is … contributing to lifelong learning and promotion of multidisciplinary literacies – including the STEM learning areas as well as fostering a love of reading and learning via ‘traditional’ literacy” (p. 509). As a result, school libraries are open and fertile environments to foster the type of inquiry-based, constructionist, and democratic learning associated with making (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014). Having a makerspace “…opens the library to students who want to acquire, use, and share information in ways other than book-discussion groups or research writing” (Canino-Fluit, 2014). Connected to this idea of inclusivity, Moorefield-Lang and Kitzie (2018) emphasize that if a school has put a makerspace in their library, they are en route “…to offering a safe spot for ideas creation, and collaboration for all” (p. 50). They explain that, for example, LGBTQ2S+ students do not necessarily see themselves reflected in the content/organization of a more traditional library; however, a makerspace in the library holds the potential to engage diverse students due to the shift in how, where, and from whom information is created and shared in a

6  Role of the Teacher-Librarian

95

makerspace. The library is an excellent hub in which to place a makerspace and a librarian is perfectly positioned within the space to have a significant influence on the larger school community (Ejikeme & Okpala, 2017).

Importance of Innovation and Innovative Mindsets Public and academic libraries are no longer spaces solely for text-based resources and consumption – they are evolving into participatory spaces that include multimedia and a wide variety of digital and analog creation tools (Nichols et  al., 2017; Nicholson, 2019; McCarthy, 2018). If libraries are to remain relevant, they need to adapt to the changing needs of their users (Filar Williams & Folkman, 2017). Wapner (2016) explains that “Examples abound of young people using creative equipment at the library to explore their own ingenuity” (p. 16) and that “Connecting young men and women to the resources and competencies needed to bring new ideas feeds the innovation economy” (p.  15). With this physical transformation, Filar Williams and Folkman (2017), McCarthy (2018), and Koh and Abbas (2015) emphasize the need for flexible and forward-thinking staff/librarians. McCarthy (2018) explains that “Every institution has a degree of inertia and professionals who may have been doing a job one way for years cannot be expected to embrace change overnight. We see staff involvement and buy-in of the visioning process as an essential ingredient of a successful project” (p. 250). Koh and Abbas (2015) have found that there are select competencies and skills an information professional needs to possess and recruit for the functionality of their makerspace or learning lab. They warn that “… Makerspaces in libraries … may perish without well-trained personnel who will continue to manage, implement, and develop programs and facilities” (p.  115). The top competencies Koh and Abbas (2015) found included the: “(1) ability to learn, (2) ability to adapt to changing situations, (3) ability to collaborate, (4) ability to advocate for the Learning Lab or Makerspace, and (5) ability to serve diverse people” (p. 119). They also outlined the top skills an information professional needs to possess: “These included skills and knowledge related to (1) management, (2) program development, (3) grant writing and fund raising, (4) technology literacy, and (5) facilitating learning based on learning theories and user behaviors” (p. 121).

Importance of the Librarian As Peppler et al. (2016) point out, “The Maker Movement in education has relied on the resourcefulness and initiative of teachers and librarians who see an opportunity to engage youth in new ways” (p. x). Filar Williams and Folkman (2017) explain that “In order for libraries to transform and remain relevant, library leadership (and library educators) must rethink the library culture as well as what job skills are

96

J. Hughes and L. Morrison

needed to be successful in this maker environment” (p. 18). They also explain that “Administration and library leaders play a critical role in setting the tone, supporting training and initiatives for their staff, building community and campus partnerships, and developing a positive organizational culture that embraces change and resiliency” (p. 19). Articles from Fleming (2015) and Ejikeme and Okpala (2017) indicate that librarians have a wide reach – they can both collaborate with educators in planning activities and assist students in their tinkering and learning. Librarians also have the time and space to take more of a leadership role with the development of the makerspace and as Kurti et al. (2014) caution, a makerspace “should be carried forward by one or two dedicated educators …” so there is no “death by committee” (p.  23–24). In the aforementioned study, the authors attributed the makerspaces’ thriving success to the fact that “… the principal trusted the librarian to lead the project to success” (p. 24). Moorefield-Lang (2018) adds that “…librarians/educators putting [makerspaces] into action, offer a safe space to design, create, fail and try again” (n.p.). Students wanting to engage differently with their learning can do so in the library, creating a dynamic and inclusive environment, and the librarian, in turn, can assist the teachers at their school in a transition to using maker pedagogies by example and by intentionally co-planning maker-centered activities.

Research into Practice What became obvious early on in our research was the critical role the teacher-­ librarian played in taking the lead and setting up the makerspace/maintaining the tools.

Taking the Lead The role the teacher-librarians played in terms of leadership and maintenance was of the utmost importance. Without a central lead keeping the makerspaces functioning, usable and relevant to teachers and students, the spaces, tools, and pedagogies were not as widely used. The teacher-librarians’ unique role positioned them as materials manager, professional development facilitator, and opportunity liaison. In DCDSB, one teacher explained of the teacher-librarian’s central role: “That’s been a big help with having her, she’s kind of like the head of where the materials are and organizing them and keeping track of them, that’s a huge help with her kind of taking that on.” The teacher also explained that when the materials go out to classrooms, “…our librarian is very good to check up, so weekly she’ll come around and ask if we’re still using something or do you want me to put that back in the library and she just checks to make sure that they’re still being utilized.” In this case, having a central person to oversee and track equipment meant that others had

6  Role of the Teacher-Librarian

97

equitable access to all the materials, and it also meant that one person knew what materials and equipment were being used most and where to focus ordering efforts in future. Having a central figure with this knowledge, overseeing these finer details, keeps the makerspace running efficiently. At the GECDSB, the teacher-librarian was instrumental in planning and carrying out the maker tools ordering and for organizing the space. One benefit, she explained, of having the makerspace in the library was the different storage and security: “the back office was a library office but for making sure that everything was kept safe we decided that that was a good spot to put the tech so that went there and then our back room, which is our computer lab – there’s underneath, there’s areas to store – so, really it was just finding space to put everything and we’re very lucky that we have the space…so that was – that was awesome.” In this case, the staff at the school were able to hack the traditional library layout and leverage the different open and more secure spaces for equipment storage. At a school in the TDSB, the teacher-librarian had complete jurisdiction over the redesign of the learning commons into a makerspace, so in this sense there was no “death by committee” (Kurti et al., 2014). In her central role as teacher-librarian, she was aware of the needs of teachers and students and the overall school community, so she targeted her efforts to best match these needs. She explained that this reimagining took months of planning, designing, and ordering (new flexible seating and the maker tools, themselves). In this central position, the teacher-librarian was also able to take the lead on hand-selecting a STEAM leadership team that came to our lab to learn more about the maker technologies and inquiry-based learning, so that they could facilitate spread to other students and teachers (see Chap. 6 for more on the STEAM Teams initiative). In HPCDSB, one teacher explained that “When new items arrive [the library technician] will program if required, unpack and place in our cabinets” so the items are accounted for, set up, and ready to be used by teachers and students. This central coordinator is pivotal to keeping the makerspace functional and relevant with constantly arriving new tools. The library technician also opens the makerspace up at recess providing teachers and students with extra time to learn new tech items and/ or to work on projects – time that would otherwise not be available if no one was overseeing the space. For classroom teachers and school administrators, time is a valuable and often scarce resource. So, having a designated individual like a teacher-­ librarian, or in this case library technician, to stay on top of items that, if not attended to, would halt the use and productivity of the makerspace, is incredibly vital. To the aforementioned point, at the school in LDSB, the principal explained that the teacher-librarian was intimately involved in the planning and running of the makerspace. She shared, “We included her in the design process of the setup of the makerspace. She also catalogued all of the equipment/materials and often helped with the supervision while students were working in the makerspace. She also would let us know when we got low on consumables or our equipment might need repair.” So, like the other schools, the teacher-librarian was paramount to tracking equipment, ordering and overseeing logistical elements like repairs, which could otherwise stall or slow the use of the space. Importantly, the principal highlighted

98

J. Hughes and L. Morrison

that their teacher-librarian “… would also teach all of the classes about the proper use and safety of the maker space and then teachers reviewed these expectations with their classes on a regular basis.” Often, makerspaces include equipment that requires minimal to extensive safety rules/procedures (e.g., woodworking and cutting tools/materials; drills, saws, laser cutters, and more) and so ensuring one main person can disseminate these rules/procedures (i.e., via appropriate signage, word-­ processed, video,and/or verbal instructions) is vital to keeping the students safe and maintaining the space’s functionality. At the PSSBTP, the teacher-librarian specifically outlined the various roles he has and responsibilities he oversees in the space, including: 1. Design how to set up the area for our space (this is an ongoing process as we figured out what students use the most, the types of projects classes are doing, and how to best layout the area for safety as well as how to integrate the space with our library and computer lab). 2. Work on makerspace scheduling to ensure all classes got ample time to use the space. Talked with teachers to figure out what times worked best for them and how long they might want the space for each week or what times of year they would like to do larger projects. 3. Order robotics, tools, machinery, furniture, etc. Visited other makerspaces to get some ideas of what was worthwhile to purchase for the space. Also ordered consumables a few times a year to make sure supplies stay well stocked and continuously adding items to the ordering list that students need for new projects. 4. Keep classroom teachers informed about safety concerns in the space (items missing, broken, not cleaned up, safety rules for tools, etc.). 5. Track makerspace items that leave the space and help replace or repair damaged items. He also organizes “student helpers to help clean, maintain and even instruct other students” in addition to things like “Advertising, collecting and organizing donations from families” (i.e., material, egg cartons, bottles, etc.) and “Collecting various wood products from local hardware stores” (i.e., Home Depot, Rona, etc.). At the SCCDSB, the principal described how the teacher-librarian who was initially part of the project was “present at the departmental meeting we had initially. She offered input into library piece and ‘purged’ to make space for the reno. Her voice was significant as we designed the space – circulation desk, her desk, chromebases.” Like some of the other schools, the teacher-librarian was a central voice in the redesign. As can be seen in the various examples from the schools there are common items that repeat in terms of the responsibilities and levels of involvement from the teacher-librarian/library technician: space design and setup, scheduling, coordination with teachers on use of the space and activities, ordering/repair/maintenance of the equipment, and safety. Echoing the words from PSSBTP and applying them universally, “The Teacher-Librarian is a vital component of the Makerspace. Having someone to oversee the space, scheduling, supplies, cleaning, maintenance, safety etc… is necessary to have a space that is sustainable and useful for the entire school

6  Role of the Teacher-Librarian

99

community.” In a few words, there would be no makerspace without the teacher-­ librarian/library technician.

Well-Positioned for Encouraging Spread In addition to taking the lead with the makerspaces, the teacher-librarians and library technicians collaborated with teachers to plan making-related activities, and they helped encourage spread of maker pedagogies and use of the maker tools at their schools. Many of the teacher-librarians reported that in their central roles in the school, they were well-positioned for encouraging the spread of the maker culture and use of the tools. At two of the schools, the teacher-librarians found that approaching spread through the students was particularly effective. At the DCDSB school, the teacher-librarian was instrumental in collaborating with teachers on the development of maker experiences for the students and lesson integration with teachers. Regarding this, one teacher explained: It’s more challenges. She’ll have different stations set out. It’s more of an exploring…for the kids to explore how to use the materials more, and then we can bring materials back to our rooms to use them within our daily [lessons]. But it allows the kids some time to figure stuff out because that’s sometimes the part that’s the struggle to, figuring out how to use the app, or figuring out how to use this before we can effectively use it in a project or an assignment. (DCDSB)

In this way, having making sessions in the library provides a kind of third space for learning to occur where teachers may feel more comfortable taking risks in their pedagogical practices and allowing students to learn in novel ways (i.e., student-led, and via inquiry at learning stations). Furthermore, having the support of another adult in the room while these new teaching and learning practices are taking place and tools are being used relieves at least some of the anxiety and stress involved in planning, troubleshooting and making connections to subject content, lessons, and the curriculum. Similarly, in TDSB, the teacher-librarian was also well-positioned to partner with other teachers to encourage spread, on-hand/just-in-time professional development and to facilitate curriculum connections. In one of our initial interviews, she explained, “I have invited other teachers – ‘if you want to try it and I’m here we can partner cause its part of the project and I will work with you.’” As uptake was not prevalent this way, she took another approach and found she was well-positioned to encourage spread through the students. She worked to bridge what the students were creating in the makerspace with subject-based assignments: I’ve got a lot of leeway. So, again, even the ideas for them to have this knowledge base: ‘So, I know how to use a greenscreen. I know how to create something. I can go to my science class and create a video about space exploration and I can use the green screen.’ So that teacher can use the Media expectations or whatever…So, media is something you can use across, language is something you can use across but now connected to science, math, something like that.

100

J. Hughes and L. Morrison

In this way, the teacher-librarian took on the role of consultant via the students in order to demonstrate to their teachers how the maker tools might facilitate subject integration in addition to increasing opportunities for them to make connections to curriculum. In GECDSB, the teacher-librarian explained the library has become the central hub for the school’s new makerspace club, “The kids come, they talk about it with their friends. So they are here. They’re in the space with us learning – a lot of our students know more than we do.” The teacher-librarian was able to open up the learning commons and therefore, the makerspace, to students outside of class time, which resulted in a makerspace club. In terms of spread to teachers, she has also been perfectly positioned to help upskill other teachers and to collaborate with them on making-related lesson plans. She explained: …In the beginning of the year – my schedule was just let’s just see every class in the library. They weren’t collaboration periods built into the library per say. But I’m also the math lead so I have four math mobilization periods each week. Toni recognized the interest from staff and so she allocated those four periods for a block of time – actually five weeks to engage in the long term makerspace project with four different teachers and actually it ended up being 5 different teachers and they came in during that time and collaborated and we went from a place of curriculum…and I think that had a big impact. We’re doing it again after March Break. We put it out there [that] we’d like to do this and the spots filled up. Actually we have double teachers so we’re bringing two teachers in. We have a big space. (GECDSB)

Having the support of an administration that is forward-thinking and helps empower the teacher-librarian can mean the implementation of innovative programs such as the aforementioned, which in turn facilitates spread. At the school in HPCDSB, one teacher explained that their library technician helps facilitate teacher/classroom use of the makerspace. Of the process, she explained that “Teachers let her [the library tech] know what curriculum content, subject or unit they [the teachers] would like assistance with and she can assist in organizing this.” Additionally, she encourages teachers to use the space by offering them each a once/week makerspace period (reserved via a sign-up system) and “she is able to guide the students and then have teachers and students learn to do by doing.” Importantly, the library technician understands the maker pedagogies (i.e., inquiry, constructionism, student centered learning) are synonymous with the space and she is able to model these. However, this teacher also shared that the library technician could still encourage greater use: …if she was more willing to allow small groups down to use the items and she supervise during class time. I also believe if she was to be asked by an administrator to split her library time equally to Makerspace and Book sign out our Makerspace items and time would be better utilized. I believe that it would function better if a teacher (OCT) librarian, such as the role in our secondary school, were to take this over our Makerspace would include more curriculum and opportunity. (HPCDSB)

This was one important finding pertaining to the difference between having a library technician overseeing the space and an OCT-certified teacher-librarian. While a library technician can fill the important role of tool overseer (i.e., equipment maintenance, sign-out, repair, among others), they are without the in-depth knowledge of

6  Role of the Teacher-Librarian

101

the curriculum – an important factor when it comes to teacher and administrator buy-in of the space, the tools, and the pedagogies. As with many of the other makerspaces, the teacher-librarian in PSSBTP ran recess and after school makerspace club. He explained that this is a “…time when students can work on any projects and get assistance.” While this is the essence of maker pedagogies (self-directed and initiated learning), this is not always the reality when using makerspace time within a structured school day. So, offering the students this free play, exploration and guided project option provides the time for creative freedom in the space the students may not otherwise always be receiving. The teacher-librarian also maintains a “Makerspace Wall of Fame.” This is visible for all to see as it is located “on the bulletin board in the school hallway.” He uses this “to post students with their projects, project ideas, quotes etc….” And, so in this sense, the teacher-librarian is able to make the making of students at all grade levels visible to the wider school community. This has the potential to entice students and teachers to begin exploring the makerspaces’ potential for activities, personal projects, and learning. And, if the classroom teacher requires assistance in the space for larger or more complex projects, the teacher-librarian will be more directly involved with running sessions. This provides teachers with the opportunity to collaborate and learn with the teacher-librarian and for them to share knowledge, increasing skills. At each of the schools, the central role of the teacher-librarian and library technician facilitated spread both through students and collaboration with teachers.

Flexibility for Maker Tool Integration as the Teacher-Librarian Finally, it became apparent that the library was a perfect fit for the schools’ makerspaces due to the greater flexibility the teacher-librarian/library tech has versus a classroom-based teacher (i.e., it is easier to do subject integration and/or there are fewer curriculum constraints). As the teacher-librarians were also multi-subject experts, many reported the ease they found in integrating the maker tools into one or more subject area. The teacher-­ librarian from TDSB explained: “I was very fortunate as a teacher librarian  – I taught computers, so I actually was able to just take that – every student that came through to see me for computers was able to use the makerspace and the activities that were there.” She expanded on this idea of curriculum flexibility as the teacher-­ librarian, explaining: I’m an OCT and Librarian teacher – [so curriculum integration was] very easy for me – cause I just pull anything to make it work. So even the lesson plans … they may focus more with a media piece or a social justice…but you can take that particular project and put it in any discipline. So for me, it’s not a challenge. I consider myself to be somewhat creative, so it’s fun for me to just ‘OK guys, we’re gonna try this and we’re gonna do it and we have to connect it like this’ so it has to have some relevance. A lot of my pieces are writing. So, the metacognition – tell me what it was like, they share their experience. So, I’m in the ‘4s’ of the curriculum guide – the 4.1, the 4.2 – telling me about the experience. (TDSB)

102

J. Hughes and L. Morrison

Similarly, the teacher-librarian from Greater Essex made explicit connections to the English Language Arts in her role as teacher-librarian. She explained: “I teach every single class in the school but one [as the teacher-librarian]. So every class that comes has had some experience with making “…I’m a library teacher so I try to connect the lit to it as much as I possibly can…” She also explained that she uses picture books to engage students in the design process – first, reading a thematically relevant story (about problem-solving, perseverance, etc.) and then having students’ problem scope, design, prototype, and share. At one of our site visits to the school, we watched this process in action which involved Kylie first reading the picture book, How to Catch a Leprechaun by Adam Wallace. This humorous children’s book details the havoc a leprechaun can affect near St. Patrick’s Day and just how difficult it is to catch one. When the story was done, she challenged the students to create a trap-like structure that, when triggered, would encase something inside. In pairs or teams, the students had to first plan their designs and consider the materials available. On this same sheet of paper, the students needed to list out the materials decided upon and include measurements for the various elements of their design. They then engaged in building, testing, and improving their structures. In this sense, she was able to touch on explicit connections related to the language arts, visual arts, math, and science curriculums, while also encouraging the development of global competencies such as problem-solving, creativity, innovation, communication, and collaboration. At PSSBTP, one teacher shared that, “The library technician has freedom to allow our makerspace to become a place for students to build relationships with other students during recess times when she offers clubs such as craft club, robotics, etc. She also has a lot of down time which a teacher may not have had. She does not have a class to prepare for and teach…” As a result, the library technician has the time needed to create the kind of informal learning and connecting space that is akin to the original makerspaces found in society. In the absence of lesson planning, teaching, and assessment constraints, the library technician can focus on creating the optimal makerspace learning environment  – unstructured, collaborative, and exploratory. At this school, the teacher-librarian explained that he would “Coordinate volunteers from the school and community to work alongside students during makerspace club (i.e. former teachers, local carpenter, high school robotics club, local painter, etc.) for them to receive mentorship and authentic learning experiences – moving the learning beyond the walls of the classroom and connecting with the community.” He also has the freedom to “Arrange robotics and coding competitions/challenges through the year” and to “Instill the maker mentality and design process at the early grade levels and throughout the school community.” Being able to work with a variety of grades across the school means that his influence in this area is far-reaching, leading to a significant impact/ability to spread the culture (and for it not be contained to one or two classrooms). One of the most important aspects connected to flexibility and time is that he has “dedicated time built into [his] schedule daily to manage the space” which means the space is run effectively and efficiently.

6  Role of the Teacher-Librarian

103

Whether through flexible, formal, or informal learning sessions, the teacher-­ librarians and library technicians have the literal time and space to integrate making and learning seamlessly into these learning commons settings.

What No Dedicated Teacher-Librarian Means For one school located in Kingston, Ontario, the lack of a dedicated teacher-­librarian was viewed as a major drawback in the project. The principal explained, “Our librarian was lost a few years back, our Board actually discontinued those positions, and it was just falling through the cracks. So we had a few teachers who would come and they would do their best to restock shelves and stuff…The [board has] not [revived the position]. And that’s what I would say another barrier is. We need an educator in there.” Without that central overseer, the principal explained: …that is honestly the piece that I think is missing in our puzzle right now because we have such a large space, because we’ve invested so much money with the CODE project and as well we’ve written to you know do other grants and other opportunities to help us with that space. I would love to see somebody in that space whether it’s a learning-commons-type teacher who is going to facilitate learning with the classroom teacher. (Limestone DSB)

The school sees the need for this teacher-librarian to help with professional development – something that naturally happened at the schools with an assigned teacher-­ librarian. The principal also explained regarding materials management, “…I think that’s one of the biggest things is if you know this is where we’re headed it requires management so we haven’t been able to explore some of the things like 3D printing. It was something that we decided right off the bat, was not something that was going to work on our site because we don’t have the oversight or management piece of it.” Without the central figure to manage materials, to be responsible for the continued maintenance of materials, the space has limited room to develop. Growth of the space is constrained by the limited time classroom teachers have to devote to the space. In the SCCDSB, the principal explained the constraints of no longer having a teacher-librarian: Currently, we have a fantastic Library Tech. We only have her 1x/week. She will support students and teachers with finding materials that support curriculum in a STEAM pedagogy. She has in the past facilitated tasks that promote critical and creative thinking. She doesn’t do any of the maintaining of materials and organizing. That’s the teaching staff. The group of Library Techs are receiving training at the board level through the System Teacher Librarian on the different devices found in the CLS and how they can support teachers and students. This is very beginning stages of implementation so they are learning and haven’t done a whole lot of hands on with students. I believe she watches and will engage with students on her days here. Our Library Techs do not program since they are not teachers. It’s a little bit different than teacher librarians in other boards. (SCCDSB)

104

J. Hughes and L. Morrison

So, the difference in roles (from teacher-librarian to part-time library technician) has impacted who maintains the space (shifting now to the responsibilities of the teachers) and who programs with the maker tools.

Other Staff Leaders In our study, only three schools opted for their teacher-librarian to be actively involved as a research participant. However, at many of the schools, the teacher-­ librarian or library technician naturally took on the challenge of transforming their library or learning commons into a makerspace. Some schools also had a Special Education Resource Teacher (SERT) or tech leader take on the role of developing the makerspace and encouraging spread. At some schools where the teacher-librarian or another specialized leader was not directly involved as a study participant (i.e., coming to the focused PD at the beginning of the study to learn about the tools and the pedagogies, working with the other teachers to create maker-based activities), there was a noticeable difference in terms of diffusion of the maker tools and pedagogies to the wider school community. Regardless of who took on this leadership position, it became apparent that having one dedicated leader to manage and develop the space/tools and to encourage spread and teacher professional development was key. The schools that had an OCT-certified teacher-librarian seemed to benefit the most from this leader as she/ he was and is able to collaborate with classroom teachers to lesson plan and to develop strong, subject-integrated and curriculum-connected lessons and activities. It is also clear that those teacher-librarians who were given decision-making authority and who were supported by their administration in terms of innovative professional development and learning opportunities for students flourished in their roles and impacted a culture shift in their schools (to one emphasizing inquiry and maker pedagogies). The central and critical role of the teacher-librarian cannot be underestimated if a school wishes to develop and maintain a makerspace and its associated culture and pedagogies and/or to encourage the spread and uptake by both the teachers in the school and their students.

References Blakemore, M. (2018). Problem scoping: Design thinking & close reading: Makerspaces in the school library. Knowledge Quest, 46(4), 66–69. Canino-Fluit, A. (2014). School library makerspaces: Making it up as I go. Teacher Librarian, 41(5), 21. Ejikeme, A. N., & Okpala, H. N. (2017). Promoting children’s learning through technology literacy: Challenges to school librarians in the 21st century. Education and Information Technologies, 22(3), 1163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-­016-­9481-­1 Enis, M. (2015). Meet your maker. Library Journal, 140(12), 24–26.

6  Role of the Teacher-Librarian

105

Filar Williams, B., & Folkman, M. (2017). Librarians as makers. Journal of Library Administration, 57(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2016.1215676 Fleming, L. (2015). Worlds of making: Best practices for establishing a makerspace for your school. Corwin Press. Flintoff, F. (2017). Hacking the catalogue: Developing extended cataloguing processes in library makerspaces for shareable, trackable and accessible dynamic resources supporting STEAM education. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 9(4), 505–510. Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495–504. Hsu, Y., Baldwin, S., & Ching, Y. (2017). Learning through making and maker education. TechTrends, 61(6), 589–594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-­017-­0172-­6 Koh, K., & Abbas, J. (2015). Competencies for information professionals in learning labs and makerspaces. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 56(2), 114–129. Kurti, R. S., Kurti, D., & Fleming, L. (2014). Practical implementation of an educational makerspace. Teacher Librarian, 42(2), 20. McCarthy, R.  C. (2018). Future proofing your public library. Public Library Quarterly, 37(3), 248–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/01616846.2018.1498705 McCormick, M., & Hynes, M. M. (2012, June). Engineering in a fictional world: Early findings from integrating engineering and literacy. Paper presentation 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. https://peer.asee.org/21307 Moorefield-Lang, H. (2018). Lessons learned: Intentional implementation of second makerspaces. Reference Services Review, 47(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-­07-­2018-­0058 Moorefield-Lang, H., & Kitzie, V. (2018). Makerspaces for all: Serving LGBTQ makers in school libraries. Knowledge Quest, 47(1), 46–50. Nichols, J., Melo, M., & Dewland, J. (2017). Unifying space and service for makers, entrepreneurs, and digital scholars. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 17(2), 363–374. https://doi. org/10.1353/pla.2017.0022 Nicholson, K. (2019). Collaborative, creative, participative: Trends in public library innovation. Public Library Quarterly, 38(3), 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/01616846.2019.1571399 Peppler, K., Halverson, E., & Kafai, Y.  B. (2016). Introduction to this volume. In K.  Peppler, E. Halverson, & Y. B. Kafai (Eds.), Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environments (Vol. 1, pp. 1–11). Routledge. Wapner, C. (2016). The people’s incubator: Libraries propel entrepreneurship. American Library Association, 4, 1–21.

Chapter 7

Shifting School Culture Through Shared Leadership and Support Janette Hughes and Laura Morrison

In this chapter, we explore the literature on how school culture can shift through innovation and, specifically in this research, how the adoption of maker pedagogies can facilitate a shift from more traditional approaches to teaching and learning to a maker culture that is student-driven, inquiry-based, and failure-positive. We examine the important role of the schools’ administrators in supporting this kind of change. In the context of this research, we discuss how the involvement of the school principal enhanced the teachers’ experiences in the project, while also increasing the success of the design and implementation of the makerspace. The use of student-centered, inquiry-based maker pedagogies that emphasize learning through play, tinkering, creating, and even failing can promote an accompanying shift in school culture if the makerspace or the maker approach is embraced by the majority of the school community. What became obvious early on in our research connected to the importance of shifting school culture (i.e., away from more traditional pedagogies and toward maker pedagogies) was the critical role of a supportive administration. Beginning in the first year of the project and extending into the second, we noticed that the schools with supportive administrators (i.e., those administrators who chose to attend the initial PD were involved in planning and continued professional development and who afforded their teachers the time and space to experiment with innovative tools and practices) had much success in getting their makerspaces up and running with relative ease, building a vibrant and well-used space and in encouraging widespread use of the tools and pedagogies throughout the school. This ultimately resulted in a school-wide culture shift, extending beyond the classrooms of the teachers directly involved in the study. Below we explore what school culture is, why it matters, and the role of the administration in developing a school maker culture in the school. J. Hughes (*) · L. Morrison Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Hughes (ed.), Making, Makers, Makerspaces, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09819-2_7

107

108

J. Hughes and L. Morrison

School Culture and Why It Matters Serdyukov (2017) explains that education is a society-serving institution and that we need effective education institutions in order for our societies to “survive and thrive” (p. 4). We need education to be adaptable and responsive to the fast-paced and ever-changing needs of society and the workforce (Serdyukov, 2017; OME, 2016; Hughes, 2017a). Serdyukov (2017) explains that “This evolution must be systemic, consistent, and scalable; therefore, school teachers, college professors, administrators, researchers, and policy makers are expected to innovate the theory and practice of teaching and learning, as well as all other aspects of this complex organization to ensure quality preparation of all students to life and work” (p. 4). And the easiest way to encourage rapid change and uptake within a school is through its culture. School culture can be defined as the values and sustained daily activities that set the tone in a school and influence the behavior of those that exist within it – teachers, staff, students, and parents (The Center on School Turnaround, 2018; Gregory, 2017; Zahed-Babelan et  al., 2019). When cultivated effectively, school culture can create a learning environment that encourages engagement, productivity, and feelings of success, and, ultimately, it can increase student achievement (Baran & Van Harpen, 2019). In the context of a rapidly evolving society, school culture is also important as it can either encourage or quash innovative change (Zhu, 2015). A school culture grounded in traditional approaches to teaching and learning, for example, might place limited value on the integration of technology, and this could therefore handicap the process of technology adoption and a shift to new pedagogies (Zhu, 2015). The way culture works to effect change is by influencing factors such as motivation, agency, willingness, shared leadership, trust, and open-­ mindedness (Zhu, 2015; Alanezi, 2016). Of these principles Gregory (2017) highlights that “Trust is a key factor in developing a positive school culture and strong leadership in schools” (p. 141). A foundation of trust needs to be cultivated on a variety of levels – between teachers, between teachers and students, between students, and, importantly, between administration and everyone else in the school environment. Tone is often set by, and trickles down from, the top (Hughes & Burke, 2014). As Ebony Bridwell-Mitchell (an expert in education leadership and management) explains, there is a strong connection between culture and efficiency and “Once principals understand what constitutes culture – once they learn to see it not as a hazy mass of intangibles, but as something that can be pinpointed and designed – they can start to execute a cultural vision” (Shafer, 2018, n.p.). And this culture is shaped by principals influencing beliefs, values, norms, and behavior (Shafer, 2018). The section below investigates further how principals can encourage a culture of change and innovation.

7  Shifting School Culture Through Shared Leadership and Support

109

 ole of the Administration in Effecting Change and Spreading R a Culture of Innovation Michael Fullan (2016) explains that there are three types of capital that work together to make up “professional capital” which can lead to change in an institution  – human capital, social capital, and decisional capital. It is important for a principal to understand what constitutes these concepts, their influence on one another, how they lead to change, and how to foster their development. He outlines that: For a principal, human capital refers to the human resource or personnel dimension of the quality of teachers in the school – their basic teaching talents. Recruiting and cultivating the skills of individual teachers are one dimension of the principal’s role. Social capital concerns the level of quality and quantity of interactions and relationships among people. Social capital in a school affects teachers’ access to knowledge and information; their senses of expectation, obligation, and trust; and their commitment to work together for a common cause. Decisional (or decision-making) capital refers to the sum of practice and expertise in making decisions that may be spread across many individuals or groups in a school and its community. Decisional capital is that which is required for making good decisions  – especially decisions about how to put human and social capital to work for achieving the goals of the school. This three-part conception of professional capital can be used as a way of organizing one’s roles in leading learning. In effect, the role of school leaders is to build professional capital across and beyond the school. All three must be addressed explicitly and in combination (p. 44).

All three types of capital need to be considered and attended to as these items work together to set the tone and culture of a school and to influence change that is scalable. If the goals of the school are to implement innovative practices, Hughes and Burke (2014) suggest that a principal can also “…apply [their] existing leadership skills to the challenge of creating and supporting a learning environment rich in technology and innovation…[They] do not need to know the intricate details of how the tech works; however, [they do need to position themselves] as a learner alongside the teachers, staff, and students in [the] school” (p. 7). The principal does not necessarily need to be proficient in all the various technologies, but what they do need to understand is how to create the conditions for themselves and their teachers to learn the technologies together, to develop the necessary skills, to take risks, and, ultimately, to lead together. Being supportive of forward-thinking teachers by affording them trust, autonomy, and a shared position of leadership is key. Carpenter (2015) echoes the sentiment that shared leadership is important, explaining that it creates “…a positive school culture and effective professional learning communities that impact school improvement” (p.  682). On a tangible level, Carpenter (2015) explains that “Leaders in schools must work directly with teachers to create policies and procedures that provide teachers the leadership structure to directly impact school improvement… (p. 682).” Structural elements that are observable on paper and therefore actionable (i.e., policies and procedures) are necessary to encourage shared leadership. The Center on School Turnaround (2018)

110

J. Hughes and L. Morrison

also discusses the need for policies and procedures stating that school leaders “need to create structures, including multiple layers of teams, for exchange of information, common message building, and sharing of accomplishments and frustrations” (p. 3). Open and consistent communication (especially regarding what works and encountered challenges) is a key feature among many articles (Hughes & Burke, 2014; ISTE, n.d.) as communication can “…help strengthen relationships, infuse a sense that everyone is ‘in the loop,’ and allow all players a voice and sense of ownership of reforms” (The Center on School Turnaround, 2018, p. 3). What results from this is “…a sense of community, common purpose, and trust – the building blocks of culture shift” (The Center on School Turnaround, 2018, p. 3). Reinforcing shared values through discussion and action is another important factor principals and school leaders need to consider. The Center on School Turnaround (2018) explains that “The school’s leaders, including those leading the culture shift, need to embody, model, and overtly talk about the values driving the enterprise and keep everyone focused on the pivotal urgency of improving student learning” (p. 3). Fullan (2016) explains that: “When the school is organized to focus on a small number of shared goals, and when professional learning is targeted to those goals and is a collective enterprise, the evidence is overwhelming that teachers can do dramatically better by way of student achievement” (p. 48). Stated in another way, leadership requires the ability to be a motivator, communicator, and facilitator – three central roles outlined by Hughes and Burke (2014). They explain that as a motivator, the leader encourages staff to work toward a common goal. So, in this regard the admin needs to understand how the goals for the culture shift and the community context (student demographics, history, location, size, to name a few) need to be aligned for success. As a communicator, the admin needs to continually circle back to and interweave the school’s goals into conversations, reflections, and future planning. As a facilitator, the admin needs to ensure that their staff are up to date on the progress of and lessons learned from other staff in order to keep building on what works and discarding what does not. Hughes and Burke (2014) provide a concrete outline of the school administrators’ roles and responsibilities when introducing and implementing any successful initiative. In the list that follows, the three central roles (i.e., motivator, communicator, facilitator) are indicated in brackets: 1. Develop a shared vision (motivator, communicator, facilitator). 2. Empower others through shared leadership (motivator). 3. Plan for implementation  – deal with school district issues (communicator, facilitator)/. 4. Plan for/provide consistent and adequate funding – how to make it sustainable? (communicator, facilitator). 5. Provide equitable access – finding the right place, how to store to maximize use (facilitator). 6. Develop or hire skilled personnel (motivator, facilitator).

7  Shifting School Culture Through Shared Leadership and Support

111

7. Provide ongoing PD (motivator, communicator, facilitator). 8. Provide tech support (facilitator). 9. Create policies for support (communicator, facilitator). 10. Engage the community (motivator, communicator, facilitator). 11. Scale it up (motivator, communicator, facilitator). These are similar to the standards for education leaders released by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE, n.d.), which include: 1. Equity and citizenship advocate (ensuring students have skilled teachers, access to technology, model digital citizenship and cultivate responsible online behavior). 2. Visionary planner (engage education stakeholders, build on the shared vision, evaluate progress, communicate effectively, share lesson learned). 3. Empowering leader (empower leaders to exercise professional agency, build the confidence and competency of educators, inspire a culture of innovation, support educators in using technology to advance learning, develop learning assessments). 4. Systems designer (lead teams to collaboratively establish robust infrastructure and systems; ensure that resources for supporting the effective use of technology for learning are sufficient and scalable; protect privacy and security; and establish partnerships). 5. Connected learner (set goals, participate regularly, use technology to regularly engage in reflective practices and develop the skills needed to lead and navigate change, advance systems, and promote a mindset of continuous improvement). In terms of adopting not only the role of digital or innovative principal but maker principal specifically, Hughes (2017b) suggests one should promote a culture of creativity and collaboration among teachers; think big, but start small, find strategic places to house the makerspace for maximum visibility and accessibility, and, finally, encourage inquiry-based teacher professional development so that teachers understand the pedagogy associated with the space and tools. Taken together with the previous research, the following are two items principals need to keep in mind when trying to effect change through culture shift and spread: (i) share (co-learn; share leadership responsibilities) and (ii) support (support the culture with reinforcing messages, support continuous teacher professional development and funding, teacher/classroom collaboration, and agency-building through risk-taking).

Research into Practice Our findings below are divided into the two major headings listed above: share and support. Within these major headings, subheadings are provided to elaborate on the various elements involved.

112

J. Hughes and L. Morrison

Share Co-learn: Participation in Initial Maker Professional Development  For the school in the SCCDSB, having their principal attend the initial maker professional development at the start of the project alongside the teachers had a positive impact on the project’s success at this school. The principal explained: When I went to the training, it was myself and one other administrator there, I can’t help but wonder if …having the administrator there at the training moved things along. I can only imagine staff coming back telling me about it – I wouldn’t have had a deep understanding – I would have been following their lead instead of trying to lead with them. (SCCDSB)

The combined leadership at multiple levels – leading both from the middle (teachers) and the top (administrator) – meant that staff returned from the professional development with a cohesive vision for their makerspace and the change they wanted to effect at their school. Having both teachers and administration on the same page also meant that logistics of the initial setup (equipment ordering, reorganization of the learning commons, etc.) went smoothly and that maintenance and use of the space and equipment continued throughout the year. Within less than 4 months, we noticed that teachers not initially involved in the study were using the makerspace and equipment – integrating making and STEAM into their own lessons (Fig. 7.1): As the staff at this school were (and still are) prolific Twitter users, we were able to track how making took hold at the school, both in terms of adopted mindsets and

Fig. 7.1  Teacher Tweeting her students’ learning process in the makerspace

7  Shifting School Culture Through Shared Leadership and Support

113

pedagogies. When questioned at the end of the school year regarding how and why the making was effective in their school and seemingly prolific at the board level, the principal shared: Our board has at least 10 schools moving towards a CLS [collaborative learning space] implementation. It is directly related to our involvement with MoE makerspaces. [Our school] has been involved with the PD sessions as mentors to the other schools for the past 2 years. When we attended your sessions a board office person attended with us. This was always part of the plan to spread our learning to the other schools in the board. The board has been funding this spread through various pockets of money…The spread has been very purposeful and systematic for consistency among the schools in the same board. (SCCDSB)

The combination of a strong vision and goal from the beginning of the initiative, the shared leadership (spread between the teachers, school principal and board-level representative) in the initial professional development session, and the sustained support (through funding and other systematic avenues) ensured strategic scalability. The principal at the DCDSB was another highly involved principal who was instrumental in encouraging spread at this school and at least one other school where she was the part-time principal. She also attended the initial maker professional development, understood the philosophy of the maker movement, and worked hard to facilitate the spread at her school, as a result. She advocated for the shift in teaching and learning even in the face of pushback from parents who were vocal about their skepticism of the new approach. Strong and proactive leadership from the top is important when it comes to new initiatives. Without the authority and conviction to gently push back and respond to outside disapproval, an innovative approach such as this could have easily dissolved under the pressure – in this case of parental backlash. However, with the principal’s and the teachers’ united vision, the maker culture took hold, most obviously in the learning commons and from there stretched into various grades and classrooms. She partially attributed the spread to making the maker culture visible throughout the school. Of this she explained: If you build it they will come. Every teacher walks around the hallway so you walk by a group of kids and you think ‘what are they doing down there?’ I think you’re right because we can kind of get stuck sometimes as educators with things we’re familiar with, and when you see ‘what’s that teacher doing over there with the green-screen,’ and then it kind of pops something in your own brain that says maybe I could try that in my classroom like that. One of the things I have seen is that the teachers end up calling on the students from that classroom to teach, I saw grade 3s working with grade 6s because the grade 6s knew the green-­ screen technology but the teacher didn’t, so she invited peer to peer. I think the learning is coming outside the 4 walls of the classroom now – into our yard, into our front and into hallways, into libraries, lots of different places. I think it’s that idea that you’re opening up the door and the learning is very visible everywhere for lots of people. (DCDSB)

As different teachers and students saw the innovative (and curriculum-connected) activities, work, and ideas associated with making all around the school, they were inspired to try some of their own, and they were open to drawing on the expertise of others (students and teachers, alike) to assist with planning and delivery. This could have only happened in a culture where collaboration and shared leadership were fostered and encouraged. And, once parents witnessed, first-hand, the benefits of

114

J. Hughes and L. Morrison

this approach in terms of learner engagement and achievement, they began to see making as a valid method of teaching and learning, as well. Shared Leadership Responsibilities  With the maker culture well established at the SCCDSB school, they were ready when the time came to have our team of researchers back to help build student leadership capacity. This school was only one of four that opted for the STEAM Teams training (see Chap. 5 for more about STEAM Teams). Their emphasis on leadership and spread made their “making” vision a seamless thread throughout their school. It permeated, and was supported at, all levels – student (bottom), staff (middle), and administration (top). This cohesion started with a strong and involved administrator. The principal from the HPCDSB also saw the value of a shared leadership team in terms of the makerspace. She helped redefine and distribute leadership roles, so that her teachers’ strengths could be leveraged in terms of development, spread, and impact. In one interview she explained: In my role as principal, I’ve been actually taking a shared leadership role. I’ve been allowing my staff who are very good at seeing the vision of our school, how we can incorporate this into our school improvement plan, and making use of the funds that have been so generously afforded to us through this project to say how does this fit what we’re doing, where do we want to see our students go with this? And then together as a team we’ve been working to see what is a good fit for the needs of our school and the planning process of just sitting and allowing them to lead. (HPCDSB)

This approach proved successful in creating a collaborative, agentive, and functioning innovation team. The principal from the KPDSB explained that what she tries to do “… is be supportive and remove the barriers that may be in their [the teachers’] way. Bring our librarian into it so there’s that shared ownership, because there really does need teamwork for it to be successful.” Understanding that innovative change requires buy-in, support and shared leadership from all levels made the spread of the maker culture (pedagogies and tools) effective throughout the project and at these schools, in particular.

Support Reinforcing Messages of Support  We can attribute at least some of the spread of the maker culture and pedagogies at the SCCDSB school to their principal’s visible support of the makerspace and its learning culture on Twitter. Below, Fig. 7.2 exemplifies the messages shared about making and the maker mindset: This principal chose to re-Tweet messages about resilience from the group, Ontario Special Needs. When interviewed about these, she explained that she wanted to get the message out to the school staff, parents, and students that resilience is something positive and necessary in the learning process, maker

7  Shifting School Culture Through Shared Leadership and Support

115

pedagogies, and in life in general. In this way, she used social media to reinforce messages and ideologies associated with the innovative change. At the LDSB school, the teachers explained that their principal’s visible work ethic and commitment to the project were encouraging and a motivating factor in terms of their own commitment. One teacher shared, “When I’m in here on weekends [preparing] I can usually find her in here as well.” In this case, leading by example assisted with teacher morale and investment in the school-wide change. Having the principal physically present and actively engaged in the maker initiatives strengthened the sense of community around it and support for it, and it also lent a degree of legitimacy to the movement in having the principal lead by example. Continuous Professional Development and Funding  At the DCDSB school, the principal was so passionate about the shift that the maker culture spread to another small school in a nearby town, where she was also the principal. Teachers from the second school have since participated in professional development with a focus on maker culture. Both of these schools in DCDSB have now added to their initial purchases by applying for additional funding, and both schools recently obtained a 3D printer through a General Electric grant. Support through continuous professional development and funding is key to keep the momentum of the culture going and for encouraging spread. This was also seen in LDSB. Of their continuous professional development, one teacher explained: “And, we do other – like, we’ve done tech breakfasts. We did a tech tea one time. We’re trying to do other little things to get staff – you know, a few at a time to come in and to learn. They are eager.” At one of the French schools in the study, the principal explained that they did something similar to encourage informal and integrated professional development. During coffee breaks they would set up the green-screen to encourage teachers play with the technology. This

Fig. 7.2  Re-Tweets from the principal on the importance of resilience in learning

116

J. Hughes and L. Morrison

provided a low-stress and low-barrier entry point for engagement, and it helped teachers build familiarity and a level of comfort with the technology. In GECDSB, the teacher-librarian explained how her principal was pivotal in developing opportunities for maker professional development for the rest of the staff: There weren’t collaboration periods built into the learning commons per say. But I’m also the math lead so I have four math mobilization periods a week. Theresa recognized the interest from staff and so she allocated those four periods for a block of time – actually five weeks to engage in the long term makerspace project with four different teachers and actually it ended up being 5 different teachers. They came in during that time and collaborated and we went from a place of curriculum. There were 5 teachers that were involved in a 5 week project you could call it and I think that had a big impact as well because we’re doing it again after March Break. And I put it out there – we’d like to do this and the spots filled up. Actually, we have double teachers for each so they’re bringing two classes in because we have a big space and it filled up immediately. (GECDSB)

The principal recognized and quickly responded to the teachers’ desire to learn, the need for PD, and the teacher-librarian’s strategic position in the library and as the math lead to facilitate this PD. This responsive style of leadership is key for spread, especially in terms of professional development. If the teachers are ready and willing to learn and the opportunity is recognized and attended to, then the PD will be most effective. As opportunities for PD arise, principals need to anticipate the need and be ready to respond. Teacher/Cross-Classroom Collaboration  Many of the teachers and administrators talked about the value they found in having opportunities to collaborate in order to scale up at their schools. In the LDSB, one teacher shared: Because our space is large we can have more than one classroom so teachers are willing to collaborate with other teachers and learn alongside. So, we’ll have a champion teacher or a champion classroom and they can invite another classroom in to co-facilitate something. So, our grade 2s are going to be teaching our grades 5/6s how to use the Ozobots and the Spheros for math. So, I think that’s kind of cool. (LDSB)

In this shared leadership model, cross-classroom collaboration was used to scale up the maker initiative at the school. This proved effective as teachers and their classrooms took their turns to “champion” the learning of a new tool. Importantly, the school did not default to a “top-down” approach where older grades were only assisting younger grades but instead ensured that collaboration was multidirectional. Younger students taught older students, students taught their teachers, and teachers taught their peers. By leveraging all the various sources of experience, knowledge, and information, there was a fluid uptake of the maker tools and pedagogies throughout the school. Similarly, in the Lakehead DSB one teacher shared: My class is going cooking next week to another school after that we’re going to start actually bringing little guys in and teaching them, the grade ones, two, threes and fours. Instead of doing reading buddies we’re going to be having Tech buddies or something else, I haven’t thought of a creative name for it yet. So my students are going to be showing those students how to use the tech because the idea with that is to have them start coding in JK and SK, and move all the way up.

7  Shifting School Culture Through Shared Leadership and Support

117

Having opportunities to collaborate across classrooms and grade encouraged spread throughout the schools. For teachers, collaborative planning time was important as this allowed for rich discussion, technical and emotional support, knowledge, and idea sharing and the creation of a positive and innovative learning culture. Additionally, at the RDSB school, the principal understood the importance of having a lead individual to oversee maintenance of the technology, the development of innovative lessons and activities, and teacher collaboration and planning time. He actually reorganized teaching positions and the school timetable in order to create this type of position. As a result, a former grade eight teacher became the twenty-first century lead at the school, which meant half his day was spent in the classroom and the other half was spent in the new role. The principal explained: “One of my teachers…he teaches grade 8 and I have him doing grade 8 half time and I have him as a 21st C teacher for the second half of the day.” Regarding the uptake from teachers at the school, the teacher explained: “It goes in little spurts. I’ll end up being in somebody’s room for three or four days in a row and then I might have a few days where I don’t. It’s more the drop-ins that I get. I get a lot of emails I get from teachers – ‘how do I do this?’ or ‘how do you get this app on the iPad?’.” So, a large portion of this position involved co-planning maker activities and lessons with other teachers, and, to further encourage teachers to integrate the new technologies, he was made available to the staff for “just-in-time” technical support. None of the teachers in the project worked alone. The collaboration created a network of support for them to explore the maker approach to teaching and learning and the maker tools and to develop rich learning activities, lessons, and units for their students. Agency-Building and Risk-Taking  Building the confidence and agency of the teachers in a school community is important for teacher buy-in and participation. In SCCDSB, the principal saw in her teachers what some of them did not see for themselves at first, which encouraged them to take risks and it built confidence and agency. One teacher explained: “At the beginning I was very nervous about being the person chosen and I brought those up, ‘I’m one of the oldest are you sure you’ve chosen the right person’ and I’m so happy now she chose me. I think she saw something in me willing to try new things, so.” In order for this teacher to fully engage with the new initiative, it was important for the principal to first help the teacher recognize, build, and capitalize on her strengths (in this case – an open-mindedness and willingness to take risks). For the teachers in LDSB, feeling the trust of their principal and the confidence she had in them as experts and professionals was one of the strongest motivating factors. One teacher shared, “She gives us free range…she’s a force. She’s so positive and she gets things done and she’s just so incredible. She’s the best advocate that we could have hoped for.” The principal’s recognition of the teachers’ professional abilities and judgments communicated trust, sparking agency, and ultimately action. Furthermore, the principal has set the stage in creating a failure-positive culture in their school, which has encouraged teachers and students alike to adopt

118

J. Hughes and L. Morrison

the maker mindset and the inquiry-based approach to learning. One teacher shared of the positive impact of feeling the “Explicit permission to try and to fail.” She explained, “…that’s part of the process, that’s part of the inquiry process … having challenges, going back, starting again, redesign, you know, and I feel that. I feel that and not just from [the principal] but from other people…” So, the successful spread of the failure-positive mindset has created a school-wide shift in the learning culture. This teacher also appreciated the acknowledgement from administration that: … there is a gap, there is a lag when we implement new educational strategies, that they’re – it’s going to be challenging and it’s going to be difficult and it’s not going to be all successful, right away. Especially if it’s a different approach for students [and] they need time to readjust to the different expectations or…permission to act or question or be in a different way in the space or in the learning. (LDSB)

The culture this school was able to establish because of the tone set by the principal has helped teachers make the necessary pedagogical shift. It has given the teachers and their students permission to fail because the message has been that it is both expected and encouraged  – a necessary part of learning. It has helped motivate, empower, and support the teachers and their work. Other teachers shared that the freedom their principals afforded them to be creative and to take risks in their planning and lessons was both appreciated and necessary – it encouraged them to move outside their comfort zones and to experiment with the new tools and pedagogies. Of this, one teacher explained: “I find that this year has been a lot of learning for me, and I find that like when I first went down for the training I was like, ‘oh my gosh I don’t know what I can do, I’m not sure if you picked the right person’, but I picked one thing and tried to get good at it…” And this teacher did. She went to explain how her class repeatedly experimented with the green-screen technology, the process of trial and error and the learning that occurred: We became the classroom for the green screen and we started off and I did a lot of research on it and I didn’t understand how it would work, and some of the kids were very interested in it, they had never had any exposure to it at all. The first one we did was a Mary did you know, we were doing a mass for December and we put up green table cloths from the dollar store, and the first one wasn’t dark enough, second was too dark, and then we found that we were on top of Mary and they were singing to Mary and so they were on top of her and we were on top of Jesus and so we did 12 takes of it and every time we looked at it the kids were laughing and I’m like ‘I don’t know how to change this’ so we kept changing the picture, then the background. It was a huge learning experience and we worked together as a class. It was a big group but we took everybody’s ideas and we talked about how it would look if we were looking at Mary, how it was more realistic she was even there. It was a huge learning curve and I thought after Christmas I wanted to put the iPad into their hands, so we made Valentine’s cards to their parents. They loved the idea. Some of them loved Carey Price so they made a picture of them hugging him and some of them weren’t interacting with the pictures it was just straight, but once they saw the other ones that was our next step. They had to interact being part of the background, some of them chose basketballs and courts, and they noticed they could do layers on the green screen. It’s come a long way so when I thought the last little bit we’ve done we moved into PSAs and we looked at endangered species in Ontario, and I wanted to see if they could use the green screen as a backdrop for their print ad, and we’re also going to do it as a commercial and compare the effectiveness so we have a teacher coming in right now that’s looking at some research and she said I can’t get over how engaged your kids are. (SCCDSB)

7  Shifting School Culture Through Shared Leadership and Support

119

Without the sanctioned permission to experiment, certain teachers may not have stepped beyond their normal teaching repertoire. The support of the principals facilitated the emergence of key items like shared leadership, teacher agency-building, continued professional development (PD), and more. And these in turn laid the foundation for the effective and seamless spread of the maker pedagogies and tools – both throughout the schools and, in some cases, the boards.

References Alanezi, A. (2016). The relationship between shared leadership and administrative creativity in Kuwaiti schools. Management in Education, 30(2), 50–56. Baran, M. L., & Van Harpen, G. (2019). Creating a culture for learning in a high-need inner-city USA school: The unique leadership challenges. In E.  T. Murakami, D.  Gurr, & R.  Notman (Eds.), Educational leadership, culture, and success in high-need schools (pp.  103–128). Information Age Publishing, Inc. Carpenter, D. (2015). School culture and leadership of professional learning communities. International Journal of Educational Management, 29(5), 682–694. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJEM-­04-­2014-­0046 Fullan, M. (2016). Amplify change with professional capital. The Learning Professional, 37(1), 44–56. Gregory, J. L. (2017). Trust relationships in schools: Supporting or subverting implementation of school-wide initiatives. School Leadership & Management, 37(1), 141–161. Hughes, J. (2017a). Digital making with “at-risk” youth. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 34(2), 102–113. Hughes, J. (2017b). Makerspaces in Ontario schools. OPC Register (Invited Contribution). Hughes, J., & Burke, A. (2014). The digital principal: How to encourage a technology-rich learning environment. Pembroke Publishers. ISTE. (n.d.). ISTE standards for education leaders. https://www.iste.org/standards/ for-­education-­leaders Ontario Ministry of Education. (2016). 21st century competencies. http://www.edugains.ca/ resources21CL/About21stCentury/21CL_21stCenturyCompetencies.pdf Serdyukov, P. (2017). Innovation in education: What works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it? Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 10(1), 4–33. Shafer, L. (2018, July 23). What makes a good school culture? Usable Knowledge. https://www. gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/18/07/what-­makes-­good-­school-­culture The Center on School Turnaround. (2018). Shifting school culture to spark rapid improvement: A quick start guide for principals and their teams. WestEd. Zahed-Babelan, A., Koulaei, G., Moeinikia, M., & Rezaei Sharif, A. (2019). Instructional leadership effects on teachers’ work engagement: Roles of school culture, empowerment, and job characteristics. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 9(3), 137–156. https://doi. org/10.26529/cepsj.181 Zhu, C. (2015). Organisational culture and technology-enhanced innovation in higher education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(1), 65–79.

Chapter 8

Continuing Professional Development for Teacher-Makers Janette Hughes and Laura Morrison

This chapter focuses on the professional development of 60 teachers over a 2-year period, as they were introduced to new concepts, pedagogies, tools, and technologies related to designing, developing, implementing, and evaluating a maker approach to teaching and learning. We provide a brief overview of the professional learning landscape in Canada and some context related to promising practices for teacher professional development in general. We follow with a description of the professional learning sessions provided to participants in the study and outline the specific challenges and opportunities the teachers experienced in their journeys as maker educators. It is often said that teachers are lifelong learners. In a profession that is profoundly and directly impacted by the growth and change that is constantly occurring in our society, it is critical that educators remain at the forefront of sound pedagogical approaches to teaching. Education is constantly adapting and growing so that the skills that students develop in the classroom can meet the demands of the current job market, beyond the classroom. It is therefore critical that teacher professional development (PD) is designed and implemented in a way that supports teachers in their quest for educating students. In an attempt to understand the professional learning landscape in Canada, Campbell et al. (2016) examined the various ways that PD is conducted in the ten provinces and three territories across Canada. Their study aimed to research, understand, and profile the various ways that educational bodies conduct PD (Campbell et al., 2016). In Canada, education is provincially/territorially funded and overseen, which means that education curriculum, policy, and objectives differ across Canada (Campbell et al., 2016). Because of this, the focus for PD in each province or territory differs. In New Brunswick, there is a focus on instructional methods to support J. Hughes (*) · L. Morrison Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Hughes (ed.), Making, Makers, Makerspaces, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09819-2_8

121

122

J. Hughes and L. Morrison

diverse learning needs (Campbell et al., 2016), whereas Alberta has more of a focus on creating inclusive environments, cross-curricular education, differentiated instruction, and developing new teaching strategies (Campbell et  al., 2016). In Ontario, the recent priority of teacher professional development is equity and poverty education, as well as assessment and mathematics instruction. Pan-Canada, there is a focus on professional development that centers around the support of curriculum implementation and opportunities related to technology (Campbell et al., 2016). These findings from Campbell et  al. (2016) are critical for understanding the individual pieces that come together to create the mosaic that is the Canadian education system. These pieces include the goals of education, how education is perceived in the social context, how students are learning, and the way that teachers are receiving PD in each province or territory. A critical understanding from this research, as it pertains to our research, is that each province and territory in Canada has a different focus for teacher professional development, which depends largely on the political, economic, and social standings of that province or territory (Campbell et al., 2016). To understand best practices for PD in Canada, it is imperative to understand the rationale behind the intended outcomes of the PD. The report from Campbell et al. (2016) states that “There are differences in details between and within provinces and territories, between and among different professional groups, across locations and contexts, and for individual educators’ needs and their students’ needs” (p. 15). For example, as mentioned above, in Ontario in 2016, there was an identified need for PD that supports teachers in educating students in mathematics concepts (Campbell et al., 2016). To address this need, the Ontario Ministry of Education provided the Ontario Teachers Federation (OTF, the governing body for teachers in Ontario), subsidies for teachers to complete Additional Basic Qualification (ABQ) courses in mathematics (Campbell et al., 2017). Although mathematics continues to be a priority for PD in Ontario, there has been a large push for teacher PD centered around technology, due to the need for technology-based skills that are required by employees in today’s workforce (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2016). Technology-based curriculum is currently being offered in Ontario for grades 9–12, through six different foci: Healthcare, Hairstyling and Aesthetics, Green Industries, Construction Technology, Computer Technology, and Communications Technology. Embedded within these technology courses, there is a wide range of technical skills that students can gain: (1) masonry and plumbing, (2) robotics and control systems, and (3) print and graphic communications. However, these courses are only offered in the secondary school education panel. In Ontario elementary education, technology is offered through the Science and Technology curriculum, which was last refreshed in 2007. However, as Ketut Sudarsana et al. (2019) point out, “education is a dynamic activity, following the pace of changing times and cultural dynamics” (p. 1). The need for curriculum that aligns with the social contexts is critical – especially with the impact that rapidly changing technologies are having on society. “Technology” has become such a broad term, defined in the current Ontario curriculum as “involv[ing] the development and use of materials, tools, and processes

8  Continuing Professional Development for Teacher-Makers

123

for solving human problems and helping to satisfy human needs and desires. Many of the products of technology help humans accomplish tasks that would otherwise be very difficult or impossible to carry out” (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 4), and although that still holds true, the kinds of technology that have arisen over the past decade are not adequately reflected in the 2007 document (i.e., artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things as two important examples). The skills and knowledge necessary to understand, create, and consume with technology are different from those that were needed in 2007. In order to implement technology in the classroom in an effective manner, it is important for teachers to connect the technology to an array of curricula. From our research, one of the greatest challenges of teaching is that teachers do not have enough time to teach all of the curriculum in one school year. With this in mind, teaching what could be considered an “extra” subject becomes overwhelming, which means that technology is glossed over or is simply used as a tool substitute, such as a word processor being used to type an assignment instead of writing it. Integration of technology into required subject areas is one way that teachers can create learning opportunities for students to learn new skills and experience technology, while also not having to stress about the time it takes to fulfil all the required curriculum expectations. To reach this point, however, teachers need to have a shift in their pedagogy. Fullan and Langworthy (2014) outlined the ways that teachers across seven countries are utilizing technology in their classrooms, which they then broke down into “basic uses of technology” and “high-level uses of technology.” They note that most of students’ time is spent on information consumption and basic uses of technology, such as writing and editing stories or essays, taking tests, practicing routine skills and procedures, and searching for information on the Internet. Very little of their time online is actually spent on knowledge creation tasks, such as developing simulations/animations (3%), using simulations/animations (5%), creating multimedia presentations (6%), or collaborating with others (14%). When it comes to the use of technology in the classroom being used effectively, it is critical that students are gaining new skills and knowledge from the implementation of technology  – skills and knowledge that they otherwise would not have gained. It is more than just having students type an assignment instead of writing it on lined paper. With this being said, it requires that teachers spend time learning the various technologies that are available to them and determining which technologies are the most effective in transforming their classrooms into a twenty-first-century classroom. The need for PD in this area becomes critical for the successful implementation of a redefined pedagogy. Currently, the PD that is offered is very narrowly focused on teaching educators how to use technologies at a general level (Hardy, 2012; Liao et al., 2017), but the support with curriculum connections and best practices is often lacking (Liao et al., 2017). PD sessions on topics such as using apps to enhance Physical Education and learning LEGO robotics are great starting points for teachers to gain the confidence and base knowledge about the functionalities of various technologies; however, until teachers are able to create lessons that are curriculum-driven and grounded in

124

J. Hughes and L. Morrison

good pedagogy, they remain in that “basic uses of technology” (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014) bracket of the model shown above. To get to the “high-level uses of technology” (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014) bracket, where deep thinking and innovation occur, teachers need support and guidance to help make a shift in their pedagogies. In an effort to create learning opportunities for teachers, the Ontario government mandates that teachers receive three paid PD days that focus on the concepts that have been deemed priorities. On January 7, 2019, the Ontario Ministry of Education released Policy/Program Memorandum No. 15, which outlines the foci for the three provincially mandated PD days. This memorandum outlined that the first PD day needs to be dedicated to mathematics, the second PD day must be focused on the topics that the various teaching federations have deemed necessary, and the third PD day could be focused on one of the approved topics (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2019). The mandate of the government is visible through the foci PD days. Campbell et  al. (2016) found that it is important that system- and school-directed PD is in place, because it allows for overall visions to be considered; however, “such development also needs to be balanced with flexibility for teachers and other educators to identify specific professional learning needs for themselves linked to their students, schools, and contexts” (p.  7). The choice given by the government for the third mandated PD day gives teachers options to pursue interest in their own professional learning. One of the choices given to teachers for the third PD day is science, technology, education, and mathematics (STEM) education, which is an aspect of education that the Ontario Ministry of Education has committed to supporting, according to the Deputy Minister, Nancy Naylor (memorandum, March 15, 2019). STEM education is a topic that has been a focus in education since the early 2000s (Clapp & Jimenez, 2016; Montgomery & Fernandez-Cardenas, 2018). It is the integration of the various concepts that the name incorporates – science, technology, engineering, and technology. One pedagogical approach that has recently gained traction in connection with STEM education is “maker” pedagogy. Maker pedagogies are collaborative and promote such skills and competencies as critical thinking and problem-solving, collaboration, communication, global citizenship, self-awareness and metacognition, entrepreneurship, innovation, and creativity (Hughes, 2017). These are some of the skills that have been recognized as critical for success in the twenty-first-century workforce (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2016). Although STEM education incorporates some vital subjects, the arts are not represented in the STEM model, and in the real world, the arts are represented everywhere. Whether an architect is creating a landscape that is aesthetically pleasing, an engineer is creating the newest model of a vehicle, or a poet is synthesizing words to create a piece that entices creativity and imagery, the arts are relevant. Creativity is often associated with the humanities and arts; however, it is deeply ingrained in other subject areas as well (Upitis, 2014). Upitis (2014) states that creativity is “a driver for innovation of all kinds” (p. 4), and innovation is critical for the development of society (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2013; Upitis, 2014). For this reason, many school districts are making the shift to incorporate the A in STEM, to include the

8  Continuing Professional Development for Teacher-Makers

125

arts – language arts, visual arts, media arts, performing arts, and applied arts. The research that was conducted in this project reflected STEAM education. Very little is currently known about STEAM education and the best practices for PD in the redefinition of teacher pedagogies to promote global competencies through this approach. To address this gap in knowledge, our research considered current best practices for PD, in conjunction with what is known about STEM education. The aim of our research was to answer the following questions, through the lens of STEAM education: 1. Teachers have ideas for personal growth; school districts have other ideas – how do these converge? 2. Teachers have already developed their personal pedagogical approaches, which means that new pedagogical approaches may mean the abandonment of prior approaches (Kennedy, 2014)  – how can we offer PD in a way that it will be taken up?

Professional Development in Education PD is an aspect of education that has a great deal of variability, from the way that it is delivered (i.e., virtual vs. in person, collaborative vs. individual, etc.) and the depth of knowledge that is presented (i.e., a general overview of a concept or a specific and detailed look at a specific idea), to the balance of practical vs. theoretical approaches that are introduced. To determine the importance of each variable, currently available research was considered. Fazio and Gallagher (2018) explored the use of design-based learning (DBL) as an approach to constructing PD for educational professionals in science and literacy. The methodology used in this study involved university researchers collaborating with elementary teachers, to assist with the refinement of their science and literacy pedagogies as well as developing their professional learning within their schools (Fazio & Gallagher, 2018). Through the triangulation of their data on this DBL PD, Fazio and Gallagher (2018) determined that collaboration during PD had value, participants developed new knowledge for the integration of science and literacy, and participants were anxious about using digital technologies to support their PD. Similar to the findings of Fazio and Gallagher (2018) are the results of a number of studies that support the claim that collaboration during PD yields greater success (Zech et  al., 2000; Timperley et  al., 2007). Beyond the need for collaboration, Lofthouse and Thomas (2017) determined the degree to which an experience can be considered truly collaborative. Lofthouse and Thomas (2017) investigated whether participants were working together or just alongside one another, in addition to the extent that they worked toward a common goal, pooled knowledge and problem solved. Collaboration goes beyond working with one another, and this is important in the school context, because in addition to the individual PD, there is a

126

J. Hughes and L. Morrison

development of the social constructs of the school (Lofthouse and Thomas, 2017). McArdle and Coutts (2010) state that collaboration can create circumstances that support engagement, action, reflection, and sense-making – all of which are productive in changing the behaviors and cognition of teachers. Campbell et  al. (2016) reiterate the importance of collaboration in professional development, stating “It is important that teachers have opportunities to collaborate with peers and engage in teacher-led workshops and also have access to opportunities to engage in and with external expertise and sources of professional development” (p. 8). Also outlined in this finding is the need for “external expertise” (Campbell et al., 2016, p. 8) – something that was provided in the professional development that was delivered through this project (Fig. 8.1). In addition to the need for collaboration, Kennedy’s (2005) research on collaborative continuing professional development (CPD) creates a basis for developing the constructs for PD. Collaborative CPD encompasses activities such as working together in informal, unplanned ways, to structured collaboration, through activities such as communities of inquiry or learning communities (Kennedy, 2005). Below, Fig. 8.2 shows the progression of CPDs, from transmissive, to malleable, and ending with transformative. As indicated on the table, moving down the rows results in greater teacher agency – another aspect of PD that will be explored later. The various approaches to PD that are outlined in the table, although different, utilize the continued PD model. Kennedy points out that “What all forms of collaborative CPD have in common is the value placed on the learning stimulated by working with others” (2005, p. 26). Cordingley et al.’s (2005) systemic literature review coincides with the need for collaborative PD that is sustained over time. However, Cordingley et al. (2005) also outline that in this collaborative CPD, the group size needs to be

Fig. 8.1  Progression of continuing professional development as depicted in Kennedy (2005): Models of Continuing Professional Development: A Framework for Analysis, Journal of In-Service Education. Table reprinted with permission of the publisher, Taylor & Francis Ltd. (http://www. tandfonline.com)

8  Continuing Professional Development for Teacher-Makers

127

Fig. 8.2  Educators gathered for the launch of the Maker project Table 8.1  Science 3D schedule: year 1, day 1 Time Team A1 9:00 am–10:00 am Opening remarks 10:00 am–11:00 am Programmable robots 11:00 am–12:00 pm Series/parallel circuits 12:00 pm–1:00 pm Lunch break 1:00 pm–2:00 pm Virtual/augmented reality 2:00 pm–3:00 pm Green screen 3:00 pm–4:00 pm 4:00 pm–4:15 pm

Team A2

Team B1

Team B2

Series/parallel circuits Programmable robots

E-textiles

3D Printing/ Tinkercad E-textiles

Green screen

3D printing/ Tinkercad

LEGO Mindstorms Virtual/augmented MaKey MaKey/ reality Scratch Collaborative sharing Closing remarks

MaKey MaKey/ Scratch LEGO Mindstorms

considered. Because of the social and individual implications of the collaborative PD, the personal interests and classroom contexts for individuals can muddle the focus of the PD (Kennedy, 2005). The ideal size for collaborative CPD ranges from pairs to small groups (Cordingley et al., 2005) (Table 8.1). As previously mentioned, another aspect of PD that has been explored in academic literature is teacher agency. Teacher agency is the motivational drive that pushes teachers to become active agents in their own PD (Wallen & Tormey, 2019; Tao & Gao, 2017; Liao et  al., 2017). Outlined in Table  8.2, Kennedy (2005)­ indicates that teacher agency increases as the model progresses from transmissive models of PD to transformative models of PD. The most effective model for professional development depends on the goal(s) of the PD (King, 2016). Transmissive

128

J. Hughes and L. Morrison

Table 8.2  Science 3D schedule: year 1, day 2 Time 9:00 am–9:30 am 9:30 am–10:00 am 10:00 am–12:00 pm 12:00 pm–1:00 pm 1:00 pm–2:00 pm 2:00 pm–4:00 pm

Session Dr. Janette Hughes, “Critical Literacies” Stephanie Thompson, “Assessment of Makerspace Activities” Gabrielle Solti, “Integrated Science and Arts” Lunch Break TeachOntario Collaborative Planning

models cover the PD approaches that involve the simple transmission of knowledge and skills to participants (King, 2016). Transformative models, however, encourage participants to work collaboratively and construct their own understandings in order to change their practices (King, 2016). PD focused on teacher agency does not coincide with the passive, top-down approach that has teachers acting as “pawns in the reform process” (Lasky, 2005, p.  900). This understanding is critical when constructing and implementing teacher PD with the goal of deep learning, which is essential for sustainable change in schools (Bolam et al., 2005). With all these factors to consider, it was important that the PD that was planned in this project had a sound theoretical background and provided an opportunity for educators to really learn and develop their skills in ways that supported and informed their current pedagogical approaches but also met the goals of the research objectives.

Professional Learning Sessions Design While planning the research project, theory informed practical application, to ensure research objectives were met through sound theoretical approaches. The PD was planned at the intersection of maker pedagogies (inquiry- and passion-based learning) and technology infusion. Throughout the PD, teachers were introduced to these theories and pedagogical approaches, in addition to hands-on activities, facilitated by members of the research team, who each had a minimum of 4 years of experience with infusing technology through a maker approach. Three teachers were chosen from each of the twenty schools that participated in the research project. These participants taught subjects that ranged from kindergarten to grade eight. These individuals were chosen by administration for a variety of reasons. It was decided that participants would be part of a “school team” because of the research that supports the need for collaborative professional development. The breakdown of the professional development, over the 3 years, is as follows:

8  Continuing Professional Development for Teacher-Makers

129

Makerspace Project: Year 1 Launch Day one of the PD was focused on introducing participants to the concept of maker pedagogies and the development of maker culture, including inquiry-based learning and design thinking. Following that, participants were given time to learn and explore a number of different technologies. Day two of the PD focused on critical literacies and integrating subjects (the A in STEAM), assessment in the makerspace, and collaboration. Participants were again given information about the theoretical approach to community focused makerspaces but then had time to get their hands on the technology and engage in inquiry-­ based learning. The schedule that was followed is shown below: January–June: School Visits  Once Makerspaces had begun to be established, researchers visited all 11 schools to provide co-created and specific PD for the teachers at the school. PD was catered to the needs and wants of each teacher at the school. In addition to PD visits, researchers attended Maker Faires that were held by each of the schools to observe the application of knowledge and pedagogy learned at the PD.

Makerspace Project Year 2 Launch Year 2 Launch, Day 1  During the September launch of the second year of the project, educators from the new cohort of nine schools were welcomed to the STEAM 3D Makerlab at Ontario Tech University. During this day, they were exposed to various technologies, outlined in the following schedule (Table 8.3): Year 2 Launch, Day 2  Following the first day of PD with the new schools, the first year schools were invited back to the STEAM 3D Makerlab, to present to the new participants about their experiences. Following presentations, the school groups from all 20 schools were placed into groups which are determined by district location (with the exception of French-speaking schools; they were placed in a group together). In these groups, the participants collaboratively discussed various challenges, concerns, benefits, and other aspects of makerspaces. In addition to collaborative time, groups learned about emerging robotics technologies that could be implemented in their makerspaces. The schedule for the day is shown below in Table 8.4. October–June: School Visits  The next 9  months following the second-year launch, researchers visited each of the 20 schools that participated in the project. During the visit, again, PD was provided for the teachers, based on their specific needs and wants for their makerspace. New technologies and approaches to the maker pedagogy were introduced to the teachers.

9:00 am 9:30 am 10:00 am 10:30 am 11:00 am 11:30 am 12:00 pm 12:30 pm 1:00 pm 1:30 pm 2:00 pm 2:30 pm 3:00 pm 3:30 pm 4:00 pm Session 3: 3D printing (STEAM-3D Lab – Lauren and Laura M.)

Session 4: MaKey MaKey and Scratch (Room 313 – Tamia, Maya and Laura D.)

Finances (student lounge – Simonette) Assessment (student lounge – Stephanie) Closing remarks (student lounge – Janette)

Session 4: MaKey MaKey and Scratch (Room 313 – Tamia, Maya and Laura D.)

Session 1: VR/AR (Room 313 – Mel and Maya)

Session 2: Circuits, E-textiles, MakeDo (STEAM-3D Lab – Laura M., Laura D. and Tamia)

Group 6 Group 7 Group 8 Group 9 Group 10

Session 3: 3D printing (STEAM-3D Lab – Lauren and Laura M.)

Lunch break (student lounge)

Session 2: Circuits, E-textiles, MakeDo (STEAM-3D Lab – Laura M., Laura D. and Tamia)

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Introduction to the project (student lounge – Janette) Introduction to the day’s schedule + transition to rooms Session 1: VR/AR (Room 313 – Mel and Maya)

Table 8.3  Science 3D schedule: year 2, day 1

130 J. Hughes and L. Morrison

9:00 am 9:30 am 10:00 am 10:30 am 11:00 am 11:30 am 12:00 pm 12:30 pm 1:00 pm 1:30 pm 2:00 pm 2:30 pm 3:00 pm 3:30 pm 4:00 pm

Closing remarks (student lounge)

Debrief/consolidation: The importance of PLNs (student lounge)

Robot stations: LEGO Mindstorms, M-bots, Cubelets, LEGO boost, JIMU, Misc. programmable robots (STEAM-3D lab/student lounge/room 311/room 312)

Four district-group meetings (year 1 + year 2 schools collaboration) (STEAM-3D lab/student lounge/room 311/room 312)

Lunch break (student lounge)

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6 Group 7 Group 8 Group 9 Group 10 Day 1 recap + introduction to day’s schedule (student lounge) Presentations by 11 year 2 schools (student lounge)

Table 8.4  Science 3D schedule: year 2, day 2

8  Continuing Professional Development for Teacher-Makers 131

132

J. Hughes and L. Morrison

January–May: Regional PD at Ontario Tech University  Following the catered, specific PD that researchers provided in each school, the schools were invited back to Oshawa. The schools were divided into five groups, most based on their location – Southern Region, Northern Region, Eastern Region, and Western Region, in addition to the French-speaking schools, which we grouped together. This PD was centered around the “A” in STEAM, through the implementation of literacy and coding. Participants were taken through a series of activities centered around the books Anno’s Seeds by Mitsumasa Anno and Weslandia by Paul Fleischman. Participants were challenged with using these books, as inspiration for creating critical making lesson plans. After the hands-on, practical aspects of the study, researchers triangulated the data. While considering interviews, observations, physical artifacts, digital artifacts, and survey responses, researchers considered the following questions (among others), with regard to the context for why each individual took place in the PD: 1 . Did these teachers choose to be involved in the PD? 2. Were they volunteers or voluntold by the principal? 3. Were they motivated to learn and to change their practice? 4. How do we know that practice shifted except that they tell us so? 5. Are the shifts enduring changes or temporary compliance? 6. How much of what was observed in the classroom was “staged”? How much of it was authentic making? 7. Were teacher participants actively engaged intellectually? Or was it just a day off school? 8. What elements contributed to the engagement? Food? Collaboration? Time to apply understanding? Other?

 romising Practices for Successful Makerspace Adoption P and Effective Implementation When making a shift to maker pedagogies, we identified some promising practices for its successful adoption and effective implementation in the classroom. First, teachers found they needed time to play with the maker tools – to learn about them and generally how they work. While it is not necessary to be an expert in a technology before using it in the classroom, having a basic idea of what the tool is and how to begin using it emerged as a positive factor when it came to best practice. One school shared the way in which they used an inquiry approach to start learning the tools themselves, “…we literally took a half day and unpacked the goodies, and we just got in there to see what they do. The first instinct as teachers is to teach ourselves first, but we weren’t going to do that. We just got in there and figured it out, we would have to Google things and maybe that person’s an expert that person knows what to do.” Other schools took a slightly different approach as is reflected

8  Continuing Professional Development for Teacher-Makers

133

in the following anecdote: “Some teachers [didn’t] understand it, so we let the three [selected] teachers try it out first and they kept coming back and they started to share and see the excitement from the students.” These teachers jumped in and began exploring the tools alongside their students. The teachers who were less comfortable with this were then able to see how effective and engaging the strategy can be, which ultimately led to adoption, the development of new skills and competencies, and “scaling up” at the school level. Professional development was a large factor for the schools when it came to adopting the maker tools and pedagogies. Many teachers commented on the value they saw in attending the professional development session at UOIT at the beginning of the project: The days that we spent in Oshawa at the camp we really enjoyed. We got to see a lot of different technologies that we had not delved into at all at our school. The presenters, who I believe were a lot of faculty of education students, were really well prepared and very confident in the technologies they presented to us and really made us want to get on board. When they were presenting we could really see our students enjoying the technologies presented to us. (SCCDSB)

It became apparent very quickly, that teachers felt the need to see a makerspace in action, in order to comprehend how a space like that might be incorporated into the traditional school setting. One teacher mentioned that: I think coming to [the Ontario Tech] Maker Lab was a great way for us to very concretely see how this could be implemented in the school, so I really enjoyed those days. When we came back to the school, it was easy for us, we kind of just piggybacked right on to those experiences, and then extended from there. (DCDSB)

Another teacher explained that, “Having that time on the Friday afternoon to create that list [of equipment to be purchased] I would say was very valuable before we left Oshawa, because then as you said everything was very fresh in our heads.” Focusing not only on the maker pedagogies and habits of mind associated with these tools in the PD sessions but also concrete ideas of tools the teachers should order for their specific contexts was beneficial. We learned from the first year of teacher professional development that the initial supplies ordering was a lengthy process due to red tape, settling on what tech to order and the delivery process. One teacher explained the frustration, stating that: I guess part of the frustrating part was coming back and it took us so long to be able to get some purchases happening in terms of searching out I think it would have been a little more successful if we, I know you’re looking at giving kits out to the next group and they can go and the excitement is still alive and getting it going, because we kind of lulled there for a little bit but now that we’re up and running. (HPCDSB)

In response to this feedback, for the second year, we organized small backpacks for each school filled with at least one or two of the tools covered at most of the making sessions. One teacher shared his appreciation of this and how it assisted their school in getting started right away: That bag was genius, genius idea cause you were saying last year you didn’t have that bag I mean and how can you come out of a conference and get like thrown 30 grand but no tools

134

J. Hughes and L. Morrison

yet and how can you like just build off that. I can’t do that 4 months after I went to Oshawa. If I can have it right away I can just build through that and then when I – the stuff gets in well there you go let’s just open it to the classroom. So that bag was a genius idea. (CEPEO)

A teacher at a different school echoed similar sentiment, explaining: When we went to the school we were all really excited, we were energized from what we saw there. I think it was beneficial that we got to take something back, like the backpack was essential for us starting our journey because a lot of things take a lot of time so that really allowed us at least to get engaged. (GEDSB)

When professional development for teachers happens in settings removed from their unique teaching contexts, it becomes imperative to do as much as possible to bridge the gap between isolated PD and their classroom to facilitate a smooth and effective transition. We wanted to avoid the lag between learning the technologies/ being energized with ideas and returning to the classroom and waiting for the process to begin. Although most of the participants voiced their appreciation of these initial PD sessions, several participants felt that additional professional development was necessary. The research team modified its plans for the second school visits and incorporated more advanced PD in May and June, in Year 2. Decisions about what to focus on for these PD sessions were made collaboratively between the participants, the school administration, and the research team. As this second round of PD took place in the teachers’ schools, and sometimes in their specific classrooms, the PD was considered context-based, and we were able to provide just-in-time support. This meant that the teachers could practice with the tech tools in their natural environment and witness the tools being integrated meaningfully, and when technical issues arose, they felt supported by the research team. Campbell et al. (2016) outlined in their executive summary of professional development across Canada, that “There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to professional learning; teachers are engaging in multiple opportunities for professional learning and inquiry with differentiation for their professional needs” (p. 8). With this guiding the PD, researchers were able to cater the PD to both the needs of the individuals involved, as well as those of the schools involved. Armour and Yelling (2007) suggest that the facilitator must walk the line between being a leader (teaching the teachers) and a follower (providing just-in-time support). Throughout the project, participants were given the opportunity to voice their needs for additional support and request specific and detailed PD for the technologies that they wanted to learn more deeply. When asked what additional support could be provided, at the half-way mark, one school requested “We could perhaps use some additional support on what else to purchase,” while another stated that “Areas we hope to get more support in are implementing coding (we have done an introduction with most classes) and with Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality since this seems to be an area of interest for students.” Through voicing these concerns, it was possible to provide specific and individualized supports. The challenges that teachers encountered throughout the duration of the study highlighted the need for just-in-time support from researchers.

8  Continuing Professional Development for Teacher-Makers

135

One of the challenges that teachers mentioned in interviews was connecting the curriculum to making. Although some teachers found the curriculum connections to be obvious and easy to implement in the making lessons, many found the connections hidden and this challenge was a significant one that required substantial support. One teacher reflected on this idea, stating that: Just connecting everything they’re doing to the curriculum specifically sometimes I have a problem with that. So, I ask myself if my time spent on this is justified, and by the end of the year I have to get their report cards done, and so the expectations might be stretched in some ways to do with makerspace…

This sentiment was echoed by another teacher, who said that: Another thing we’re really thinking hard about as a staff is making sure enough as possible is we’re making meaningful connections to the curriculum because there’s a lot of learning skills happening in there, that’s never an issue, but to make it most connected to the curriculum is more challenging. (SCCDSB)

While it is possible to make countless curriculum connections with activities related to the maker tools and technology, it became apparent that teachers needed more explicit support in this area. Providing these supports throughout the PD was critical for the success of this project, in determining best practices for PD development and delivery on makerspace pedagogies. In addition to determining specific classroom best practices, our study shed light on the orientation of teacher PD, between directives from the school board and teacher agency. Each school board was immersed in this project from the start as they were responsible for choosing which school would be a part of the project. Some school board administrators (mostly technology leads within the boards) actively participated in the project, through various methods. Regardless of the role that school board administrators played, each school board demonstrated support in this journey simply by allowing the schools to partake in it. This meant that some goals of the school board aligned with the general goals of the study, which was to establish a maker space in the school that promoted deep learning for students. With that understanding, teachers were often given flexibility from their school administration (see Chap. 7), for how they implemented the makerspace activities and the focus they took in their professional development. Before embarking on this research journey, one teacher stated that their use with technology would be a challenge when implementing makerspace activities. This indicates that they recognized the need for their personal learning when it came to understanding technology, in order to provide the best maker experience for the students. This individual knew what their focus needed to be for the initial parts of the project and they had the freedom and time to pursue that need. After the initial implementation of the makerspaces at schools, another teacher communicated that “There was a lot of very easy math connections, particularly because we did a lot of woodworking and I enjoy that, and the kids enjoyed that as well.” Although one of the more challenging aspects for teachers throughout the project was finding curriculum connections (as mentioned above), this teacher found it easier to connect to the curriculum because they were interested in the

136

J. Hughes and L. Morrison

vehicle they used for curriculum delivery. The balance between school board directives, school goals, and teacher agency was recognized in this research study. The goals of the school board trickled into the classroom through the makerspace, but how the activities were implemented fell upon the shoulders of each teacher. The PD provided took this balance into account through the creation of professional learning opportunities that promoted choice but had a focus on curriculum (Ministry of Education goals) and student deep learning (school board goals). Following the completion of this extensive study, there were many lessons learned related to effective PD for teachers learning about maker pedagogies. Ideas about teacher agency and school board and government directives emerged, as we endeavored to answer the research question: “Teachers have ideas for personal growth; school districts have other ideas – how do these converge?” Through our findings, it has become apparent that there needs to be a balance between the school board directives and the freedom for teachers to pursue learning that they are interested in – teacher agency. Just as maker pedagogies promote passion-based learning for students (see Chap. 2), it is important that the PD provided to teachers learning to transform their pedagogies, also has an aspect of passion-based learning. Teachers that had the opportunity to pursue a passion through the lens of making and makerspaces found it easier to implement curriculum and had more confidence in making with the students. Even though teachers had the flexibility to pursue their own passions, the pursuit was within the constraints of the school and school board directive, which was to promote deep learning through the makerspaces. Through this deeper learning, global competencies were often promoted in tandem (see Chap. 4). With the rapidly changing demands of society, the demands of the skills and competencies required by students are also changing. This is why it is imperative that teachers have the skills necessary to equip students with these skills and competencies. Teacher professional development provides the continued opportunities for teachers to learn and stay current with the variables in the classroom that need to change, in order to align with the needs of society. Through research, the education community can ensure that best practices are implemented when conducting PD, so that the time and efforts of both the teachers and those delivering the PD are used effectively. PD related to emerging technologies should not just focus on how to use the technology but also highlight the pedagogical approach. In other words, pedagogy should drive technology, not the other way around. The PD needs to elicit a transformative effect on the pedagogy of the participants, to ensure that when implementing STEAM in their classrooms, students are gaining the skills and knowledge that would not be attainable without the use of the technology, making, and interdisciplinary approaches to education that these pedagogies provide. To create this transformation, teachers need just-in-time support, time to learn the different technologies available to them, and support to identify which technologies are a good fit for their classroom and school cultures. In attempts to answer the second research question “how can we offer PD in a way that it will be taken up?,” researchers focused on current best practices in teacher PD and implemented a program that created a supportive environment for participants. Collaborative time and support from other participants, time and space to develop concrete ideas for the

8  Continuing Professional Development for Teacher-Makers

137

implementation of those technologies in their classrooms, as well as the freedom to pursue a direction they see as beneficial for their students, their own teacher agency, are all essential components in the creation of a strong PD program for teachers. Gaps in the knowledge base, when it comes to the long-term effects of teacher PD have become evident through this study. Based on evidence of a lag effect, Kennedy (2014) argues that “an important and underemphasized question in research on PD is whether PD produces enduring changes in practice rather than temporary compliance” (p. 7). This is unknown in our study, suggesting that longitudinal studies are required. In future, it would be beneficial for a longitudinal study, which follows the application of new pedagogies that are learned in teacher PD, over a longer time period. Although the implementation of maker pedagogies was impressive and effective, over the span of this study, it is unknown to what extent the impact of the learning was sustainable. There is potential that the excitement and newness could wear off, and the teachers may fall back into their old pedagogical approaches as time goes on. Teachers late in their careers have already established their pedagogies, and it can be difficult to alter their approach, as many have the mindset of “If it’s not broken, don’t fix it.” Students need the support of their teachers to learn the competencies that are imperative for success in the twenty-first-century workforce, such as communication, collaboration, communication, problem-solving, and perseverance (see Chap. 4 for more on global competencies). These skills are not congruent with the skills previously necessary and, thus, the pedagogies that were previously effective in preparing students for the workforce. With this being said, teachers need to shift their pedagogical approaches in order to accommodate for these changes. Early-stage teachers, who have opportunities to experience the same kind of inquiry-­ based learning as we advocate for students as they begin their careers, have a better chance of adapting to a maker pedagogy approach. To determine the effectiveness of long-term makerspace pedagogical approaches, research in the area of pre-­ service teacher education would be beneficial. Pre-service teachers do not have an established pedagogy, so “unlearning” is not a challenge in this stage of their career – similar to starting with a blank slate.

References Armour, K.  M., & Yelling, M. (2007). Effective professional development for physical education teachers: The role of informal, collaborative learning. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 26, 177–200. Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., Wallace, M. Greenwood, A., Hawkey, K., Ingram, M., Atkinson, A., & Smith, M. (2005). Creating and sustaining effective professional learning communities (Research Report No. RR637). Department for Education and Skills. https://dera. ioe.ac.uk/5622/1/RR637.pdf Campbell, C., Osmond-Johnson, P., Faubert, B., Zeichner, K., Hobbs-Johnson, A., Brown, S., DaCosta, P., Hales, A., Kuehn, L., Sohn, J., & Steffensen, K. (2016). Executive summary: The state of educators’ professional learning in Canada. Learning Forward. https://learningforward.org/docs/default-­source/pdf/CanadaStudyExecSumm2016.Pdf

138

J. Hughes and L. Morrison

Campbell, C., Osmond-Johnson, P., Faubert, B., Zeichner, K., Hobbs-Johnson, A., Brown, S., DaCosta, P., Hales, A., Kuehn, L., Sohn, J., & Steffensen, K. (2017). The state of educators’ professional learning in Canada: Final research report. Learning Forward. Clapp, E.  P., & Jimenez, R.  L. (2016). Implementing STEAM in maker-centered learning. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 10(4), 481–491. Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Thomason, S., & Firth, A. (2005). The impact of collaborative continuing professional development (CPD) on classroom teaching and learning. Review: How do collaborative and sustained CPD and sustained but not collaborative CPD affect teaching and learning? EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London. https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Portals/0/PDF%20reviews%20and%20summaries/cpd_rv2.pdf?ve r=2006-­03-­02-­124802-­077 Fazio, X., & Gallagher, T.  L. (2018). Bridging professional teacher knowledge for science and literary integration via design-based research. Teacher Development, 22(2), 267–280. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2017.1363084 Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. Pearson. Hardy, I. (2012). The politics of teacher professional development: Policy, research and practice. Routledge. Hughes, J. M. (2017). Digital making with “at-risk” youth. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 34(2), 102–113. Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2013). Do people recognize the four Cs? Examining layperson conceptions of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7(3), 229–236. Kennedy, A. (2005). Models of continuing professional development: A framework for analysis. Journal of In-service Education, 31(2), 235–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674580500200277 Kennedy, A. (2014). Models of Continuing Professional Development: a framework for analysis. Professional Development in Education, 40(3), 336–351, https://doi.org/10.1080/1941525 7.2014.929293 Ketut Sudarsana, I., Pusparani, K., Selasih, N. N., Juliantari, N. K., & Wayan Renawati, P. (2019). Expectations and challenges of using technology in education. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1175, 012160. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-­6596/1175/1/012160 King, F. (2016). Teacher professional development to support teacher professional learning: Systemic factors from Irish case studies. Teacher Development, 20(4), 574–594. https://doi. org/10.1080/13664530.2016.1161661 Lasky, S. (2005). A sociocultural approach to understanding teacher identity, agency and professional vulnerability in a context of secondary school reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 899–916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.06.003 Liao, Y.-C., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Karlin, M., Glazewski, K., & Brush, T. (2017). Supporting change in teacher practice: Examining shifts of teachers’ professional development preferences and needs for technology integration. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 17(4), 522–548. Lofthouse, R., & Thomas, U. (2017). Concerning collaboration: Teachers’ perspectives on working in partnerships to develop teaching practices. Professional Development in Education, 43(1), 36–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2015.1053570 McArdle, K., & Coutts, N. (2010). Taking teachers’ continuous professional development (CPD) beyond reflection: Adding shared sense-making and collaborative engagement for professional renewal. Studies in Continuing Education, 32(3), 201–215. Montgomery, C., & Fernandez-Cardenas, J. M. (2018). Teaching STEM education through dialogue and transformative learning: Global significance and local interactions in Mexico and the UK. Journal of Education for Teaching, 44(1), 2–13. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2007). The Ontario curriculum grades 1–8: Science and technology. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2016). 21st century competencies. Ontario Public Service.

8  Continuing Professional Development for Teacher-Makers

139

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2019). Policy/Program Memorandum No. 151. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/extra/eng/ppm/ppm151.pdf Tao, J., & Gao, X. (2017). Teacher agency and identity commitment in curricular reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 346–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.010 Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration. New Zealand Ministry of Education. Upitis, R. (2014). Creativity: The state of the domain. People for Education. https://peopleforeducation.ca/wp-­content/uploads/2017/06/MWM-­creativity.pdf Wallen, M., & Tormey, R. (2019). Developing teacher agency through dialogue. Teaching and Teacher Education, 82, 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.03.014 Zech, L. K., Gause-Vega, C. L., Bray, M. H., Secules, T., & Goldman, S. R. (2000). Content-based collaborative inquiry: A professional development model for sustaining educational reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 207–217.

Chapter 9

Indigenous Ways of Knowing and Making Janette Hughes and Margie Lam

This chapter explores the ways in which three school districts with large populations of Indigenous students endeavored to include Indigenous ways of making in their makerspaces and maker pedagogies. We discuss the need to ensure each school community’s makerspace or learning environment meets the specific needs of the students and their families. We offer a brief overview of the literature on Indigenous making in education, and we describe some of the activities the teachers planned for their students to promote inclusivity. Makerspaces foster many benefits to a community through sharing and collaborative practices (Richard & Giri, 2017), access to training and variety of technological equipment (Shivers-McNair, 2019), cultivation of diverse learning approaches (Richard & Giri, 2017), support of interest-driven passion projects (Ryoo & Barton, 2018), and engagement – especially for those youth who are disengaged with typical school STEAM courses (Ryoo & Barton, 2018). Yet makerspaces should not be identical from one location to the next. At the outset of our makerspace project in Ontario elementary schools, the majority of the participating teachers requested concrete blueprints and a list of equipment and materials they should purchase. It is quite natural to look for models on which to base new initiatives; however, we urged the school teams to resist following a recipe and to make their decisions based on community needs, strengths, and principles in conjunction with community members. Ideally makerspaces are unique to each community by reflecting all members of that community and their cultural ways of learning (Searle et al., 2017). However, despite these equitable and inclusive ideals that makerspaces promote, many have highlighted their lack of diversity, as well as cultural and community involvement (Seo-Zindy & Heeks, 2017). Still others have raised critical concerns about which maker activities are promoted, by whom and whether they are J. Hughes (*) · M. Lam Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Hughes (ed.), Making, Makers, Makerspaces, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09819-2_9

141

142

J. Hughes and M. Lam

reflective and respectful of our diverse communities (Ryoo & Barton, 2018). Considering all the promise and potential of the maker movement, these limitations expose the need for more purposeful efforts toward inclusive and equitable participation, especially for Indigenous communities who have had to overcome disturbing histories and complex relationships with technology and education systems (Searle et al., 2018). Understanding Indigenous ways of knowing and its connection to Indigenous ways of making (Berkes, 2009) leads one to imagine that many of these concerns can be addressed. Evaluating makerspace membership, technologies, and equipment available and inviting contributions and participation from Indigenous community members can help a makerspace start to become an inclusive and equitable environment. Integrating elder-led, key Indigenous learning perspectives and practices including ceremony, respect for land and place, and storytelling can further mirror the goals of makerspace learning (Diamond, 2019). These Indigenous learning and making practices nurture more authentic and holistic educational experiences through interdisciplinary approaches, collaboration, and critical-making ideals of social consciousness, empathy, and respect for our environment and community (Barajas-Lopez & Bang, 2018). While all of the schools in the makerspace project have students with Indigenous backgrounds, three of the schools in particular have large numbers of Indigenous students, and these schools wanted to ensure that they included culturally responsive pedagogies (Gay, 2018) for their Indigenous population. In each case, the teachers were concerned about attending to cultural appreciation rather than engaging in cultural appropriation and focused on the principles of respect, relevance, responsibility, relationality, and reciprocity. In their document, Things to Consider Before Engaging with Indigenous Knowledge, the First Nations, Métis & Inuit Education Association of Ontario (FNMIEAO, n.d.) outlines important considerations for all teachers prior to engaging with Indigenous knowledge, including: • Are there Indigenous fluent language speakers involved? • Does it tokenize or minimize the significance of Indigenous knowledge? • Does it present Indigenous knowledge as “simplistic”? (e.g., reducing complex knowledge systems to “crafts”). • Are there Indigenous communities/people that view the content or context offensive? (e.g., could a teacher be confronted for appropriating Indigenous knowledge?) • Is there an elder or knowledge keeper facilitating the Indigenous knowledge component of the learning? • Does it represent a wide variety of Indigenous peoples and diversity of knowledge, or does it essentialize people and knowledge? • Has a relationship been developed with the local Indigenous community? • Was permission given to incorporate or utilize the knowledge? • Has the source of knowledge been cited and the community from which it comes been disclosed? • Are Indigenous people involved throughout the entire project? • How does the project involve reciprocity?

9  Indigenous Ways of Knowing and Making

143

Indigenous Making Indigenous ways of knowing involve making and sharing in a complex interdisciplinary process of storytelling, sharing, and collaborating, invoking cultural protocols, learning by doing and experimenting, and discovering land and place (Barajas-Lopez & Bang, 2018; Diamond, 2019; Berkes, 2009). The research examples of personalized guitar making (Wilson & Gobeil, 2017), e-textile designs (Kafai et  al., 2014), clay making of ceremonial pieces (Barajas-Lopez & Bang, 2018), digital storytelling, and virtual gaming all reflect these interconnected making components (Winter & Boudreau, 2018). A unique aspect of all of these Indigenous making examples from the research is the meaningful and tangible cultural experiences they invoke. According to Winter and Boudreau (2018), Indigenous knowing and making truly reflect “a living and embodied approach” (p. 39), where human-nature relationships are nurtured, there is a continuous renewal of family and community through language and ceremony, and narratives are diverse in form and location. Indigenous making, according to author and historian Cynthia Landrum (2012), also places an emphasis on balancing the ancestral past with the modern world. Much like the seven generation Indigenous philosophy, learning needs to consider and reconcile the experiences of the past with modern life and furthermore with the promise of the future (Winter & Boudreau, 2018). This generational approach to sustainability and time is leveraged in Indigenous making to ensure one appreciates the cultural significance of the process and considers the value and appropriateness of designs (Diamond, 2019). According to Barajas-Lopez and Bang (2018) past and present were blurred when students were manipulating their clay ceremonial pieces and manifesting ancestral connections. The storytelling aspect of the Indigenous making process helped establish the historical and cultural ancestral perspective which was further enhanced through molding of the clay (Barajas-Lopez & Bang, 2018). This practice of material storytelling is essential to Indigenous making processes and a central aspect of knowing and learning in Indigenous pedagogy (Barajas-Lopez & Bang, 2018). The importance of equitable practices and diverse learning approaches in Indigenous making is clear when we see how the current educational system is failing to support all types of learners, including Indigenous students (Wilson & Gobeil, 2017). Preston et al.’s (2015) research with school principals concluded that the key factors limiting the success of Indigenous students are the limited cultural relevance of subject content resulting in a lack of connection to the curriculum. Wilson and Gobeil (2017) suggest that differentiated pedagogical strategies, meaningful integration of technology, and outdoor experiences were essential to support the learning for Indigenous students. As these aspects are all fully integrated in the processes of Indigenous making, perhaps the public education systems should take notice and consider implementation. Furthermore, in this cultural making process, students learn that Indigenous knowledge systems are thriving and essential in education

144

J. Hughes and M. Lam

countering settler-colonial practices on which our current education model was built (Barajas-Lopez & Bang, 2018; Winter & Boudreau, 2018). The cultural foundational principles of relationality, responsibility, reciprocity, and respect are intricately woven throughout the Indigenous making processes (Diamond, 2019). Kovach (2010) describes that trusting relationships between community and practice must be established ensuring that the cultural practices of reciprocity are understood before sharing occurs. The sharing process is extremely fundamental in makerspaces, but appreciating the complexities of reciprocity in all aspects of making is essential to Indigenous making (Wilson & Gobeil, 2017). In Indigenous culture, relations between people, environment, and culture describe what it means to be human, and this extends to the making and learning process (Gollihue, 2019). Storytelling provides cultural perspective on the importance of relationships through morals and lessons (Winter & Boudreau, 2018). Invoking narrative during the making process provides context and appreciation for materials, protocols, and techniques further solidifying the importance of respectful relationships. Cultural ideals of relationships also extend to the concept of “place”  – where the spirit can connect with the physical domain (Diamond, 2019). Makerspaces that build on the idea of place offer a deeper sense of connection to the design process. Interconnected between relationality in Indigenous making are the concepts of responsibility and respect. To have and maintain relationships takes commitment, trust, and responsibility. These responsibilities extend to why we make, for whom, and to what end (Shivers-McNair, 2019). Responsibility to culture and community and demonstrating respect through elder-led ceremonies, symbolic representations, and community circles are all examples of how making can embody these Indigenous core principles. Furthermore, Diamond (2019) proposes that incorporating the values of relationality, responsibility, and respect when making and sharing helps students to develop a shared empathy for each other and the world we live in.

Land and Place Human-nature relations are integral to Indigenous making and learning practices. These practices typically involve stepping out and discovering the land and gathering possible constructional components but also inspiration for deeply personal and relevant creations. The Indigenous making process is further developed through the ideals of place, which invokes a more personal sense of purpose and spiritual connection (Diamond, 2019). Themes of respect, reciprocity, and relationships are central to this making process, as is the integration of language and narrative to further develop cultural significance, ideals of sharing and sustainability, and value to the community. Research by Barajas-Lopez and Bang (2018) highlights the significance of land and place as Indigenous students discovered

9  Indigenous Ways of Knowing and Making

145

clay making. Exploring the lands, listening to traditional stories from their elders, and mixing and molding the clay into ceremonial pieces involved an intense, interdisciplinary learning process of cultural discovery, scientific learning, intergenerational relationships, and responsibilities toward lands, waters, and community. Furthermore, several of the Indigenous youth described transformative mental and physical benefits from the deeply engaging sharing and making process (Barajas-Lopez & Bang, 2018). Indigenous perspectives of place extend beyond our planet to other realms in space and dreams. There are stories of the Anishinaabe people that speak of the “sky world” (Sky Stories, 2013), while Australian Aboriginals speak of “Dreamtime,” a timeless place between dream and reality (Korff, 2019). With the advancing technologies and digital realms of today, the concept of place has taken a new meaning. According to L’Hirondelle (2016), Indigenous cultures have such a strong connection to land, but now with the progression to digital spaces, there is a need to claim their virtual place. Some makerspaces are starting to explore these places through Indigenous storytelling and gaming activities. According to Winter and Boudreau (2018), new game making workshops have been successfully organized where Indigenous youth are mentored in their programming of unique, cultural stories. These adventure games provide alternatives to the stereotypical portrayals of Indigenous people in the mainstream digital games while also establishing a sense of place for Indigenous youth to explore their own cultural stories (Winter & Boudreau, 2018). Augmented and mixed reality offer new and exciting opportunities in Indigenous making to build on the relationship between narrative and place. A case study analysis by Searle et  al. (2017) evaluated the use of an augmented reality gaming platform to connect Indigenous youth to significant places in their community. Games and stories were developed by the students integrating digital elements at specific locations thus creating their own unique place in the physical and digital realms (Winter & Boudreau, 2018). An important consideration in Indigenous making is both respect for land and reciprocity. The idea of reciprocity in Indigenous philosophy is framed on the concepts of trust and respect (Wilson & Gobeil, 2017). Therefore, in Indigenous making there is accountability for the material we take from the land to use in our designs, and we must consider how we will give back to the land or how our designs will provide value to the land. This cyclical relationship is built on respect and fosters the concept of sustainable innovation (Winter & Boudreau, 2018). According to Winter and Boudreau (2018), this Indigenous worldview of sustainability ties closely to the seven generation principle and our stewardship responsibilities. The stewardship description is perhaps best summarized in the Inuit cultural ideal of “inummarik, one becomes inummarik, a most genuine person, through a lifelong process of developing correct interactions with humans, animals, and the non-living environment” (Stairs, 2019, p. 168).

146

J. Hughes and M. Lam

Ceremony, Symbols and Community Circles The Indigenous culture honors the traditions of spiritual and social ceremony, dance, song, community circles, and symbolic objects in all aspects of life including education. Initiating making activities with ceremony helps establish cultural respect and connect learners to Indigenous making practices (Diamond, 2019). Ceremonies are as diverse as the various First Nation, Metis, and Inuit groups with practices led by elders that reflect gratitude and respect and remain true to ancestral, sacred teachings (Government of Alberta, 2004). Many ceremonies use sacred and symbolic objects. Pipes, tobacco, rocks, water, birds, and many animals reflect the range of different items that represent beliefs or values that are important to an Indigenous culture (Government of Alberta, 2004). According to Preston and colleagues (2015), these culturally relevant experiences can help promote student belonging, cultural perspective, and appreciation. The analysis from Diamond (2019) highlights how different making workshops and activities can be more successful in Indigenous communities when community circles, songs, stories, and symbolic objects are included. The significance of incorporating ceremonies to community circles in Indigenous making is clear; however, as Diamond (2019) further highlights, “everything about us, with us” (p.  1852) which ensures that any cultural activity in making must involve Indigenous elders, community members, and permission from the Indigenous community itself.

Language and Storytelling Storytelling is recognized as an essential form of Indigenous tradition and learning pedagogy (Barajas-Lopez & Bang, 2018). Through stories one is encouraged to examine relationships between humans and their environments, ideas, objects, histories, and communities (Gollihue, 2019). Cree/French Métis new media artist, Ahasiw Maskegon-Iskwew (1994) praises Indigenous storytelling practices as a means of “strengthening, supporting and enriching cultural communities” (para. 7). This enrichment is further enhanced when the stories are narrated by elders in their Indigenous language which contains deep philosophies and ideologies encoded within it (Iseke & Moore, 2011). Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Knowledge and Research, Judy Iseke, describes eldership as a vital institution and essential element of traditional storytelling (Winter & Boudreau, 2018). Elders transmit their transgenerational knowledge through engaging narrative with gesture, movement, song, and sound effect, all while ensuring the survival and continuance of Indigenous philosophies, theories, and epistemic traditions (Iseke & Moore, 2011). In Indigenous making, storytelling is deeply integrated in the interdisciplinary creation processes. Through the discovery and design stages, narrated stories help provide information, perspective, context, and consideration. In analysis of multiple Indigenous making case studies, Diamond (2019) highlights how integral narrative

9  Indigenous Ways of Knowing and Making

147

was during making activities at the Indigenous Visual Culture program. Storytelling, Diamond (2019) describes, allowed students to appreciate the historic and affective impacts of various artifacts. Furthermore, after a review of the Indigenous Art and Science (IAS) project, Diamond (2019) hypothesized that “storytelling is a critical scientific method that serves and reinforces both culture and science” (p. 1854). The qualitative analysis by Barajas-Lopez and Bang (2018) demonstrates similar findings between storytelling and its relationship to science and culture through clay making. However, Barajas-Lopez and Bang (2018) also highlight the significance of storytelling to land and place and how the physicality of clay making can enhance stories and bring ancestral connections to life. Student voice, passions, and unique stories are also encouraged through Indigenous making. Through hands-on exploration and design with materials, students can develop authentic and meaningful narratives that help to develop self-­ expression, knowledge, and connection to cultural practices (Barajas-Lopez & Bang, 2018). Gollihue (2019) suggests that through the relational and embodied process, Indigenous making fires up the inspiration and ideation for stories that connect land, objects, and cultural knowledge. Digital technologies, often found in makerspaces, hold incredible potential as tools to both revitalize Indigenous stories in new and engaging ways and also to provide a forum for Indigenous youth to find their own voice and story. Winter and Boudreau (2018) suggest that digital storytelling is a tool for Indigenous youth to discover their own identity while challenging stereotypes and becoming agents of social change. Searle et al. (2018) investigated the use of augmented reality as a tool to connect making with storytelling. The researchers conclude that it was important for the youth to begin with story and place to appreciate the significance of culture and ancestry while authoring their own digital stories as young Indigenous people.

Research into Practice As noted earlier, it is important to engage elders and knowledge keepers in teaching related to Indigenous knowledge components of any programming. In each of the three cases below, the participating teachers consulted with Indigenous contacts in the community to plan activities and two of the schools invited members of the Indigenous community to work with their students on maker related activities.

Kawartha Pine Ridge DSB The participating school in KPRDSB is a triple STEAM school that offers instruction in English (JK–6), French Immersion (SK–6), and Ojibwe (1–6). The school houses students from the communities of Lakefield, Apsley, Buckhorn, Warsaw, Young’s Point, and the Curve Lake First Nation community. Students learn basic

148

J. Hughes and M. Lam

skills in language and mathematics and are provided with opportunities to apply computer skills in various subjects. The school is located on the territory of the Mississauga Anishinaabeg and other Indigenous peoples who have and are still sharing the land. The teacher librarian (TL) leads on the project notes that the makerspace they designed was “very much tied to the community of students that we serve and the community that surrounds us and the FNMI component in our makerspace is very important to us.” She explains that some of their Indigenous students live on reserve and some live off reserve and “that can lead to very different social dynamics.” She also notes that some of the First Nations students who come into the school in Grade 4 have difficulty adjusting to a different educational setting, and they have an Ojibwe language teacher and two additional Indigenous support teachers who come into the school to assist these students. The TL found that the makerspace became a place where these students could pursue their interests, and, as a result, it helped them adjust to their new setting. The TL worked with students in grades 4, 5, and 6 on a unit focusing on the “colonization of space.” She wanted to make connections between colonization in Canada and what might happen when we begin to “colonize space.” She explained: We explored how we learn about mistakes from our past, not only in North American colonization but colonization all around the world. How do we learn from our past mistakes in order to move forward? When do we begin to colonize space? Because in 2024, when these kids graduate from high school construction will have begun … at least there are plans for both a lunar and a Mars colony. Whether it actually happens eight years from now, we don’t know, but for them it was a real world connection. Everything we did and designed in the makerspace was tied into how we facilitate this learning.

The TL leveraged recent media attention surrounding billionaires like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, who are funding their own space programs because they are frustrated that NASA is not, in their view, working fast enough to establish colonies on Mars (Musk) or the moon (Bezos). She used the media coverage to engage students in conversations about the ethical implications of going into space to tap its resources and energy in order to preserve our way of life on Earth or, in Musk’s case, provide us with a “back-up planet” to save humanity once we’ve destroyed Earth. Students engaged in critical conversations about colonization, environmental sustainability, stewardship of the Earth, and how we might draw on Indigenous ways of knowing to honor and protect the land. In the makerspace, the students worked in three teams to explore Lunar, Mars, and Trappist-1 dwarf star colonies. They chose mission specialties, conducted weekly mission briefings (in conjunction with their teacher), and created vlogs as they worked through the inquiry project. They engaged in a wide variety of activities including the creation of 3D renderings in Tinkercad of artifacts that directly related to their research. Their TL noted that e-textiles seemed to be a “school favorite.” She shared that “E-textiles is the big thing I really want to do with the kids here, because I’ve tried to pay attention to what our community is interested in and where they want to go, and where we want the kids to go because we want to tap into their interests.” She incorporated e-textiles into the learning by having students explore

9  Indigenous Ways of Knowing and Making

149

First Nations treaties and the symbology of mission badges, used by NASA, and designing and creating their own (see Fig. 9.1). Some teams created vehicles or pieces of equipment they might need in their colony; others designed colony facilities such as labs or medical buildings. Some of the students examined the role of rovers in space exploration and colonization. They worked with Sphero programmable robots, using them as the engine to drive a rover design. Encountering challenges along the way was part of the learning. For example, the Sphero “engines” had speed but did not have the power to support the heft of the rover bodies. While some students persevered to solve this problem by lightening the rover structure, others decided to turn to littleBits to design and develop a more powerful vehicle. This inquiry is a great example of the design thinking process, through which students considered and defined the problem they needed to solve, designed a creative solution, built a prototype, and then put it to the test. When it did not work, the students engaged in an iterative process and redesigned their models. To extend this activity, the teacher suggested that the class build a very large topographical representation of a Mars or Lunar terrain and the students enthusiastically undertook the challenge. Ultimately, all of the rovers were able to navigate this terrain successfully, and the students were very excited by what they accomplished. Another teacher in the project designed a unit that incorporated maker tools, interdisciplinary connections, and FNMI connections to create a project that looked at First Nations communities and their access to clean water. He explained: “So I wanted to look at FNMI issues in social studies and science, looking at chemical changes and the properties of states and matter, and we decided to look at water quality issues in First Nations reserves.” He recounted that, “The kids were just shocked and horrified to find out a huge percent of First Nations communities in Canada have been without clean drinking water.” Students used the makerspace

Fig. 9.1  Niibin: “It is Summer”

150

J. Hughes and M. Lam

tools and technologies available to them to explore relevant social issues in a way that went beyond simply looking at words in a textbook. His unit on water was framed in the following way: First, the students learned about water quality through individual research and online collaboration (using the Padlet platform). On this platform, students shared (through image, text, and links) the information they had gathered on the following: what is water, why it is important to humans, scientific properties of water, drinking water standards, and access/distribution. Then, after exploring the problem of water quality, particularly as it relates to the First Nations’ communities in Canada, the students discussed and designed possible solutions. Of this process the teacher explained: We talked about water treatment from a municipal standpoint but then we looked at personal water treatment as well, and the idea that isolated communities might need emergency water treatment, water needs to be shipped in, for some reason they can’t boil their water. So we designed our own portable water filters. We went through the whole design process. We used found materials, we did research … what do you need in order to purify water, so we landed on the idea that we wanted to purify water for total dissolved solid and total bacterial load. We had to design water filters that we could drink water with. We talked about prototypes and how we don’t have money for this so we had to figure out how to do this on our own.

The figure below (Fig. 9.2) of one of the Padlets used in class to share research and ideas shows some of the students’ water filtration prototype designs (their sketches and the physical products): The students engaged in the design process where they researched and drafted possible water filtration designs, collected their materials, built their prototypes, tested them, and refined them based on feedback. In the end, the teacher explained that only some of the filters actually worked “and the only thing we were able to reduce was the dissolved solids level.” The class has future plans to design “a more

Fig. 9.2  Stripping the bikes

9  Indigenous Ways of Knowing and Making

151

precise filter” with the help of their 3D printers. To round out the students’ learning, the teacher also had experts visit the class for additional context, perspective and depth. He explained: We also had partners who came in as part of the makerspace. We had Dr. Andressa who does water treatment at Trent and looked at the water filters and suggested some biological methods rather than using mechanical methods – using algae and pouring water through there. And, we had Mariam Monsef come in who is the Minister for Women’s Affairs in Canada, but also the Peterborough MP in our area, talking about women in science, women in politics, and water issues. We hit all that, we hit math through looking at volume, we used a lot of data and collected the data we used, we used it for writing – for letter writing about the issue, so we did a lot of persuasive writing: who’s our audience, who do we need to write to…

The teacher’s unit on water was connected to the real world (both in terms of the topic and in terms of the learning process), and it was interdisciplinary, drawing on social studies and science, primarily, with later extensions in the English language arts. Importantly, the unit was framed through a social justice-themed exploration of the relationship between clean water access and First Nations communities in Canada, and it was rooted in inquiry and the design process (the pedagogical foundations of a makerspace). It was through the maker approach to teaching and learning that students engaged with this timely, relevant, and pressing Canadian issue, building students’ awareness of the plight of some First Nations people and their sense of responsibility to help solve this issue (i.e., by designing a unique, affordable, and, hopefully, implementable water filtration system).

Lakehead DSB The LDSB school that participated in the study is located in the city of Thunder Bay on Lake Superior in Northwestern Ontario. Built in 1996, the school places a high level of importance on working in partnership with its students, parents, and community stakeholders. The school is committed to creating a positive environment and to optimizing student learning, through programs such as the academies that the grade 7 s and 8 s partake in. The 2017/2018 school year was the first year for these learning academies, which focus on student learning through thematic topics (each teacher specializes in and leads one of the topics). There were three academies during the first year – a Global Citizenship Academy, a Sports and Outdoor Recreation Academy, and a STEM Academy. The academies incorporate projects that overlap with one another and allow students to make connections between each academy. The project this year for the academies had an Indigenous focus, through the lens of making in a maker space. The school’s commitment to ensuring that Indigenous culture and knowledge was taken into consideration in the design of their makerspace became apparent during interviews with the three participating teachers. They described a major makerspace project connected to the grades 7 and 8 classes called “Recycle Your

152

J. Hughes and M. Lam

Cycle,” which was a partnership between the intermediate students and another public school (which is located 4  h north of Thunder Bay, and enrolment comes from two First Nations communities). Together, students from both locations collected used bicycles, and then using the makerspace at the project school site, students were taught how to assess, repair, and rebuild the bikes. They also had them sandblasted and redesigned using the tools in the makerspace. Together approximately 80 students participated in the mass rebuild of 30 bikes with local community partners, such as the local high school. Students went to the mechanic shop in the high school and learned about how to take the bikes apart and rebuild, using tools that their own makerspace could not afford. Although the breaking and making of the bicycles was hands-on, maker-focused learning, the project had a deeper goal. One teacher explained the significance of the bicycle as he reflected on the project, saying: We’ve been trying to put them into situations where the bike is a symbol of a whole bunch of different things. The symbol of Transportation when it comes to geography with a grade 8 curriculum especially, it’s a symbol of freedom.

The bikes were the vehicle that drove the learning; however, it was more than just recycling an old bike; students were challenged to see the bigger picture. The planning of the project was deliberate and intentional, to ensure that the students had an opportunity to learn through an interdisciplinary approach. The bicycle was a symbol, which took on different meanings as the focus changed. As previously mentioned, Indigenous ways of knowing involves creating through a process that includes storytelling, collaboration, learning by doing, and discovering land and place, among other things (Barajas-Lopez & Bang, 2018). The careful consideration and planning of this project evoked some of these ways of knowing, as students learned about symbolism, Indigenous culture, and community. The bicycles that were used were donated to the school from a variety of sources; some were students’ old bikes, while others came from a local charity called, Bikes for Humanity. Students learned about the anatomy of a bike, how gears work, and bicycle maintenance. They also explored a wide variety of tools needed to take them apart and put them back together. One of the teachers explained some of the challenges they faced during the project (Fig. 9.3): One person from each group is the ‘mechanic’ so we went with the mechanics to this Bike Co-op place to show them how to strip the bike down, everything from gears, to pedals, to brakes, to ball bearings, to changing tires, the whole thing. Brakes are a nightmare. I used to fix bikes all the time and it was really easy to do it by yourself but when you have 35 kids or so around you it’s interesting. And they don’t know how to use tools, and they don’t know how to use hammers. You say to a child, ‘okay so I need a three-quarter inch socket’ and they would bring you back a three-quarter inch wrench, and I said ‘no, no, I need the socket, and a Robertson screwdriver’… ‘a what?’ So anyway the hands-on learning was huge.

Once the bikes were stripped down to their frames and repainted, students used the knowledge learned at the Bike Co-op to rebuild the donated bikes, while teachers connected various concepts of the bike repair to Ontario curricula. Students learned about gear ratios, when looking at interlocking gears that are found on bikes, which

9  Indigenous Ways of Knowing and Making

153

Fig. 9.3  Rebuilding the bikes

is the mechanism that allows the movement of the wheels. Students learned about structures and the structural differences between bikes and the affordances and drawbacks of different structures. In addition to the structural differences, students looked at the angles that connected various parts of each bike. One of the teachers reflected that because some of the bikes were older or found in rivers, “we couldn’t use the parts anymore, but we had to fix all of them. So, it was a big learning process for all of us and it really made us step outside of our comfort zone.” This kind of risk-taking and just-in-time learning, for both teachers and students, is a key element of a successful makerspace. Beyond the repair of the bicycles and the curriculum-based goals, the learning went beyond the four walls of the classroom. Students learned about the life of students who identify as Indigenous and who live on reserves. Relationships were built as the students bonded over their common goal. The teacher explained the overarching goal of connecting with Indigenous communities: We weren’t going in as this was a project where we were going to save a community or anything like that. I think it was more like a partnership. So they [students living on the Northern reserve] helped us find us some of the bikes and brought them here and they’re working to cut trails for mountain bikes and so as we’re doing the bikes, we were FaceTiming some of the kids to talk about what we are doing and showing them. So it wasn’t like us making a huge gift to give to them; it was more like a partnership with the team.

In this case, the important principle of reciprocity was carefully considered and woven into the Recycle Your Cycle project. The initiative was undertaken with the Indigenous community, not done for them. Students were given the opportunity to learn about Indigenous reserves in Northern Ontario, learn about social interactions between their communities, and work collaboratively on a project that would bring

154

J. Hughes and M. Lam

about beneficial change in their greater community, and, throughout it all, their learning was connected to Ontario curricula. The passion and excitement about the Recycle Your Cycle program were seen and felt throughout the school when researchers visited their makerspace.

Rainy River DSB Culturally responsive pedagogy requires teachers to place the language, beliefs, relationships, and culture of Indigenous peoples at the center of their teaching practices (Vetter et al., 2014). It is the responsibility of teachers to always respect and recognize the validity of Indigenous peoples’ knowledge and the rights and obligations of all students to their cultural identity (Snively & Williams, 2008). The wampum project described in this case study was designed with the input of the Rainy River DSB’s Indigenous Studies Consultant as well as the STEM Coordinator and delivered by both individuals as well as one of the lead teachers in the project at the school. The goal of the project was for the students, after learning about and discussing the history and significance of wampum belts, to design and create their own looms and wampum belt patterns (as bracelets) using the beading process. The participating school in Fort Frances, Ontario was opened in 2011 and in 2018–2019 had a student population of 423 students. Two hundred and forty one students identified as First Nations, 21 as Métis, and 182 identified as non-­aboriginal students. There are ten junior/intermediate classrooms, seven primary classrooms, and four, full-day kindergarten (FDK) classes; it is the largest elementary school in the Rainy River District School Board. The school is named after a local family physician who took a great interest in assisting his community. He served on the Board of Education, was a former mayor of the town, and a life member of the Horticultural Society. The Rainy River District School Board supports the Ojibwe Language Program and has dedicated staff to help students to learn the Ojibwe language. According to the Rainy River DSB website, “introduction of land-based pedagogy to the Ojibwe Language Program provides experiential learning opportunities to connect the language to the land. Students who participate in the Ojibwe Language Program achieve a strong foundation in the language and gain cultural understanding” (“Rainy River District School Board”, n.d., Indigenous Education, para 2). The RRDSB has recently completed the second year of a seven year Ojibwe Language Strategy to help develop future teachers of Ojibwe in schools and communities. The Strategy, which focuses on the revitalization of the local Indigenous language, is the result of a partnership with the RRDSB, Seven Generations Education Institute, and the Ministry of Education (“Rainy River District School Board,” n.d., Indigenous Education, para 4). As the school has a very large proportion of Indigenous students, one of the makerspace projects that was undertaken this year involved the study, design, and development of wampum belts. According to the Museum of Ontario Archeology

9  Indigenous Ways of Knowing and Making

155

(n.d.), wampums are “visual memory keepers that help record history and communicate ideas” (para 1). These beaded patterns can represent people, nations, events, invitations, or agreements between groups or individuals. They can also symbolize shared values and understandings between two or more parties and are used in ceremonies, teaching, and reminders of law and values (“Museum of Ontario Archeology”, n.d., Wampum, para 1). The wampum is an important symbol of the commitment of parties to coexist, to cooperate, and to work together peacefully, in friendship and respect (Powless, 2004). Prior to beginning to work on their own wampum belts, the students learned about and discussed their historical and present-­ day significance and symbolism in Indigenous culture. The wampum project was initially undertaken as a pilot in a few schools, particularly those with a high population of Indigenous students such as the participating school. As the project was embraced by both the teachers and students involved, it was upscaled throughout the board, with one of the lead teachers, the STEM Coordinator, providing professional development training. They worked with teachers to share teaching resources, to describe the inquiry centers, to show them how to build the looms, and to provide them with a list of necessary supplies. The project itself was a student inquiry comprised of four or five learning centers in the makerspace at the school. Students rotated through the following centers: 1. Researching patterns for their wampum belts on the computers in the classroom. 2. Following a detailed pattern to complete a wampum belt using LEGO. 3. Creating a colored pattern for their wampum belts with markers, pencil crayons, and a paper grid. 4. Building a loom for the beading process using hammers, nails, and spruce wood (see Fig. 9.4).

Fig. 9.4  Indigenous Studies Consultant teaching beading

156

J. Hughes and M. Lam

Fig. 9.5  Students building looms

5. Completing their wampum belts using the loom, beads, and patterns they created (see Fig. 9.5). A number of positive effects were noted by the lead teachers in the project as they facilitated student learning at the wampum stations. Students were noted to be assisting others, expressing their enjoyment of the activity, and demonstrating new learning. The grade 4 teacher on the project provided this description of one of her students: [As] we had a really large looming project this year, we actually had outside sources to come help us because it was very large. We made looms and we talked about Wampum belts because we have a very high Indigenous population in our school. What I thought was interesting, but then I learned culturally, [is that] these boys were fantastic beaders, like faster than I could do it and Hunter, that one, he just banged out a wampum belt on his loom in like a day and he was teaching the other kids, which I think was amazing because he doesn’t excel very much, how to loom, so I thought that was great. There was no stigma – boys or girls; he was helping the girls do it right, so I thought that was good.

As they worked through the centers, the students were observed by the teachers who then shared their observations. They remarked on the improved social interaction of the students, their keen interest in the centers, and the reduction of challenging behaviors. As one of the students commented during the beading center, “this is so satisfying.” At the beginning of the wampum project, the lead teachers were constructing the looms for all of the students but then realized that the students were capable of building the looms themselves. According to one of the teachers, the students embraced this challenge, and one female student was quoted as saying, “I

9  Indigenous Ways of Knowing and Making

157

want to be a carpenter when I’m older.” A number of curricular connections were noted such as to mathematics (patterning and algebra) as the students worked through the centers. One of the teachers occasionally prompted the students in her circle with comments such as “what kind of pattern is this?” And “look at the pattern  – what would be the next colour?” Students were able to identify repeating patterns and to make connections to mathematical patterning. By participating in the centers, the students were able to engage with the subject matter, to use their creativity, and to participate in making in a way that connected with traditional Indigenous practices. According to Pamela Toulouse (2008), “an educational environment that honours the culture, language and world view of the Aboriginal student is critical” (p. 1). Teachers must find ways to meaningfully represent and include Indigenous people’s contributions, innovations, and inventions and create a learning environment that honors their origins and backgrounds (Bell & Anderson, 2004). The wampum project demonstrated how this school honored the tradition of wampum belts by inviting the students to participate in the design and construction of these artifacts thereby honoring the cultural practices of their Indigenous students as well as educating their non-Indigenous students in a way that was respectful and culturally appropriate. An important consideration in any makerspace is the connection to local communities and ensuring that the values and practices are integrated in meaningful and respectful ways. As such, each makerspace should be unique and not follow a “one-­size-­fits-all” approach. Our case studies (i.e., e-textiles and clean drinking water projects; Recycle Your Cycle; and beaded wampum belt patterned bracelet making) are all examples of working in partnership with local Indigenous communities to develop conscientious and engaging activities. Students in each makerspace were enlightened and motivated in their making, as their integrated tasks provided authentic and purposeful learning that connected to their local Indigenous communities. These makerspaces highlighted how focusing on cultural appreciation and partnership with Indigenous communities can lead to true Indigenous making experiences. Fundamental to each of these case study makerspaces were the principles of respect, relevance, responsibility, relationality, and reciprocity. Through Indigenous narrative, students learned the significance of various Indigenous symbols and language terms with the e-textile projects in KPRDSB, ideas about reciprocity through the Recycle Your Cycle collaborative project at the LDSB school, and the relevance of wampum belts and their patterns at the school in Rainy River DSB. The shared partnership with local Indigenous schools helped students experience a sense of responsibility and respect, while the community value of their refurbished bikes highlighted the ideals of reciprocity and relationship to land and place. Future makerspaces that wish to integrate Indigenous making must consider the partnerships with Indigenous communities, their interdisciplinary approaches with focuses on land and place, narrative, and cultural protocols and finally build a foundation from the principles of respect, relevance, responsibility, relationality, and reciprocity.

158

J. Hughes and M. Lam

References Barajas-Lopez, F., & Bang, M. (2018). Indigenous making and sharing: Claywork in an indigenous STEAM program. Equity & Excellence in Education, 51(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.108 0/10665684.2018.1437847 Bell, D., & Anderson, K. D. (2004). Sharing our success: Ten case studies in Aboriginal schooling (Report No. 18). SAEE. Berkes, F. (2009). Indigenous ways of knowing and the study of environmental change. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 39(4), 151–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/03014220909510568 Diamond, S. (2019). Addressing the imagination gap through STEAMM+D and indigenous knowledge. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(6), 1851–1856. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1808679115 FNMIEAO. (n.d.). Before engaging with Indigenous Knowledge consider…[PDF document]. https://secureservercdn.net/192.169.220.85/u84.447.myftpupload.com/wp-­content/ uploads/2021/05/ik_guidelines.pdf Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press. Gollihue, K. N. (2019). Re-making the makerspace: Body, power, and identity in critical making practices. Computers and Composition, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2019.05.002 Government of Alberta. (2004). Walking together: First nation, metis, Inuit perspectives in curriculum. Nelson Education Ltd. Iseke, J., & Moore, S. (2011). Community-based indigenous digital storytelling with elders and youth. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 35(4), 19–38. Kafai, Y., Searle, K., Martinez, C., & Brayboys, B. (2014). Ethnocomputing with electronic textiles. In Processions of the 45th ACM SIGSCE (pp. 241–246). ACM. Korff, J. (2019, February 8). What is the ‘Dreamtime’ or the ‘Dreaming’? Retrieved from https:// www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/spirituality/what-­is-­the-­dreamtime-­or-­the-­dreaming Kovach, M. (2010). Indigenous research methods and interpretation. In Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts (pp. 121–140). University of Toronto Press. L’Hirondelle, C. (2016). Relating necessity and invention: How Sara Diamond and the Banff Centre aided indigenous new media production (1992-2005). In H.  Igloliorte, J.  Nagam, & C. Taunton (Eds.), Public 54: Indigenous art: New media and the digital (pp. 25–35). Public Access. https://issuu.com/publicjournal/docs/54_preview_w_cover/8 Landrum, C. L. (2012). Kicking bear, John Trudell, and Anthony Kiedis (of the red hot chili peppers): “Show Indians” and pop-cultural colonialism. The American Indian Quarterly, 36(2), 182–214. Maskegon-Iskwew, A. (1994). Drumbeats to Drumbytes Origins. Drumbytes.org: Aboriginal Media Art. http://drumbytes.org/about/origins-­1994.php Museum of Ontario Archeology. (n.d.). Wampum. http://archaeologymuseum.ca/wampum Powless, R. (2004). The new agenda: Building upon the history of First Nations education in Ontario. The new agenda: A manifesto for first Nations education in Ontario, 2. Preston, J., Claypool, T., Green, B., Rowluck, W., & Martin, J. (2015). Education for aboriginal learners: Challenges and suggestions as perceived by school principals. Education Matters: The Journal of Teaching and Learning, 3(1). Rainy River District School Board. (n.d.). Indigenous education. https://www.rrdsb.com/ programs___learning/indigenous_education Richard, G., & Giri, S. (2017). Inclusive collaborative learning with multi-interface design: Implications for diverse and equitable makerspace education. In B.  K. Smith, M.  Borge, E. Mercier, & K. Y. Lim (Eds.), Making a difference: Prioritizing equity and access in CSCL, 12th international conference on computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) 2017 (Vol. 1). International Society of the Learning Sciences.

9  Indigenous Ways of Knowing and Making

159

Ryoo, J. J., & Barton, A. C. (2018). Equity in STEM-rich making: Pedagogies and designs. Equity & Excellence in Education, 51(1), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2018.1436996 Searle, K. A., Casort, T., Litts, B. K., & Benson, S. R. (2017). Connecting space and narrative in culturally responsive making in ARIS with indigenous youth. In P. Blikstein, D. A. Fields, & M. Berland (Eds.), FabLearn ‘17: Proceedings of the 7th annual conference on creativity and fabrication in education. Association for Computing Machinery. Searle, K. A., Casort, T., Litts, B. K., Brayboy, B. M., Dance, S. L., & Kafai, Y. (2018). Cultural repertoires: Indigenous youth creating with place and story. In J.  Kay & R.  Luckin (Eds.), Rethinking learning in the digital age: Making the learning sciences count, 13th international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS) 2018 (Vol. 2). International Society of the Learning Sciences. Seo-Zindy, R., & Heeks, R. (2017). Researching the emergence of 3D printing, makerspaces, hackerspaces and fablabs in the global south: A scoping review and research agenda on digital innovation and fabrication networks. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 80(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-­4835.2017.tb00589.x Shivers-McNair, A. (2019). Mediation and boundary making: A case study of making literacies across a makerspace. Learning, Culture, and Social Interaction, 24, 100290. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.02.015 Sky Stories: Indigenous Astronomy. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/edu/ ViewLoitDa.do;jsessionid=9357A42DE311CA659547DB114D6117F2?method=preview&la ng=EN&id=5186 Snively, G.  J., & Williams, L.  B. (2008). ‘Coming to know’: Weaving aboriginal and Western science knowledge, language, and literacy into the science classroom. L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 8(1), 109–133. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-­2008.08.01.03 Stairs, A. (2019). The cultural negotiation of indigenous education: Between microethnography and model-building. Peabody Journal of Education, 69(2), 154–171. https://doi. org/10.1080/01619569409538770 Toulouse, P. R. (2008). Integrating aboriginal teaching and values into the classroom. What works? Research into practice. The Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat. https://www.oise.utoronto. ca/deepeningknowledge/UserFiles/File/FNMI_-­_Research_Monograph_11_-­_Aboriginal_ Perspectives_Toulouse.pdf Vetter, D., Haig-Brown, C., & Blimkie, M. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching: Stories of a first nation, Métis, and Inuit cross-curricular infusion in teacher education. Learning Landscapes, 8(1), 305–322. Wilson, J., & Gobeil, M. (2017). Guitars and makerspace: Examining the experience of first nation students. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 43(3), n3. Winter, J., & Boudreau, J. (2018). Supporting self-determined indigenous innovations: Rethinking the digital divide in Canada. Technology Innovation Management Review, 8(2), 17–25.

Chapter 10

Making Making Accessible to All Janette Hughes and Jennifer A. Robb

Today’s classrooms are diverse, composed of students with a wide range of strengths and experiences. It has never been more important for teachers to provide educational programming that enables all students to learn and thrive. This chapter explores the ways that our participating schools leveraged making and maker pedagogies to support learners with diverse educational needs. We first provide an overview of the inclusive educational context in Ontario, followed by an examination of the affordances of making to support these initiatives. We then highlight the experiences of our participating schools in supporting students with special needs, as well as those from lower-income communities. Educators identified how making provided multiple entry points promoted confidence and perseverance, facilitated collaboration and leadership, and generated engagement and a passion for learning in students that are often disadvantaged by traditional educational approaches. They also described the ways in which making enhanced community buy-in and supported English language learning. The chapter concludes with a list of considerations for developing an accessible maker program in your educational context. As inclusive education becomes the global norm, broadening the diversity of students within our classrooms, there becomes a demand for educational strategies capable of supporting a range of learning needs. Research has demonstrated numerous benefits arising from inclusive classrooms, including increased student engagement (Morningstar et  al., 2015), behavioral changes, and improved academic performance (Rea et al., 2002), but educators have expressed concerns that these inclusive environments may not consistently provide the supports necessary for students with learning or socioeconomic challenges to succeed (DeSimone & Parmar, 2006).

J. Hughes (*) · J. A. Robb Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Hughes (ed.), Making, Makers, Makerspaces, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09819-2_10

161

162

J. Hughes and J. A. Robb

Given the global shift toward inclusive classrooms (DeSimone & Parmar, 2006; Ontario Ministry of Education [OME], 2017a), in which students of all backgrounds and abilities learn alongside one another in a cohesive, curriculum-driven learning environment, this chapter explores the role of making, makerspaces, and maker pedagogies in supporting learners with diverse educational needs as experienced by 20 participating schools. The inquiry-based, passion-driven approach to learning (see Chap. 2) afforded by making infuses flexibility and personal relevance into school, rendering it more accessible to those students who struggle with otherwise rigid schedules and abstract concepts that can seem detached and irrelevant to their personal lives (Calabrese Barton et al., 2017; Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Sheridan et al., 2014). Making can also be used as a bridge between creativity and educational content, strengthening conceptual understandings for students who find it difficult to succeed in traditional classrooms (Baroutsis & Towers, 2017; Peltonen & Wickström, 2014). Further, maker pedagogies emphasize hands-on, constructionist learning (see Chap. 1). Interspersing this approach throughout shorter periods of content instruction can be an effective strategy to elicit attention and engagement from all students (Calabrese Barton et al., 2017), regardless of ability or socioeconomic background. If the goal of inclusive education is to eliminate barriers to learning, growth, and the successful transition into society for all students (OME, 2017b), making and makerspaces may become a valuable asset for teachers.

Inclusive Education in Ontario In 2009, the Ontario Ministry of Education (OME) launched an Equity and Inclusive Education Strategy which has since evolved into a comprehensive policy document outlining Ontario’s commitment to promoting academic growth and success among diverse student populations (OME, 2014). In addition to describing Ontario’s inclusive policies and renewed goals for education, this document provides concrete tools and strategies to implement, monitor, and adjust equitable approaches to teaching and learning for educators at all levels, from classroom teachers to board administrators. These include plans to reduce gaps in student achievement, identify and eliminate biases and barriers to students’ success in school and society, as well as promote students’ mental, physical, and emotional well-being (OME, 2014). Since its inception, this policy has necessitated strong partnerships between teachers and special education experts in order to facilitate the skills and knowledge needed to provide targeted, personalized learning opportunities for students with diverse educational needs (OME, 2017b). Providing effective differentiated instruction can be challenging but is imperative for meeting the needs of learners in a province as varied as Ontario. According to OME’s School Information Finder (2019), over 16% of Ontario’s students are recognized as receiving special education services, and approximately 17% live in families with incomes below Statistics Canada’s Low Income Measure (People for Education, 2013). However, these averages fluctuate across the province. Among

10 Making Making Accessible to All

163

the schools participating in our study, the percentage of students receiving special education services (including those identified as gifted) ranged from 5% to 48%, while anywhere between 6% and 52% of students were from lower-income households (OME, 2019). While not always the case, learning challenges and familial income can overlap in complex ways. Often, schools with a high proportion of students from lower-income families informally classify greater numbers of students as having special needs; however, a lack of familial resources means that these students are less likely to go through the formal identification process, preventing access to specialized services for their educational needs (People for Education, 2013). This is just one subset of many that stands to benefit from effectively differentiated instruction in the inclusive classroom. The shift toward inclusive learning environments over separate, specialized classrooms is well-supported. When provided with appropriately levelled instruction, students with exceptionalities experience greater academic achievement in Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies learning alongside their peers than in segregated classrooms (Rea et al., 2002). They also demonstrate more sustained engagement in inclusive learning contexts (Morningstar et al., 2015) and attend significantly more days of school (Rea et al., 2002), which promote positive learning outcomes. These benefits are partly facilitated by the different levels of support available in and around the inclusive context. In class, collaborative and peer-supported learning opportunities promote knowledge sharing and construction between similarly aged students, contributing to engagement and a greater sense of inclusion (Morningstar et al., 2015). Outside of the classroom, teams of teachers, special education specialists, administrators, and paraprofessionals develop educational programs that promote student access and participation through diverse teaching methods and adaptations (Morningstar et al., 2015; Schalock et al., 2012), which contribute to the success of inclusive education. Inspired by these benefits and more, the Ontario government’s Education Equity Action Plan (OME 2017a) aspires to the use of inclusive educational design, including culturally responsive and relevant pedagogy, in school and classroom planning by 2020 and beyond. To fully capitalize on the affordances of inclusive education, there is a need for approaches to teaching and learning that integrate appropriate accommodations and cater to diverse student needs (DeSimone & Parmar, 2006).

Challenges with Our Current Context Schools serving communities with a high proportion of lower-income families face numerous challenges. Students are under intense pressure to perform well on standardized measures of assessment in order to generate much-needed funding but are often unable to access the same levels of support as students in more economically stable areas (Byrd-Blake et  al., 2010). With fewer resources, these schools often experience higher levels of discipline and behavioral issues, an inability to provide valuable enrichment or extracurricular activities, and teacher burnout due to a wide

164

J. Hughes and J. A. Robb

range of student needs and abilities, increased teaching load, and lack of administrative support (Byrd-Blake et al., 2010; Sirin, 2005). Furthermore, individual poverty levels as well as the overall socioeconomic status of the school population have a substantial impact on students’ academic achievement (Sirin, 2005). Parental involvement in students’ education decreases in tandem with familial resources, resulting in reduced communication with schools, inability to check homework or discuss students’ assignments (Byrd-Blake et al., 2010), and limited access to educational resources at home or in the local community (Sirin, 2005). Unfortunately, without appropriate interventions, this disparity in academic achievement is unlikely to resolve itself as students progress through the school system (Sirin, 2005). As the role of technology becomes increasingly important within society, experts are concerned that students from lower-income families may fall even further behind. Educators recognize that development of digital literacies is essential to students’ ability to read, write, and communicate in the modern world, but adequate access to the technologies needed to facilitate these skills is often lacking (Gormley & McDermott, 2014). Although the digital divide has narrowed significantly over the past 10 years, a report from Common Sense Media revealed that the gap in computer ownership and home access to high-speed Internet between students from higher- and lower socioeconomic households is approximately 25% (Rideout, 2017). Optimistically, this gap is nearly nonexistent in terms of mobile device ownership, but smartphones and tablets are not always sufficient for completing schoolwork and accessing online education portals (Rideout, 2017; Rowsell et al., 2017). Even when schools in lower-income areas secure access to computers and higher-­ end technologies, educational programming is often repetitive, emphasizing basic mechanical skills (e.g., typing and keyboard shortcuts) over problem-solving and creative endeavors (Henderson & Honan, 2008). In order to overcome issues of access for students in lower-income homes and adequately prepare them for participation in our technological society, schools must incorporate meaningful opportunities to learn, engage, and create with technologies in ways that stimulate the development of digital literacies and global competencies (see Chap. 4). These challenges often compound with those faced by students with exceptionalities. Although less pronounced in Ontario’s schools (People for Education, 2013), a substantial achievement gap separates students with special needs from their peers, often attributed to a lack of developmentally appropriate learning strategies and skills that would assist these students in processing standard curricular content (Deshler, 2005). Teachers of inclusive classrooms may have difficulty sustaining the attention and motivation of students with special learning needs, particularly in subjects that require a great deal of abstract thought, like Mathematics (DeSimone & Parmar, 2006). Studies have also found that students with learning disabilities and other complex challenges may invest less effort in their studies, demonstrate a reduced sense of academic confidence and self-efficacy (Lackaye & Margalit, 2006), and are more susceptible to dropping out of school on account of disinterest, lack of rapport with teachers, disciplinary issues, and high levels of absenteeism (Repetto et al., 2010).

10 Making Making Accessible to All

165

On account of the challenges described above, students with special learning needs or from lower socioeconomic areas are often categorized as “at risk,” that is, at risk of social exclusion, educational failure, or restriction from employment and other opportunities (Swadener, 2010). However, our ability to break down barriers for these students necessitates a shift in our thinking. Rather than focusing on students’ perceived deficiencies resulting from their social circumstances, we align our work with Swadener (2010), who encourages building upon the strengths and promise within students while simultaneously addressing the systemic factors that disadvantage them. Overcoming these barriers to reap the benefits of inclusive classrooms for students “at promise” necessitates the development of sound, evidence-based pedagogy that recognizes and works to reduce the gaps in opportunities provided to students with exceptionalities or challenges as a result of socioeconomic status (DeSimone & Parmar, 2006; Sirin, 2005).

Remembering Universal Design for Learning As an educational framework, Universal Design for Learning (UDL) enables teachers to better understand the diversity that exists among students and informs the development of a more inclusive space for learning through technology and other barrier-reducing tools (Edyburn, 2005, 2010). The fundamental goal of UDL is to design learning spaces and experiences in such a way that all students are able to participate and succeed, reducing the need for additional modifications and accommodations. Edyburn (2005, p.  17) outlines the three core principles supporting this goal: 1. Multiple means of representation to give learners various ways of acquiring information and knowledge. 2. Multiple means of expression to provide learners alternatives for demonstrating what they know. 3. Multiple means of engagement to tap into learners’ interests, challenge them appropriately, and motivate them to learn. While the integration of these three principles will not completely eliminate the need for personalized instruction and focused development of appropriate skills and strategies, the inherent differentiation promotes independence by giving students more agency over their learning, as well as improved academic outcomes (Morningstar et al., 2015).

Affordances of Making for Students at Promise Ontario’s commitment to equitable, inclusive classrooms (OME, 2017a) has the potential to provide numerous benefits for students from underserved communities or those with special learning needs, but many teachers feel as if their time and

166

J. Hughes and J. A. Robb

resources are spread too thin to adequately support such a diverse group of students. The UDL framework offers useful principles for the development of inclusive educational programming, but this also takes time. However, our research has found that the inquiry-driven, passion-based learning (see Chap. 2) and multimodality inherent to maker pedagogies can naturally integrate the principles of UDL and have the ability to facilitate the rich curriculum, high-quality instruction, and enrichment needed to promote positive outcomes and reduce gaps in academic achievement (People for Education, 2013). In addition to ensuring that tools are both accessible and engaging to newcomers and experts alike, the “low floors, high ceilings, and wide walls” approach emphasized across the maker movement (as described in Chap. 1; see also Papert, 1980; Resnick et  al., 2009) can enable students to participate in learning activities and begin to construct knowledge even without a full understanding of the underlying concepts (Calabrese Barton et  al., 2017). This provides ample opportunities for learners who may be achieving below grade level (or well above, in the case of gifted students) to engage with curriculum objectives from different entry points, gradually building confidence and capability in the subject. Reducing barriers to learning in this way has helped narrow the gaps in STEM achievement often experienced by students from lower-income families (Calabrese Barton et al., 2017). Maker pedagogies can also reduce barriers and promote the growth of critical academic skills for at-promise students (Swadener, 2010). Integrating technology through digital making activities alleviates many mechanical challenges associated with traditional educational materials and other tangible tools, increasing students’ productivity and rate of learning (Ciampa, 2017), confidence (Hughes, 2017), and engagement (Shah, 2011). Most digital applications allow users to customize settings related to navigation, visibility, and other accessibility concerns, enabling students to spend more time fully engaged in learning than overcoming obstacles (Ciampa, 2017; Shah, 2011). Moreover, the emphasis on multimodality in making helps to accommodate students’ individual learning needs and boost engagement in learning. By encouraging students to draw upon different modes of expression  – including text, images, audio, video, and more – educators create an environment that values learners’ preferences for constructing and demonstrating their knowledge (Ciampa, 2017), addresses challenges related to mandatory verbal or written communication (Hasselbring & Williams Glaser, 2000), and captivates students’ interest and willingness to participate (Hughes, 2017). Finally, adopting maker pedagogies and, more broadly, promoting a maker culture within schools can change the landscape of education for traditionally marginalized students. Making promotes an unrestricted view of “what counts” as learning, validating the capacities and perspectives of students that are often undervalued (Baroutsis & Towers, 2017; Calabrese Barton et  al., 2017). The interdisciplinary learning facilitated through making, including the integration of the arts to promote STEAM over STEM, creates more authentic educational experiences and enables students to communicate their understanding in various creative and agentive ways, further enhancing the relevance of school for students who struggle with traditional learning environments (Fleming, 2014; Freeman et al., 2017; Sheridan et al., 2014).

10 Making Making Accessible to All

167

Furthermore, the tendency of young people to be more confident and willing to take risks with new technologies can empower learners and affect a shift in roles (Ciampa, 2017), positioning students as valued collaborators and leaders in the classroom (see Chap. 5).

 esearch into Practice: How Making Had a Positive Impact R on Special Needs Students in Project Schools Several of the educators taking part in this research project commented on the ways that making and maker pedagogies transformed their approach to teaching and the resulting impact on their students with special needs. As can be seen in the interview excerpts below, these teachers felt that traditional teaching approaches were often disadvantageous to their students, while making provided an alternative way for these students to successfully engage with the curriculum (Fig. 10.1): A lot of the rambunctious kids, especially some of the boys, who have a hard time staying seated and doing things… if it’s hands on, they’ll try something and have more growth with it than if you were just sitting down and doing the standard teaching way of doing a report on it, explaining what you learned. (KPRDSB) Some of my special needs kids are just eating this up, they love it and they’re having success. They’re proud of themselves. We had a little tower competition in our classroom, and some of these kids were the most successful, using their logic to figure things out – and they succeeded which was great to see. It was great for those kids who might not always be that strong in some of those areas. (RCDSB)

Fig. 10.1  A student from CSC Providence sharing their LEGO® Mindstorms project

168

J. Hughes and J. A. Robb

I find with these kinds of making activities, you have the hands-on learning. And with those kids who are not always academic, you don’t normally get to see them focus and succeed, but with this kind of activity they shine, and they’re happier. (CSC Providence)

Part of what made these pedagogies so successful for our participating teachers was the built-in differentiation that enabled students to participate at whatever level they were comfortable. One sixth grade teacher commented on the range of learning needs and backgrounds that can exist within the average inclusive classroom and how the self-directed, inquiry-based nature of making was able to scaffold success at all levels: Any class has a wide range. I teach grade 6 and have a couple of kids who are reading and writing at a grade 1 level, which isn’t a common thing. I have a student with Down Syndrome in my class who is behind academically, and they enter at their own level. We improve, and we move on. I think it’s available to anybody. I think your regular curriculum and teaching something to the kids… a lot of it is beyond kids’ abilities, but when we’re doing the exploratory, inquiry-based learning, it’s open. It’s open if someone wants to take it to a certain level, it’s much more open. (KPRDSB)

The benefit of having multiple points of entry or access to learning was echoed by other teachers, as well. They noted that the active, constructionist approach encouraged their students with learning challenges to buy in to classroom activities they wouldn’t normally participate in: Teacher A: “It’s all hands on. They’re leading their learning, also. Even though they have modifications or accommodations, they’re still able to lead their learning through the makerspace, too.” Teacher B: “It gives everyone an access point.” Teacher A: “Everyone’s involved in it somewhere.” (BGCDSB) And I found that this, specifically for my students with IEPs and who function lower in terms of literacy or math, it’s nice for them to be able to have an entry point – a common entry point – but that really has a lot of opportunities to kind of come to a product in a different way. (Limestone DSB)

This sentiment also extended to gifted students. While the challenges experienced by gifted students aren’t perceived as negatively as those performing below grade level, their tendency to outpace their classmates through rapid learning abilities can result in boredom and disengagement if not adequately stimulated (Horak & Galluzzo, 2017). One teacher found that having constant access to maker tools and technologies opened up possibilities for her students to engage in self-directed learning and extend classroom instruction: For those kids, some of them are in need of a bit of enrichment in their programming, so it’s great that it’s been there in the classroom. When they’re finished their work or need a bit of supplemental activity, they’re invited to work independently on their projects. (DCDSB)

One of the main concerns with inclusive classroom environments is that the range of behaviors, backgrounds, and learning challenges make it difficult to ensure students are being given equitable chances to succeed. The teachers in this project found that making and maker pedagogies allowed them to more easily design

10 Making Making Accessible to All

169

learning experiences that were accessible to students at all levels through the integration of student choice, multimodal activities, and “low floor, high ceiling” technologies.

Impact on Achievement By creating an environment that invited all learners to participate at their own level, our teachers provided an opportunity for their students with special needs to learn, grow, and thrive in contexts where they may have otherwise struggled to keep their heads above water. This resulted in a number of academic improvements, including achievement of curriculum objectives. One teacher observed that having their makerspace tools available for students to interact with in the mornings facilitated an effective transition into learning: We have a student in grade 1 and we were talking about using it as a self-regulation activity. Every day he has 10 minutes of self-regulatory time before he begins the day because for whatever reason, he’s riled up quite high when he gets to school. The building and making time, the quiet time when he’s thinking and building and carrying on from yesterday, it’s just enough to get into that learning brain. So there’s those ways that complement the academic piece as well. (KPDSB)

As our teachers discussed the impact of the project on students’ academic achievement, one of the most common observations was that the digital and tangible making activities enabled their students with special needs to demonstrate their learning in ways they were unable to previously. Traditional models of teaching and learning emphasize abstraction, with students being assessed primarily on their written or spoken products. With their emphasis on multimodality and studentdriven learning, maker pedagogies extend the possibilities for demonstrating knowledge, as noted by the teachers below: Technology was the piece I really focused on. That was the part that evened the playing field for those kids for the first time. They can’t do pencil-and-paper work in their brain because it’s not equipped to be able to do those tasks. Because of that, they’ve always been relegated to be on the outside and technology has completely altered that potential. They are more willing and able to contribute in a regular classroom environment, learning the same curriculum in different ways and accessing it at different points. (Limestone DSB) The students that are very, very – they are not strong, they’re very low. The process of thinking ‘where am I going to put things?’ is still hard for them, but the minute that they get to building they shine. One of my students will come up… academically, she definitely has a challenge, but she will be the one bringing up new things to try in the classroom: ‘oh we should do this like this, or like this or…’ Because of this process, the fact that she has the opportunity to be creative sometimes, she shines. Normally she would just sit there and act like, ‘whatever I don’t understand what you’re saying, I’ll just keep on going through life without understanding’ but the fact that she can create and that she can build… she’s shining. (CEPEO) I teach grade 4 but I have a new student this year coming from up on reserve, so this is his first year really coming to school using Beebots to help him read is a good entry point for

170

J. Hughes and J. A. Robb

Fig. 10.2  Students using their reference drawing to construct a trebuchet him. He’s engaged and he wants to do it. He uses the Beebot to practice his sight words that he’s learning, so he has to code his Beebot and as it is getting to his word he has to read the word for me. It keeps him moving to get him saying it every 5 seconds, you have to know that word right. So he has moved he came in at level A he’s at level D now. (RRDSB)

A vice-principal in Huron Perth District School Board succinctly summarized these teachers’ observations while recounting a story about a student with a learning disability being able to design and code his own virtual reality applications, “if that child just used paper and pencil, we may not get that level of thinking out of that child.” Encouraging their students to make and be creative throughout the learning process provided alternative, and in some cases more authentic, means of constructing and communicating knowledge than many traditional classroom assignments (Fig. 10.2).

Developing Confidence and Perseverance Along with improvements to students’ academic achievement and skills, teachers also noticed that the maker pedagogies integrated through this research project helped their students with special needs become more confident in the classroom. This teacher found that encouraging their students to use multimodal digital tools for assignments provided time and space for students to compose their thoughts and complete their work: I had a student who is very quiet and didn’t like sharing her writing at all, and now she’s writing almost half pages and responding to students, which is fantastic. Huge for her. I don’t know if it’s just her being comfortable with the tech or maybe giving her time to think about it. (PSSBTP)

10 Making Making Accessible to All

171

Similarly, a teacher in DCDSB found that the excitement and engagement that was generated through the maker activities bolstered students’ confidence in oral communication, “being able to express yourself orally, there’s a huge improvement. For the kids who don’t usually like to talk, they’ll talk your ear off when they’re doing these things.” Several of the teachers in our project echoed existing research findings that their students with special needs were less likely to persevere through challenging tasks. However, the iteration, failure-positivity, and growth mindset emphasized by maker pedagogies seemed to gradually strengthen their students’ resiliency: In my class right now I’ve got a couple of boys who are on modified math or modified language programs, and I don’t want to say typical, but they are better with their hands. Two of the boys in particular, they’ve been much better and it helps their self-esteem and you can start to see that they can solve problems without getting frustrated. So when I had one of the students, we were making this dummy and we had to take it apart again, he had no problem taking it apart, whereas the child who is probably one of the highest academic kids in my class said ‘this is a waste of time like why am I doing this’. (Lakehead DSB) Anything we can tinker and he can make mistakes that aren’t necessarily public, especially in that culture of making mistakes, I think it’s more comfortable for him because everyone is – especially when it’s something new – everyone is challenged and is having trouble with it. And then there’s an opportunity to really feel successful and for people to share that. He’s really into sharing his learning with other people so when we’re with our Buddies – his brother’s in our Buddies class – and being able to show him what he’s learned and just to really feel that confidence you can really see that there. (Limestone DSB)

As discussed in Chap. 4, global competencies are essential, not only for students’ achievement and well-being but also in preparing them for success in the future. Given that a lack of these skills can be a detriment to students with special needs (Deshler, 2005), our teachers’ observation that being immersed in a maker culture has generated substantial improvements in their students’ confidence and willingness to persevere is encouraging.

Facilitating Collaboration and Leadership In many inclusive classrooms, students are assigned to smaller groups based on their approximate level in a curricular subject area or the degree of support needed. These levelled groups are another strategy for differentiating instruction, enabling teachers to provide focused, individualized support to a particular group of students while the remainder of the class is able to work independently at their own pace, or collaboratively in other groups. While this can be an effective strategy for learning, students often recognize the differences between these groupings, leading to feelings of inadequacy, and ostracization. In Chap. 4, we described the importance of developing collaborative skills in the classroom and provided examples from our project schools illustrating how maker pedagogies could facilitate the development of this and other global competencies. Recent literature also emphasizes that

172

J. Hughes and J. A. Robb

opportunities for students to work in mixed groups are essential for promoting engagement and peer-supported learning in inclusive classrooms (Morningstar et al., 2015). As the teachers in our study discovered, maker pedagogies can promote mixed-group collaboration and even elicit leadership from students who are typically disengaged from regular classroom activities, making the most of inclusive learning environments. One year into the study, a sixth grade teacher from KPRDSB remarked that the collaboration that transpired in his classroom is part of what made the integration of maker pedagogies so successful for his students with special needs. He said that even when some of his students struggled, “kids, they share more with each other, so it’s available to anybody.” Reflecting on the type of learning that was elicited through this project, another teacher shared a similar sentiment: There is a lot of higher-level thinking and problem solving that is required. We do have some students who would struggle with that, but the collaboration helps. I would say that almost every student is engaged at their highest level possible. (SCCDSB)

Although the hands-on, constructionist approach offers numerous entry points into higher-level thought processes and curricular content, there are those students that may still struggle to participate without support. These teachers found that other students, both with and without special needs, were able to collaborate and provide support that enabled everyone to engage in the various maker exercises. In some cases, this mutual engagement may not have benefited students academically but provided valuable opportunities for students with significant challenges to socialize and interact with their peers in ways they may not ordinarily be able to. A teacher from WCDSB shared their experience with this, saying “I have one special needs student and she’s on a completely alternative program. She’s just happy to be engaged with all of the other students and doing group work with them. She loves it.” Although this student was not working toward the same curricular objectives as her classmates, she enjoyed the collaborative process of working with her peers in an inclusive maker context, facilitating the development of other nonacademic skills. Several of our participating teachers also mentioned the unexpected leadership that emerged from their students with special needs over the course of the project. Perhaps as an extension of the confidence that developed as students were given the freedom to tinker, experiment, fail, and try again during the maker activities, students who had previously been observed as disengaged began to take on more of a leadership role in the classroom. One of the principals in our study remarked: Level two and level one students who have difficulty accessing the curriculum in traditional ways suddenly blossomed into leaders in the classroom environment. Don’t limit your ­students! The ones who you expect the least from may end up surprising you and teaching you something. (DCDSB)

This leadership was not limited to working with students that had similar learning challenges; as an administrator from HPDSB noted, “it’s something that is just awesome when we think about the new learning partnerships that may not have existed in traditional classrooms.” Students with special needs were observed sharing knowledge and supporting their classmates in ways that may not be possible in the

10 Making Making Accessible to All

173

traditional-levelled group arrangement. One fourth grade teacher recalled a time that she was able to facilitate this leadership, building confidence in one of her students with special needs and providing support for another group of students: I was going to show the principal some of the MaKey MaKey things that we were doing, and I know that one of the girls in my room that doesn’t work often really understood the earth connection. There was another group that was having a hard time and I said, ‘would you go help that group?’ She said ‘sure!’ and her eyes lit up. A few members in that group were like, ‘oh, well that’s not how you do it’, and I said, ‘actually, that’s why I sent her over because she’s really quite good at that.’ You give them a positive thing when you can, so I thought that was really neat. (RRDSB)

Another teacher described the role of this unexpected leadership in bridging gaps and facilitating stronger social ties between students that wouldn’t typically have interacted with one another prior to this project: My friends who have a language impairment or have been diagnosed with high-functioning Asperger’s become silent leaders because they can engage in coding so fluently, it’s incredible. And people are drawn to them – students and peers are drawn to these kids because they’re so fluent, and they learn so beautifully with them. They’re incredibly tech-savvy kids. And like I said, it creates leaders in unlikely places. Because of that, the social peer interaction is great and it transfers out into the yard. It’s not just in the makerspace. They talk about it, and then they group together, and then they talk in the hallway, and then they meet after school… when they weren’t invited to birthday parties before, now we are finding this common language, this common interest between them, and it bridges those gaps. (Limestone DSB)

Given the increasingly important role of collaboration and teamwork in society (as described in Chaps. 1 and 4), it is not surprising that it has emerged as a common theme throughout this book. However, as we continue to adopt and refine inclusive models of education, pedagogical approaches that promote collaboration and leadership across learning levels are crucial. The teachers in our study found that maker pedagogies, tools, and technologies were effective in promoting teamwork, mutual support, and sharing between all of their students, serving to not only facilitate stronger social relationships but to bolster confidence and engagement in learning, as well.

Generating Engagement and Passion School can be a frustrating experience for students with special needs, especially if they do not feel they are being adequately supported. In classrooms that emphasize a more traditional approach to the curriculum, these students often become disengaged and inattentive, expending less effort in their schoolwork as a result (DeSimone & Parmar, 2006; Lackaye & Margalit, 2006; Repetto et al., 2010). To keep these students enrolled in school and ensure they have equitable chances to learn alongside their peers, it is important for teachers and administrators to promote student buy-in. Integrating novelty into the classroom is one way to pique

J. Hughes and J. A. Robb

174

students’ interest and engagement, but the effects subside as students become accustomed to the once-novel element. However, the student-driven, passion-based nature of making may prolong investment and captivate even those students typically disengaged by traditional education (Fig. 10.3). The theme of “engagement” arose at over half of our project schools when speaking about their students with special needs. Teachers were excited that their typically disengaged students were latching on to tools and classroom activities they genuinely enjoyed. One teacher from KPDSB described one such student as having “low engagement, struggles with reading, fine motor skills, and so on. He made this [Scratch animation] on his own and was so excited about it.” For this student, as well as others identified in the project, the excitement and passion resulting from their success in making something tangible or digital were able to spur them on in future endeavors. Several teachers identified the role of their maker culture in helping students to manage emotional and behavioral outbursts. One teacher described how assigning hands-on tasks that their students with special needs actively enjoyed led to a reduction in classroom disruptions: Makerspace, and the things that I’ve chosen to do with these students in mind, settles them down; they are focused on what they’re doing. If they’re knitting or something, it’s amazing. My one little boy this morning, he’s working on this LEGO® project, and there have been no problems whatsoever. (DCDSB)

Similarly, another teacher found that giving students a goal to work toward using whatever makerspace tools they chose helped to engage their students with special needs and enabled the rest of the class to also work at their own pace without being disrupted (Fig. 10.4):

Fig. 10.3  Students collaboratively learning to use MaKey MaKey

10 Making Making Accessible to All

175

Fig. 10.4  A student viewing a scene created in virtual reality I have two students that are on the Autism spectrum and have had difficulty with the rigidity of school structure, and I’m not a particularly rigid teacher. I just say ‘here’s the goal for the day, choose your task and work on it’, so they can choose what they’re doing. You avoid that conflict and power struggle when you’ve got kids who want to be working on their drawing, or their story, or on the math that they’re interested in. (KPRDSB)

For these teachers, maker pedagogies facilitated a classroom culture that valued choice, independence, and students’ individual interests, which (as described in Chap. 2) promoted engagement and enabled students to pursue curricular objectives in personally meaningful ways. This is especially valuable when working with students who struggle with strictly defined criteria and structure in the classroom. Providing the freedom to explore at their own pace and through their preferred approach could be the small shift that keeps these students engaged, as explained by one of our project teachers with a particularly high-needs student in a grade 7/8 split class: I have a student in my class who you’d consider high needs: nonverbal, she’s about a Kindergarten level, she actually has a support professional all the time. All of these things, these activities that we do, she is right in there with us. In sewing, she went back twice because she loved it so much, and sometimes you get single words from her where she’s really pumped. She made stuff like hats and scarves, and she’s hooked on those things. She did a good job, I was surprised because everyone was really leery, they thought that she would grab it and go. She’s been so great. At the beginning of the year, the parents were trying to decide if she’d really be able to go to high school, and they’re going to keep her with this stream of kids for another year because it’s been such a beneficial program for her. She’s learning how to cook and sew and build. (Lakehead DSB)

Despite prior research questioning the ability of inclusive classrooms to meet the needs of students with significant challenges, this teacher felt that the maker project had made a substantial impact on this particular student, a sentiment which was

176

J. Hughes and J. A. Robb

echoed by the student’s family. While she may not be learning at the same level as her classmates, the ability for her to participate in the same activities alongside them facilitated numerous valuable skills, as well as the engagement to partake in these activities again and again. Given the role of schools in preparing students for the future, being able to keep students with special needs interested and engaged through the integration of maker pedagogies is significant for the future of inclusive education.

 esearch into Practice Making with High-Needs Populations R in Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Regions When stakeholders discuss inclusivity in education, students with special needs are often the focus. However, schools with a high proportion of students from lower socioeconomic households face similar challenges, including gaps in student achievement, inadequate access to resources, and issues with student attendance and engagement (Byrd-Blake et al., 2010; People for Education, 2013; OME, 2019). Although the schools in our project were provided with professional development, funding for equipment, and ongoing support that schools in similar circumstances may not have access to, we were interested to see how they would leverage maker pedagogies to facilitate their students’ success. Rather than relying on the novelty of maker pedagogies and implementing them as a new approach to learning, the teachers at one school elected to weave making into their current routine, enhancing their teaching, and naturalistically moving toward a maker culture. For example, as a school in a lower socioeconomic area CEPEO did not have access to an updated on-site library. Instead, teachers would walk with their students to the local library to pick up books and ideas for classroom activities. Depending on what they found, these resources could be difficult to transport back to school. This inspired the idea for an authentic maker activity: The students are going to create their own bag to get the books, because we’re going to walk to the library every two weeks and get some new books, get some new activities from the library itself. It’s only a block away, so that will be their first activity. (CEPEO)

Through this exercise, their students learned to identify a problem pertaining to their everyday lives, generate solutions, and use their skills and resources to create something to solve that problem. While this activity may not have drawn on computers, robotics, or other high-tech tools that makerspaces are known for in popular media, these teachers engaged their students in making for a genuine purpose, which is much more valuable than making just for the sake of it. Another issue faced by schools in low-income areas is that working-class parents aren’t always able to be involved in their child’s education due to external pressures. This can result in limited communication with teachers and an inability to consistently check students’ homework or discuss daily school activities with them (Byrd-­ Blake et al., 2010). One of the teachers in our project found that not only did maker

10 Making Making Accessible to All

177

pedagogies help to engage the students at school; they also seemed to captivate their parents: I find that this stuff was a great conversation starter for those parents that aren’t involved. Not that they’re not interested; they care about their children but have other issues going on. So throwing this on Seesaw (a digital portfolio and parental communication platform), saying ‘look what we did today in makerspace’, we would get responses or likes and ‘way to go’ comments. So many positive things. And actually, a parent that’s been struggling with their child who has their own issues posted something on Seesaw that was like, ‘I’m so proud of him’. I could tell she was so proud of him, and she actually took the time to look at this and respond… I was shocked. (RRDSB)

Despite parents’ busy lives, when the school integrated easily accessible digital communication platforms and took time to document the innovative learning their students were taking part in, the parents themselves were more engaged and willing to take time to commend their children and the teachers themselves. This type of parental involvement can go a long way in conveying the importance of school for students that may not have the same educational enrichment in their home lives as their more affluent peers (Fig. 10.5).

Making It Work in GECDSB Although the student demographic in many of our project schools represented the average in terms of students receiving special education services (16%) or students from lower socioeconomic households (17%), this study also gave us an opportunity to observe how maker pedagogies would fare in schools with much greater challenges. The participating school from the Greater Essex County District School Board accommodates a population with 52% of students from low-income families and 97% with a first language other than English or French (OME, 2019). The principal from GECDSB explained that their school has a substantial immigrant population that has nearly doubled in the past few years. In response to these demographic changes, the school brought on additional staff to support their diverse student body, including two language coaches for students learning English as a Second Language (ESL), four dedicated ESL teachers, and a translator that would visit the school on a daily basis to help reduce the language barrier. Despite these challenges, the principal noted that the makerspace, as well as the technology therein, had been extremely beneficial for their ESL population. This sentiment was echoed by one of their teachers, who explained that Ozobots and other tools that used visual representation systems (rather than English coding syntax) provided an entry point for their English language learners to experiment with making and coding without having mastery of the language. In addition to capitalizing on the multiple entry points that making afforded their students, another teacher described how they were able to use the stepwise progression available in their robots to support English language development:

178

J. Hughes and J. A. Robb

Fig. 10.5  Greater Essex County DSB’s makerspace entrance I have one class that’s older, they’re grade 5 and 6, and it’s one of the ESL classes. We were working on vocabulary and synonyms, so I just put a bunch of synonyms on the floor on sticky notes and then we would pull out like a very basic feeling like ‘emotions – sad’ and then they had to race the Dash robots to stop on a word that meant the same thing. I’m sure if I had said ‘give me a synonym, what’s another way to say sad?’ they would have been confused, but using the robots, they were like ‘oooohhh!!’ They were all over the place. When they landed on the word they picked it up and they were sticking them on the wall, saying ‘look I’ve got five up on the wall, you’ve only got 4’. It became very competitive, and I was amazed at how they were picking the words up like that. (GECDSB)

Wonder Workshop’s (n.d.) Dash, like many of the codeable robots available on the market, provides users with various developmentally appropriate coding options, such as using your finger to draw a path on an app that the robot will execute in its physical space, an icon-based coding “language,” block coding, and more traditional programming languages. As the teachers in GECDSB discovered, these different coding levels could be used to support students’ English language development in a number of ways: first, by providing an engaging, tactile way for students to engage with language lessons that may otherwise be too challenging and, second, having students utilize the different types of code as they become more familiar with the English language. The icon-based coding platform supports students who are very early in the ESL process, while block coding and beyond can reinforce and extend students’ language development (Fig. 10.6). One of the factors influencing this school’s success in this project may have been their school culture. During one of our visits, the teachers mentioned that they had always worked toward an open, inquiry-based approach throughout the school and that their participation in this project had helped them explore that mindset even more. As described in Chap. 2, embracing inquiry in the classroom promotes authentic learning, enabling students to develop academic skills and knowledge that

10 Making Making Accessible to All

179

Fig. 10.6  Students coding Wonder Workshop’s (n.d.) Dash robot to navigate a grid

will extend to their lives beyond education. This is particularly relevant in schools serving lower-income communities as students may have limited opportunities for enrichment in their home lives. As a result, the makerspace became a hub for students excited to explore and share their learning with one another. As one teacher explained, “there’s a significant proportion of ESL students and socially vulnerable students that come on a regular basis, and this is their safe place. They’re successful here.” Expanding on this, the teachers discussed the academic and social progress made by one of their students during this project: I think about one boy in grade 7 – socially vulnerable – in the classroom he has difficulty connecting and creating positive relationships, but he is very, very, very advanced with coding, so he comes to the makerspace and creates his own programs on the computer. Then he’s showing the other kids, and then all of a sudden the other kids want him to show them how they did that, and then there’s four of them around the computer watching what he’s done. You can just see it on his face – the pride that he wouldn’t have had the opportunity to experience if he wasn’t given the time to see what he can do. (GECDSB)

In this example, the teacher illustrates how having access to the makerspace and various coding platforms enabled one of their students to explore and develop his own competencies in coding and then share his expertise with other students, breaking down social barriers that had existed previously. These sorts of opportunities can build pride and confidence as traditionally struggling students recognize their ability to be successful through alternative approaches to learning. The teacher continues recalling that students’ progress: I remember the first time he came to me, he was like, ‘miss, look at my Tetris game’. ‘That’s so nice’, I said, ‘where did you find that?’ He said he made it, and I was like, ‘okay, sure’. He persisted and shows me all his code and how we could change it. I’m like, ‘oh my goodness, he made it’ and the other kids could not believe it. He also made an amazing connec-

180

J. Hughes and J. A. Robb

tion between art and his coding. So they were doing one-point perspective in their art class, and he comes to show me this 3D object that he had coded to move in and out all centered around a one point perspective. It was smaller, then larger, and then moved up where the focus of perspective changed and he was like, ‘look miss, I did perspective in coding’. That’s art – you just applied what you learned in class to your coding and you were able to make the code to do that! That was incredible, I put that on Twitter and then his teacher liked it and then she got an opportunity to see how she had impacted his learning. Maybe he’s not the kid that has the fine motor skills to make a beautiful perspective drawing, but he can make an amazing perspective program so that was awesome. (GECDSB)

Through the open, inquiry-based approach fostered by the school, this student was able to take the coding skills he had learned in the makerspace and apply them to other curricular subjects. As this teacher described, he may not have been the type of student to excel at art through a traditional medium, but he was able to understand artistic concepts (such as one-point perspective) and demonstrate his knowledge through a coded program, opening up valuable opportunities for learning that this student may not otherwise have had access to. The teachers at in GECDSB also commented on ways that the makerspace facilitated parental and community buy-in, which can be difficult in lower-income communities. Once they had gotten their makerspace setup, they hosted an “open making night,” inviting families to come in and explore the tools and technologies with their students and get a sense of the type of learning that would be taking place within the school. The school found that these opportunities to engage with parents were valuable, especially when they were able to educate students’ families on the value of tinkering and making. In the excerpt below, one of the teachers describes her interactions with a student’s parents who wanted their child to be successful but were unfamiliar with maker pedagogies: We have a grade 6 student in our class whose teacher is involved in a ‘genius hour’ project, and he comes to makerspace… not all the time, but he does come. He was building a helicopter, so he went home and said to his parents (who are Arabic speaking) that he wanted to build this helicopter, and he needed all these fancy parts. The father didn’t see the value in what he was doing, and didn’t want the student to dream big and not have realistic goals. He said that if the teachers say this is worthwhile and that he can possibly become an engineer and an inventor, then he’ll support it and they’ll continue with the helicopter project. The student’s mum came in and she believed in him, thought it was worthwhile and that he could be successful in this line of work (because they were thinking future-wise for him). She just needed to hear from us that we thought he had the ability to be successful and that we’re promoting this in the school. Ever since then, the student comes and he’s like ‘yes, at home I was doing this and this’, and now dad fully supports his making, so that was a positive story as well. (GECDSB)

Although financial and time constraints often prevent parents of lower-income families from being as involved in their child’s education as they would like to be, the participating staff at Greater Essex County District School Board stressed that making those connections is so important, especially so that parents can see the kinds of future-ready skills that students are developing within these maker contexts.

10 Making Making Accessible to All

181

Getting Started with Making Making Accessible In addition to the recommendations provided in the book thus far, there are several other considerations for providing an equitable learning experience through maker pedagogies: 1. Establish in-school partnerships. Schools with a high proportion of students with special needs or students from lower-income families are often stretched thin (Byrd-Blake et al., 2010; Sirin, 2005). Team up with teachers from other divisions, special education resource teachers, administrators, and whoever else wants to get on board to develop resources, organize tools and materials, and prevent burnout. 2. Use what you have… You don’t need to have access to the latest and greatest technologies to make a makerspace work. Focus first on the types of making that are authentic to your community (such as the bicycle repair project in LDSB or the Indigenous artifacts created in RRDSB). If you have access to tablets or computers, there are wonderful free apps with visual interfaces (such as Tinkercad or micro:bit) that enable students to code and design even without access to a 3D printer or programmable circuit boards. 3. …and expand slowly, as you’re able! Many of the schools in our project have been successful asking for donations of recycled materials, tools, lumber, and even electronics from students’ families and local companies. Donated smartphones when families upgrade their devices (no SIM card required) are an easy way to get started with virtual and augmented reality projects, and old, broken-­ down electronics are great for a fixerspace or breakerspace. 4. Plan your space with students in mind. Whether you plan to have a dedicated makerspace or create a maker culture within your school, consider the needs of your future makers. AccessEngineering (2015) recommends numerous considerations, including making sure the space and tools are physically accessible; establishing safety procedures that include students with physical, visual, and hearing impairments; having adjustable and non-traditional seating and ­workspaces; clear labels and instructions in multiple formats (including 3D printed braille and video, accessed by augmented reality); and more! 5. Be flexible and adaptable. As one of our project teachers found, the shift to maker pedagogies can be challenging for some students who aren’t accustomed to the amount of noise, moving around, and collaboration that take place. Try not to feel constrained to the idea of a single makerspace. Mobile carts and sign-out systems can help take the making out of the makerspace and into a context that feels safe for all students. While the inclusive education movement has facilitated numerous benefits for students with special needs or from lower socioeconomic households, it can be challenging to meet the needs of a diverse student body while also achieving the objectives of your instructional program. As the schools cited within this chapter found, making can infuse your pedagogy with hands-on, passion-based learning that provides numerous entry points and opportunities for students to succeed, and

182

J. Hughes and J. A. Robb

it doesn’t have to be expensive (despite what you might see in popular media). As schools continue to move toward the inclusive educational design envisioned by the Ontario government (OME, 2017a), the social opportunities, skills, and academic development that transpired over the course of this project suggest that maker pedagogies could be a valuable tool for teachers.

References AccessEngineering. (2015, August 3). Making a makerspace? Guidelines for accessibility and universal design. http://www.washington.edu/doit/sites/default/files/atoms/files/Making_a_ Makerspace_8_03_15.pdf Baroutsis, A., & Towers, C. (2017). Makerspaces: Inspiring writing in young children. Practical Literacy: The Early & Primary Years, 22(3), 32–34. Byrd-Blake, M., Afolayan, M. O., Hunt, J. W., Fabunmi, M., Pryor, B. W., & Leander, R. (2010). Morale of teachers in high poverty schools: A post-NCLB mixed methods analysis. Education and Urban Society, 42(2), 450–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124510362340 Calabrese Barton, A., Tan, E., & Greenberg, D. (2017). The makerspace movement: Sites of possibilities for equitable opportunities to engage underrepresented youth in STEM. Teachers College Record, 119(6), 1–44. Ciampa, K. (2017). Building bridges between technology and content literacy in special education: Lessons learned from special educators’ use of integrated technology and perceived benefits for students. Literacy Research and Instruction, 56(2), 85–113. https://doi.org/10.108 0/19388071.2017.1280863 Deshler, D. D. (2005). Adolescents with learning disabilities: Unique challenges and reasons for hope. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 122–124. DeSimone, J. R., & Parmar, R. S. (2006). Middle school mathematics teachers’ beliefs about inclusion of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21(2), 98–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-­5826.2006.00210.x Edyburn, D.  L. (2005). Universal design for learning. Special Education Technology Practice, 7(5), 16–22. Edyburn, D.  L. (2010). Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it? Ten propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(1), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/073194871003300103 Fleming, L. (2014). Literacy in the making: Showing how the ‘maker movement’ has a place in all disciplines. Reading Today, 32(2), 28–29. Freeman, A., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., & Hall Giesinger, C. (2017). NMC/ CoSN Horizon Report: 2017 K–12 Edition. The New Media Consortium. Gormley, K., & McDermott, P. (2014). “We don’t go on the computers anymore!”: How urban children lose in digital literacies. The Educational Forum, 78(3), 248–262. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/00131725.2014.912372 Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495–504. Hasselbring, T. S., & Williams Glaser, C. H. (2000). Use of computer technology to help students with special needs. The Future of Children, 10(2), 102–122. https://doi.org/10.2307/1602691 Henderson, R., & Honan, E. (2008). Digital literacies in two low socioeconomic classrooms: Snapshots of practice. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 7(2), 85–98. Horak, A.  K., & Galluzzo, G.  R. (2017). Gifted middle school students’ achievement and perceptions of science classroom quality during problem-based learning. Journal of Advanced Academics, 28(1), 28–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X16683424

10 Making Making Accessible to All

183

Hughes, J. M. (2017). Digital making with “at-risk” youth. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 34(2), 102–113. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-­08-­2016-­0037 Lackaye, T.  D., & Margalit, M. (2006). Comparisons of achievement, effort, and self-­ perceptions among students with learning disabilities and their peers from different achievement groups. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 432–446. https://doi.org/10.117 7/00222194060390050501 Morningstar, M. E., Shogren, K. A., Lee, H., & Born, K. (2015). Preliminary lessons about supporting participation and learning in inclusive classrooms. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 40(3), 192–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796915594158 Ontario Ministry of Education. (2014). Equity and inclusive education in Ontario schools: Guidelines for policy development and implementation. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2017a). Ontario’s education equity action plan. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2017b). Special education in Ontario: Kindergarten to grade 12 (draft). Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2019). School information finder. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/ eng/sift/ Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books. Peltonen, M., & Wickström, M. (2014). 3D-prints and robots play a part in my story. Participatory learning action and content creation in a library maker space. Paper presentation. IFLA WLIC 2014 – libraries, citizens, societies: Confluence for knowledge, Lyon, France. http://library.ifla. org/869/1/120-­peltonen-­en.pdf People for Education. (2013). Mind the gap: Inequality in Ontario’s schools. http://education. chiefs-­of-­ontario.org/upload/documents/resources/research-­reports/reports-­education/p4e-­ mind-­the-­gap-­2013.pdf Rea, P. J., McLaughlin, V. L., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2002). Outcomes for students with learning disabilities in inclusive and pullout programs. Exceptional Children, 68(2), 203–222. https:// doi.org/10.1177/001440290206800204 Repetto, J., Cavanaugh, C., Wayer, N., & Liu, F. (2010). Virtual high schools: Improving outcomes for students with disabilities. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 11(2), 91–104. Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernandez, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., Millner, A., Rosenbaum, E., Silver, J., Silverman, B., & Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1145/1592761.1592779 Rideout, V. (2017). The common sense census: Media use by kids age zero to eight. Common Sense Media. Rowsell, J., Morrell, E., & Alvermann, D. E. (2017). Confronting the digital divide: Debunking brave new world discourses. The Reading Teacher, 71(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1603 Schalock, R.  L., Luckasson, R., Bradley, V., Buntinx, W., Lachapelle, Y., Shogren, K.  A., … Wehmeyer, M. L. (2012). User’s guide for the 11th edition of intellectual disability: Definition, classification, and systems of support. American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Shah, N. (2011). iPads become learning tools for students with disabilities. Education Week, 30(22), 16–17. Sheridan, K. M., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B. K., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T. (2014). Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 505–531. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.brr34733723j648u Sirin, S.  R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453. https://doi. org/10.3102/00346543075003417 Swadener, B. B. (2010). “At risk” or “at promise”? From deficit constructions of the “other childhood” to possibilities for authentic alliances with children and families. International Critical Childhood Policy Studies, 3(1), 7–29. Wonder Workshop. (n.d.). Dash. https://www.makewonder.com/robots/dash/

Chapter 11

Assessment in the Makerspace Janette Hughes and Stephanie Thompson

In this chapter, a number of best practices for assessment in maker classrooms are described and specific examples provided as to how they have been successfully implemented by the teachers involved in the makerspace project. These include triangulation of data, pedagogical documentation, making learning visible, effective questioning as assessment, and student reflection as self-assessment. The chapter concludes with a section on the use of portfolios as an effective means of assessment in order to evaluate process as well as product and to demonstrate to students that learning is a lifelong, iterative process. The increasing popularity of makerspaces in classrooms as centers of learning, expression, and exploration has led to the realization that there are a number of new skills and competencies both inside and outside of the curriculum that students must master (Blikstein et al., 2017). The development of these skills is accompanied by the kinds of cognitive apprenticeship (Collins et  al., 1991) provided by making, such as planning, evaluation, revision, and creativity. Such skills add an element of creativity to technological problem-solving (Lewis et al., 1998) and activities such as laser cutting, 3D printing, soldering, sewing, and constructing circuits ask students to solve problems, to troubleshoot, to identify appropriate scientific and design principles to be applied to tasks, and to develop solutions that can be implemented and modified in multiple versions. The emphasis on student creativity and learner-centeredness in making creates a potential dilemma for assessment; it asks teachers to objectively and accurately assess work that often extends beyond the prescribed curricula and is creative, student-directed, and open-ended (Blikstein et al., 2017). In this chapter, a number of assessment practices in making are described and examples provided as to how they have been successfully implemented by the J. Hughes (*) · S. Thompson Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Hughes (ed.), Making, Makers, Makerspaces, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09819-2_11

185

186

J. Hughes and S. Thompson

teachers involved in the makerspace project. These include triangulation of data, pedagogical documentation, making learning visible, effective questioning as assessment, and student reflection as self-assessment. The chapter concludes with a section on the use of portfolios as an assessment tool in making; learning portfolios are an option that is quickly gaining momentum in schools that are embracing making and maker culture. According to Growing Success, the Ontario Ministry of Education’s (OME, 2010) policy document on assessment and evaluation, the main purpose of assessing students is to improve their learning. It also provides important information on how teachers can support students in furthering their learning (Watt & Colyer, 2014). Assessment and evaluation must be both valid and reliable and should employ practices and procedures that are equitable, transparent, and correspond to the interests, learning preferences, needs, and experiences of all students. Assessment practices should be ongoing, should be varied in nature, and should provide students with multiple ways and opportunities to demonstrate the knowledge and skills they have acquired (OME, 2010). Maker classrooms and schools embrace a culture which places students’ wonderings, questions, and ideas at the center of the learning experience (OME, 2013). This type of student-led, inquiry-based learning offer students a variety of ways of thinking; it asks students to question, to think critically, to evaluate sources, to problem-­solve, to propose and test solutions, and to create, revise, and reflect. As Kuhlthau et al. (2007) state, “inquiry … requires more than simply answering questions or getting a right answer. It espouses investigation, exploration, search, quest, research, pursuit, and study. It is enhanced by involvement with a community of learners, each learning from the other in social interaction” (p. 2). The role of the teacher in this process is to establish a culture where students’ ideas are respectfully challenged, tested, redefined, and refined, moving children from a position of wondering to a position of enacted understanding and further questioning (Scardamalia, 2002).

Assessment and Making In many cases, instructional and assessment practices in a makerspace environment align closely with inquiry-based learning environments. When planning lessons that involve making and/or inquiry, teachers must plan for all three types of assessment: diagnostic, formative, and summative. When beginning a maker activity, diagnostic assessment is used to determine which skills and strategies students currently have and can use, and then this information can be used to further develop these strengths during the inquiry. Diagnostic assessment can also help teachers to scaffold the learning of students with diverse needs and individualize or differentiate instruction. Ongoing formative assessment is critical in the making process in order to monitor student development of skills and strategies as well as how they are meeting the

11  Assessment in the Makerspace

187

learning goals and success criteria. This can include teacher assessment, peer assessment, and student self-assessment practices. Additionally, continuous assessment helps teachers to modify instruction or adapt activities as needed in order to support student achievement and well-being. Upon completion of a maker activity, generally a summative assessment is carried out; this can take the form of a rubric or checklist and provides information to teachers, students, and parents about the knowledge and skills that have been developed in the making activity. Successful planning of any inquiry or maker activity requires teachers to use a backward design model (McTighe & Wiggins, 2012) of assessment – determining what students will know or be able to do by the end of the activity, how they will know when they have learned this, and what activities are appropriate for the learning process. All three types of assessment are essential in order for teachers and students to understand what they are learning and what they have learned during a maker activity (Alberta Learning, 2004).

Promising Practices for Assessment The teachers in the project employed a number of assessment practices to evaluate both the process and the products of their students as they participated in the makerspace and in making practices. In this section, the teachers share their experiences with triangulation of data, pedagogical documentation, making learning visible, effective questioning, and student reflection as self-assessment.

Triangulation of Data By inviting students into the learning process and making their learning visible, teachers are able to collect reliable and valid evidence of learning by intentionally triangulating data and providing descriptive feedback and next steps (Watt & Colyer, 2014). Valuable assessment data consists of conversations, observations, and products (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2010). Conversations  can occur between students who are collaborating on a project or between student and teacher and reveal details of student thinking. Rich data can be obtained through questioning and by listening to student talk; conversations may also help students to clarify, extend, revise, and defend their thinking (Watt & Colyer, 2014). Teachers may also use these opportunities to correct misconceptions and to guide student learning. Observations  require teachers to deliberately attend to the actions that students are taking during making and to gather evidence as to how well the student is meeting the success criteria in order to attain the learning goals. Teachers may be looking for

188

J. Hughes and S. Thompson

evidence of design thinking, planning, analysis, critical thinking, problem-solving skills, or collaboration (Watt & Colyer, 2014). In addition to acting as assessment as learning, both conversations and observations can guide students through the learning process and assist students in determining their next steps. Products  are often used for the purpose of summative assessment in order to provide a snapshot of a student’s ability at a certain time, usually for the purpose of reporting. By providing students with ongoing guidance and feedback throughout the learning process, students are able to make improvements along the way while there is still time to improve their knowledge and skills; this is how students are able to make real progress in their learning (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).

Research into Practice In the makerspace project, several teachers reported a shift in pedagogical culture that occurred in their schools, particularly in terms of assessment. The teachers in HPCDSB observed that maker culture has expanded their focus from concentrating solely on the product to placing more weight on the process. Teachers from both HPCDSB and SCCDSB commented in the examples below on the value of conversations and observations in order to triangulate data as an effective means of gathering assessment evidence (Fig. 11.1): In terms of assessment we’re used to having some kind of artifact or some kind of final assessment. I was in the 6/7 classroom yesterday and the teacher was using Dash ‘n Dots and students were programming them and doing different triangles on the floor. There’s an example where the observations and the conversations with students is the assessment. But I think for so many teachers, it’s hard to be comfortable developing that assessment and saying I know the child mastered that skill because I observed them create that triangle and had conversations with their peers and myself. I think that that’s assessment which has been in Growing Success for years, but I think that we need to develop a stronger comfort level with that to say I know that child mastered that skill because I saw it. We don’t necessarily need the child to then answer some kind of paper and pencil activity to confirm that, so trusting our observations is going to be an ongoing challenge. (HPCDSB)

The teacher from SCCDSB explains how he has shared his expanded assessment practices with his students in order for them to understand the importance of process as well as product and the value of conversations and observations in order to make his students’ learning visible (Fig. 11.2): I’ve told them for this the whole assessment isn’t the trebuchet, it’s the group activity and their persistence, just the ability to talk to them for learning skills has been awesome, just to have those conversations. Problem solving overall in math and science is much different now than it was last year. It’s not just the projects as the end, or the projects as we go. I’ve looked at the different parts of the triangle, the observations and just watching from afar, I like doing this because I’m just watching and helping out. I can write stuff down that way and I can also sit down and look at their work as they’re working and conference with the

11  Assessment in the Makerspace

Fig. 11.1  Students from HPCDSB demonstrate programming of Dash & Dot robots

Fig. 11.2  Students from SCCDSB work on making trebuchets

189

190

J. Hughes and S. Thompson

kids. It’s not just rubrics and assignments now. I really have changed. I don’t use a lot of paper now – I’m assessing in different ways, hopefully it makes a difference. (SCCDSB)

In this next example, the teacher from GEDSB talks about how her emphasis has shifted away from the product in favor of the process, which includes conversations and observations, in order to more effectively assess her students’ learning. She also comments on the importance of giving students time to self-assess and to peer-­ assess while the work is still ongoing: I think my assessment is richer when I focus on process instead of product. When I was following process, I do have to think about if they are doing self-reflection, do they have a peer reflection, do they have their self-assessment, their peer assessment and then I can see their understanding. And that’s one of the very large parts of assessment; it’s triangulation of data. Product is only a third of it. 33% but too many people give that 33% way too much weight. What did I see and what did I hear? Those things matter more than the end product. (GEDSB)

The teachers at this school in the Limestone DSB note the challenges as well as the benefits of expanding their assessment practices to include triangulation of data: We’ve been trained to move towards that idea of the triangulation of assessment – sort of the product, the conversation, and the observation and we’ve been sharing this a lot with staff. We have great support from our admin here, to really honour those conversations and observations as authentic, like we’re professionals, so authentic ways to assess data without necessarily having the product. So I try to stress that with my students - I mean it can be challenging, it can be challenging as the educator to assess that, but I feel like there’s a lot more value for me there, because sometimes the end product doesn’t show the whole learning so we need those pieces. (LDSB)

These anecdotes demonstrate how the teachers in the project effectively used the rich assessment data obtained from ongoing conversations with their students as well as observations made while the students were still engaged in the tasks of making; this allows both the learners and the students to recognize and respond to the learning while it is still taking place – and this is what inquiry assessment is all about (Watt & Colyer, 2014).

Pedagogical Documentation An emerging method of assessment that aligns with triangulation of data and embraces the value of making student learning visible is pedagogical documentation. Rooted in early years education, it is primarily a way for educators to learn more about how their students are learning. According to Rinaldi (2006), pedagogical documentation can be described as visible listening – using notes, slides, and video evidence to reconstruct children’s learning paths and processes. By collecting visual data such as photos, video, audio data, and written notes, teachers can begin to understand the thinking processes of their students in order to help plan educational experiences as well as to gain a better understanding of their own role in the teaching and learning process (Tarr, 2011). Much like triangulated data and

11  Assessment in the Makerspace

191

assessment for and as learning, pedagogical documentation is not done at the end of the lesson, unit, or upon completion of a product or as a summative assessment but is ongoing – a continuous cycle that facilitates growth and development in students (OME, 2012).

Research into Practice Although pedagogical documentation is most often discussed in the context of younger students, it can be a valuable learning tool in the junior and intermediate classroom as well. According to the Ontario Ministry of Education (2012), “educators who are experimenting with pedagogical documentation and placing it at the heart of learning are finding that it is more than a technical tool; it is a way to inquire into student learning that has the potential to transform education in the early years and beyond” (p. 8). In this section, a number of teachers from the project discuss how pedagogical documentation has helped them to collect valuable assessment data on students of all ages. In the following anecdote, one of the teachers in the project discusses the similarities between assessment in a Full Day Kindergarten (FDK) classroom and a makerspace class in any grade and also comments on the use of pedagogical documentation in her teaching practice: In kindergarten it’s very play-based. So, yes it’s different, but in some ways it’s also the same because you are listening for, did they understand the words they are using? I’m listening to them as they are explaining it to me, ‘do they actually know what they’re talking about’? I document this to show that they are learning, because our program is based on pictures and videos and writing down what they’re saying and what they’re doing. (GEDSB)

In this example from the Greater Essex County District School Board, the teachers demonstrate the emphasis on assessing the process as well as the documentation (Fig. 11.3): Teacher A: A lot of it is observation and conversations that we have with the kids and making notes, anecdotal notes about what happens there. A lot of it is taking pictures of it and keeping those for myself so I know I can go back to where we were at that time and think about what happened. Teacher B: And with the early years that’s the pedagogical documentation style – photos, annotating and then connecting it to specific expectations. Teacher C: That’s what we’ve tried to encourage our staff to do as well is to do that back mapping if you have an idea of what you want to see but documenting when you see. Teacher A: And I think a lot of it too is not focusing on the end product of what happens but following those kids along the process of what they’re doing to see learning happen. If we only look at it at the end and say it was successful or not successful, we’re not seeing the learning in it. (GECDSB)

The following conversation demonstrates the shift in thinking that is occurring not only in the primary grades but also, as in this example, in an intermediate classroom:

192

J. Hughes and S. Thompson

Fig. 11.3  Students from GECDSB explain their thinking to their teacher

Interviewer: I love the idea of the video diary as work as well because that’s pedagogical documentation and they’re doing it – not you’re doing it. Teacher: They’re figuring out what’s important, what’s not important. That was the thing that I liked about it the most. When we were going around and they were taking off the tire, it’s not too hard to take the tire off but then watch where that cable goes through – all the way down to the derailer and how long do you have to cut that the next time? Those were the things that they look back at and go ‘sheesh,’ that’s there and they’d measure the length of the frame, and measure of the angle and so now there’s a whole bunch of math there. So there’s a whole bunch of learning that’s there and they can actually see it. (LDSB)

In this section, teachers from K to 8 discussed the importance of ongoing documentation of student learning as a means of both diagnostic and formative assessment throughout the learning process instead of at the end of a learning cycle. As Turner and Wilson (2009) purport, if video, audio recordings, and notes are collected, reviewed, and shared only at the end of a learning experience, a tremendous opportunity to extend and deepen learning is lost. Pedagogical documentation makes it possible for teachers to promote student learning while simultaneously gathering their own information about what their students are learning (Rinaldi, 1996).

11  Assessment in the Makerspace

193

Making Teaching and Learning Visible As Peppler et al. (2016) write, “what the Maker Movement has to offer here in terms of learning opportunities is an emphasis on engaging the world through design and sharing with others by making learning visible and tangible” (p. 4). Visible teaching and learning occur “when learning is the explicit goal, when it is appropriately challenging, when the teacher and the student both (in their various ways) seek to ascertain whether and to what degree the challenging goal is attained, when there is deliberate practice aimed at attaining mastery of the goal, when there is feedback given and sought, and when there are active, passionate, and engaging people (teacher, student, peers, and so on) participating in the act of learning” (Hattie, 2008, p. 22). Hattie’s thoughts on the importance of feedback as part of the learning process in a makerspace are echoed by Sheridan et al. (2014) whose research shows that “feedback from others working in the space  – solicited and unsolicited  – is commonplace and a key driver of learning” (p. 515). The examples below illustrate how the students in the project worked with their teachers to set goals, to share feedback, to monitor and discuss their own progress, and to participate actively in their learning.

Research into Practice In the following interview excerpt from Lakehead DSB, the teachers discuss how they are making their students’ learning visible by providing them with explicit and challenging goals and ongoing feedback (Fig. 11.4): Teacher A: Well that’s the thing with assessment, like it’s talking about the bikes so: [teacher] “What is that now?” [student] “Oh that’s a crank.” [teacher] “What allows the crank to turn?” [student] “Well there’s bearings in there, Mr. G and that’s how they turn because we had to pack them in.” [teacher] “And how come … how come that bike cable won’t go through?” Well, it was Lucas who said this, [student] “There needs to be an adapter on there and there’s no adapter on there… and you would have never heard him use that terminology before. Teacher B: Or the same thing now we’re using the structures and stability and science and they’re pulling out loads, and torque, and angles, and motion, and they’re referring back to the things that we’ve done. So when we did our lab on stability, they said well, based on what we know from our dummy downhills, the lower you are to the ground the better it is. It’s not so much about being big and tall but you know, they’re using all their scientific language to reflect that. Interviewer: And make connections. Teacher A: That’s the point of balance. Teacher B: And there is your assessment. Obviously there’s always rubrics and stuff that we’re doing that we’re getting back, but they agree completely with what they say. You know, I heard you use your scientific language. I saw your design; you’re able to reflect on

194

J. Hughes and S. Thompson

Fig. 11.4  Students in LDSB in the process of rebuilding bicycles

how you might change it. It would have been nice for you to maybe try it out, your model, to do a test run or two, or with your science fair did you do variables to make sure that the experience was correct and accurate? – okay, yes, I understand, I’m going to try to fix it.

And in the kindergarten classroom of a participating school in the Conseil Scolaire Catholique Providence, the teachers had the following discussion about making student learning visible: I: It’s all about making the learning more visible and now we have the tools to actually do that. Do you find that the process has become more important than it was in the past? Teacher A: I would say so, yeah. Like you said (directed at other interviewee) we can see all the steps and [with] the GoPros you would be able to see everything they’re doing, what they’re thinking and processing. Teacher B: It’s always the process that’s interesting for me, I’m sure more than most people it’s more important than the end product, how did you solve the problems, what conflicts did you have, how did you get there. That’s where the growth takes place. (CSC Providence)

Hattie (2008) believes that “it is teachers seeing learning through the eyes of students, and students seeing teaching as the key to their ongoing learning” (p. 22) that has the most impact on student learning. Furthermore, he states that when students take on the role of their own teachers, they demonstrate a number of self-­ regulatory practices that have been shown to improve student outcomes, such as self-teaching, self-assessment, and self-evaluation. Therefore, making teaching and

11  Assessment in the Makerspace

195

learning visible to both teachers and students is what makes all the difference (Hattie, 2008). The following example from the same school further illustrates the importance of making student learning visible through pedagogical documentation: I: How would your assessment differ for this kind of project instead of writing for example a paragraph? Teacher A: We took a lot of pictures of the stuff so you could see a progression, using a Google drive to document the pictures. Asking the kids questions and filming them so you can hear. I think it’s so interesting we have these GoPros in the kindergarten classes and we had them wear them just so we can hear their thinking, and it was really neat to do that. (CSC Providence)

By challenging their students and providing opportunities for students to demonstrate their learning through conversations or by using audio or video recordings, the teachers in the project allowed their students to take a more active role in their learning while at the same time making their learning visible to their teachers. As maker culture continues to grow in educational settings, all teachers will need to make visible the learning that they see occurring during maker activities to ensure that making and makerspaces ultimately become an integral part of the student curriculum (Galloway, 2015).

Assessment Through Effective Questioning According to Black et al. (2004), “effective questioning is an important aspect of the impromptu interventions teachers conduct once the students are engaged in an activity” (p.  13). Asking questions, such as “Why do you think that?” or “How might you show that?” can become part of a participatory dynamic in the classroom and can be an effective way to extend students’ thinking through ongoing discourses about their thought processes as well as the products of their work (Black et al., 2004). In the context of making, questioning becomes an important means of gathering both diagnostic and formative assessment data on student understandings and misconceptions. Additionally, the question prompt is a useful oral tool that can reveal important student information about self-regulation, self-awareness, reflection, and reflexivity, providing teachers with invaluable information about student thinking during the making process (Bowler & Champagne, 2016).

Research into Practice The following two examples demonstrate how effective questioning gave teachers insights about student learning during the making process (Fig. 11.5): As the teacher from CEPEO puts it, “[we do] a lot of project based activities, more the questioning, inquiry and it goes back to what [teacher A] was saying. Let’s

196

J. Hughes and S. Thompson

not focus on the answer, let’s focus on the process and what you learned through [that] – they always say the journey is more interesting than when we get to the destination so it’s the getting to the destination itself that’s more interesting.” A teacher from Conseil Scolaire Viamonde describes how questioning enriched her assessment practices: “For me, as a teacher, what I found was that I could circulate and ask any question to students, for example, ‘what are the components of your electric circuit’ and they could tell me. They could tell me what the advantages and disadvantages for each kind of circuit they were using in their circuit. I found this aspect to be a success. I could evaluate this project on the spot.” (CSC Viamonde) Black et al. (2004) believe that the two main goals of asking questions in the classroom are to provide teachers with information about what students are thinking and to bring up issues that teachers would like their students to think about. When questions are targeted at the overall learning process, the research shows that students become more active participants and come to realize that learning “may depend less on their capacity to spot the right answer and more on their readiness to express and discuss their own understanding” (p. 13) As shown in these examples, the role of the teacher then shifts as well, from the providers of content to the facilitators of exploration and development of ideas in which all students are involved (Black et al., 2004).

Fig. 11.5  A student from CSC Viamonde answers questions about his creation

11  Assessment in the Makerspace

197

Student Reflection as Self-Assessment Despite the pressures of reporting deadlines and meeting curriculum expectations, it is important for teachers to build in time to model and encourage students to think metacognitively about the making process and their own performance in terms of meeting the learning goals. Students need time to self-assess and reflect on their new understandings, how to make sense of the results of their investigations, to ponder what strategies they used along the way, and how they might do things differently the next time; in other words, students need to be taught to reflect, revisit, and reimagine (Watt & Colyer, 2014). Students’ self-reflections can be modeled after the cycle of inquiry, in which students are encouraged to formulate their own question, to engage in an investigation of their question, to create a product or solution, to discuss the steps they followed and finally, and to reflect on the overall inquiry process before going on to explore their next question. See Chap. 2 for more on the role of inquiry in learning.

Research into Practice In this example, the teacher talks about the importance of reflection in making in order to extend student learning: Documentation is really key. My kids are always required to reflect on what it is that is being asked of them. They’re always required to build a plan around that. There is freedom that is built around that as well. There are set parameters around what I’m expecting them to do. But, there is always outside space that allows for extension. They always reflect after as well. They evaluate how they worked as a team, how they were a contributing member of their group, what was accomplished, what was difficult – that’s always a big piece well -, what they found challenging, what they could do better next time and what they’ve learned. So that’s how I break down assessment; it’s a very step-by-step piece, and I do that for everything we do… because it just makes so much more sense for the kids to have reflective pieces all of the time. I’m not just giving exit cards in math, it’s more like so, what would you do differently now?” It’s constantly those questions that I am asking in a steam type challenge, that are being asked in all curriculum areas. The kids are so much more engaged because of it. (Limestone DSB)

The following two examples from the Lakehead DSB illustrate how students are demonstrating their learning in making as well as in their development of citizenship skills: Teacher A: So when we went on Remembrance Day and we were learning about what it was for a moment of silence and what that means and the kids have to do a presentation with the green screen. And we actually went to the veterans, thanking them, and we came back and we reflected in their journals and they said that they’ll never think about Remembrance Day the same anymore. That one moment even though it was freezing …the quote was ‘what they gave for us and what they did, an hour of me freezing was totally worth it’. Those types of things and what we’re seeing in our journals and then reflecting, it’s totally worth it. (Lakehead DSB)

198

J. Hughes and S. Thompson

Teacher B: I think the good thing too has been after all these big things we’ve done journals with the kids. Anytime they go out they have a chance to kind of reflect, so even if you don’t have the opportunity to see those aha moments or what they’re thinking or feeling, we read it. So with the bikes they had said they were really excited and they thought it would go faster and they realized that it would take a lot of patience and it was frustrating and they had to ask for a lot of help. Some things people said was did you try first, you’re going to have to step outside of your comfort zone and you’re going to just have to try and see if it’ll work. If it doesn’t work what’s your next plan and if that doesn’t work then ask for help, don’t just be like I don’t know. That’s probably been my favorite reading those because it’s not always everything that you hear so to be able to read what they’re thinking has been really valuable. (Lakehead DSB)

This last example demonstrates how one school is further encouraging students to take responsibility for their own learning in the makerspace: Teacher A: So when you go upstairs today you’ll see designated space for where the tech is held, and then up above it you’ll see a sign with a QR code attached to it, with lesson plans all established, all categorized based on grade, based on strand, and based on subject area. So teachers can easily go, and what I’m finding more and more, as teachers come and explore the space, it’s not the teachers that are scanning the codes, it’s the kids. And then it prompts them [the kids] to ask the questions, “can we?”, “what about this, what about this?” We have our own personal STEAM blog and that’s where we collect all of the artifacts from the kids. The kids are responsible for documenting anything they create in the space, and then posting it. (Limestone DSB)

As students reflect upon how best to attain their goals and also how effectively they have met these goals at the end of a task, they are also developing competencies in their metacognitive abilities. According to the recently revised Adolescent Literacy Guide (Adolescent Literacy Learning, 2016), metacognition means “having accurate judgements about learning and progress in relation to the learning goals outlined. When students are metacognitive, they have an understanding of learning in three areas: they understand themselves as learners, they understand a given task, and they understand a variety of strategies and how to use them in a variety of situations” (Jetton & Dole, 2004, p. 33). It is important to provide students of all ages with opportunities to develop their metacognitive skills, particularly in the context of making. The maker movement has the facility to develop skills in students that enable them to think deeply, critically, mindfully, and with a sense of responsibility, about the artifacts that they design, make, and use, which will be essential for those who will be charged with developing products and technologies of the future (Bowler & Champagne, 2016) (Fig. 11.6).

 ooking Ahead: Assessing Making Through L Learning Portfolios In addition to the many effective approaches to assessment of making demonstrated by the schools in the project, one emerging tool that was not mentioned during the interviews of the teachers is the learning portfolio. As described in Maker Ed’s

11  Assessment in the Makerspace

199

Fig. 11.6  Image of makerspace in Limestone DSB

Open Portfolio Project, the portfolio “is a promising model for genuine assessment of deep, multi-layered learning” (Chang & Ratliffe, 2016). Portfolios can be utilized to showcase student thinking and learning in a way that traditional assessments such as quizzes and tests cannot. Especially for those students who may struggle with traditional assessment practices, portfolios are a way for students to exercise their voice, to demonstrate their skills, to share their contributions, and to make their learning visible. As expressed by Chang and Ratliffe (2016), “innate to portfolio creation is the process of self-reflecting, curating what’s most appropriate for the intended audience, and designing an artifact to articulate that evolution of learning and making. These are the critical thinking processes that we strive to develop in youth, and maker portfolios automatically spark the making of the meaning” (para 20). In order for students to embrace the portfolio as a learning tool, it needs to be embedded into the making process instead of being positioned as an add-on or as additional work. Teachers need to incorporate time for students to capture images, to document their learning, to reflect, and to share their experiences. Equally important is the necessity for teachers to define what they will be seeking to assess in the portfolio, whether it be content, curricular expectations, or learning skills.

200

J. Hughes and S. Thompson

Whether digital or print, portfolios can be used by students to save and archive their work over time to demonstrate their competencies and personal interests, to enable them to reflect upon their work, to cultivate a sense of pride and accomplishment in their work, and to exercise their voice by adding narrative to their entries. The practice of creating and maintaining a learning portfolio demonstrates to students that learning is a lifelong, iterative process. Portfolios can be used by teachers to assess thinking and learning processes, curation and organization skills, depth of understanding, problem-solving abilities, communication, creativity, and other competencies necessary for learning and working in the twenty-first century. Portfolios demonstrate to students that their work is important and worthy of both curating and sharing with others and this can lead to increased confidence in their capabilities and in the efficacy of their work (Chang et al., 2016).

 Portfolio Framework Using RAFT: Role, Audience, A Format, Topic One of the many ways that students may organize their portfolios is by following the RAFT writing framework. This helps students to focus on a number of considerations such as their identity as writers, their intended audience for the portfolio, its format, and what the portfolio will be about. Some of the questions that students might consider: • • • •

Role: What is my role? Am I a student, a maker, an expert? Audience: Who is my audience? Will I share this with teachers, peers, employers? Format: What format will my portfolio take? Will it be paper or digital? Topic: What is my portfolio about? What do I want my readers to know about my work? (Adapted from Chang et al.’s Maker Ed: A Practical Guide to Open Portfolios, 2016).

Decades ago, John Dewey (1916) discussed the advantages of learning by doing, and contemporary brain scientists continue to affirm the importance and effectiveness of hands-on, authentic learning. In many of today’s traditionally run academic environments, there is a great deal of disengagement on the part of the students as evidenced by suboptimal performance (Dougherty, 2012). As suggested by Dale Dougherty, founder of the contemporary Maker Movement, “we should be framing things in our schools not just in terms of ‘how do we test you on that?’ but on ‘what can you do with what you know?’ When you’re making something, the object you create is a demonstration of what you’ve learned to do, thus you are providing evidence of your learning. The opportunity to talk about that object, to communicate about it, to tell a story about it is another way we learn at the same time we teach others” (p. 12). In order to build and nurture a maker culture where inquiry, exploration, investigation, and creation are encouraged, it is critical for teachers to align their

11  Assessment in the Makerspace

201

assessment with these principles. Accordingly, assessment practices in the makerspace classroom should: • • • • • • • •

Be part of an ongoing process vs. a set of isolated events. Focus on both process and product. Include triangulation of data – conversations, observations and product. Provide descriptive feedback and opportunities for students to self-assess, peer-­ assess, and revise their work. Include multiple sources of evidence, formal and informal. Provide opportunities for students to show what they know, understand, and can do. Provide opportunities for students to work and learn together. Require students to reflect on their learning as well as their next steps.

• (Alberta Learning, 2004).

References Adolescent Literacy Learning. (2016). Adolescent literacy guide: A professional learning resource for literacy, grades 7–12. Adolescent Literacy Learning. http://www.edugains.ca/resourcesLIT/ AdolescentLiteracy/Vision/AdolescentLiteracyGuide_Interactive.pdf Alberta Learning. (2004). Focus on inquiry: A teacher’s guide to implementing inquiry-based learning. Alberta Learning. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi delta kappan, 86(1), 8–21. Blikstein, P., Kabayadondo, Z., Martin, A., & Fields, D. (2017). An assessment instrument of technological literacies in makerspaces and FabLabs. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(1), 149–175. Bowler, L., & Champagne, R. (2016). Mindful makers: Question prompts to help guide young peoples’ critical technical practices in maker spaces in libraries, museums, and community-­ based youth organizations. Library & Information Science Research, 38(2), 117–124. Chang, S., & Ratliffe, C. (2016, July 11). Assessment in making [Weblog post]. Edutopia. https:// www.edutopia.org/blog/assessment-­in-­making-­stephanie-­chang-­chad-­ratliff Chang, S., Mohammadi, G., & Regalla, L. (2016). Maker Ed: A practical guide to open portfolios. MakerEd. https://makered.org/blog/practical-­guide-­to-­open-­portfolios/ Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 15(3), 6–11. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. The Free Press. Dougherty, D. (2012). The maker movement. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 7(3), 11–14. Galloway, A. (2015). Bringing a Reggio Emilia inspired approach into higher grades-Links to 21st century learning skills and the maker movement [Master’s thesis, University of Victoria]. UVicSpace. http://hdl.handle.net/1828/6958 Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.

202

J. Hughes and S. Thompson

Jetton, T.  L., & Dole, J.  A. (Eds.). (2004). Adolescent literacy research and practice. Guilford Publications. Kuhlthau, C. C., Maniotes, L. K., & Caspari, A. K. (2007). Guided inquiry: Learning in the 21st century. Libraries Unlimited. Lewis, T., Petrina, S., & Hill, A. M. (1998). Problem posing – Adding a creative increment to technological problem solving. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 36(1), 5–35. McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (2012). Understanding by design framework. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2010). Growing success: Assessment, evaluation and reporting: Improving student learning. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2012). Pedagogical documentation [Capacity Building Series]. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/capacityBuilding.html Ontario Ministry of Education. (2013). Inquiry-based learning [Capacity Building Series]. http:// www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/capacityBuilding.html Peppler, K., Halverson, E.  R., & Kafai, Y.  B. (2016). Makeology: Makers as learners (Vol. 2). Routledge. Rinaldi C. (1996). Malaguzzi and the teachers. In P Weissman (Ed.), Innovations in early education: The international Reggio exchange, 3(4), 1–7. Rinaldi, C. (2006). In dialogue with Reggio Emilia: Listening, researching and learning. Routledge. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society. Open Court. Sheridan, K., Halverson, E.  R., Litts, B., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T. (2014). Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 505–531. Tarr, P. (2011). Reflections and shadows: Ethical issues in pedagogical documentation. Canadian Children, 36(2), 11–16. Turner, T., & Wilson, D. G. (2009). Reflections on documentation: A discussion with thought leaders from Reggio Emilia. Theory Into Practice, 49(1), 5–13. Watt, J.  G., & Colyer, J. (2014). IQ: A practical guide to inquiry-based learning. Oxford University Press.