In the sixth and last step participants across schools and municipalities receive practical insights about buying, using and maintaining digital fabrication and making technologies. All too often, makerspace initiatives start by purchasing expensive equipment without first establishing a shared vision and strategies for sustaining the initiative in the long run, including educational objectives and community-driven competence development. Therefore, in this step, participants visit another makerspace (see also Step 1), but this time by focusing on the available technology. The makerspace manager takes the participants on a guided tour, and explains which equipment has been purchased over the years, how it has been used, which safety and maintenance regulations need to be considered, and any other challenges and opportunities related to these technologies.

After the makerspace tour, a researcher explains how to best choose technologies in support of educational objectives, thereby explaining core concepts (e.g., open-source, age-appropriate interfaces, interoperability) and elaborating on the pros and cons of commonly used makerspace technologies (e.g., Arduino, Little Bits, Makey Makey). This overview is followed by a few practical exercises for which participants use the outcomes of the previous steps to select equipment for their makerspace. In short, the sixth step is about the backstage work required to equip makerspaces with adequate technology.

In our cases, this step took about 3 hours. After the participants visited a makerspace, a university researcher presented a framework for selecting makerspace technologies and the participants broke up in small groups to apply the framework to their local initiative.

#### **5 Concluding Remarks**

In this chapter we have provided a six-step framework for sustaining makerspace initiatives through a PD process. The framework is generated by distilling knowledge and experiences from eleven cases in Denmark which provides a solid ground for introducing a participatory approach to sustaining makerspace initiative. Based on the experiences from the workshops in 2020 the funding agency decided that six new municipalities should follow the steps in 2021, and again based on experiences another six municipalities in 2022.

Several points are important to notice in relation to constructing a generalized process framework based solely on Danish makerspace initiatives. First, school systems are very different from country to country and so are the levels of authority within school systems. Second, funding agencies have different approaches and different requirements when supporting makerspace initiatives. Third, the willingness and culture of seamless collaboration between different levels of authority might differ significantly from culture to culture. Finally, the six-step framework requires substantial resources in relation to planning time, stakeholder participation, expert engagement, access to existing makerspace initiatives etc. These resources are not necessarily present when makerspace initiatives are initiated. These limitations to the proposed framework demand a high degree of contextualization and adaptation of the framework when applied in different circumstances and with different constraints.

As such, the framework is not a fixed recipe to ensure a sustainable makerspace initiative but a source of inspiration when planning the initial stages of a makerspace initiative based on collaboration and participation among teachers, management and makerspace experts.

#### **References**

# **PART 2**

# *Case Studies on Maker Education*

∵

# **Informal Learning in a Public Library Makerspace for Youth in the Netherlands**

*Monique Pijls, Tom van Eijck and Bert Bredeweg*

# **Abstract**

Informal learning spaces create opportunities for children and youth to develop their talents and to experience new social roles. In recent years, several public libraries in the Netherlands have established makerspaces to empower youth by facilitating the development of their digital skills in conjunction with their creativity. The Amsterdam Public Library created a network of makerspaces (Maakplaats021) and provided training for the makerspace-coaches. These coaches – former librarians or other professionals – have a central role in the makerspace and fulfill several functions. This contribution describes informal learning of children in these makerspaces and distills critical features that enforce learning through the lens of children aged 8–12 and their makerspace-coaches.

# **Keywords**

public library makerspace – informal learning – empowerment – community involvement

# **1 Introduction**

Over the past decades, many museums and libraries have created makerspaces where children can develop their creative, social and technological skills (Bevan et al., 2020; Escudé et al., 2020; Lin & Schunn, 2016). With trained staff facilitating and scaffolding these young makers' learning processes, these makerspaces have become regular learning environments in the 'educational playing field' (Gahagan & Galvert, 2020; Nagle, 2020; Slatter & Howard, 2013; Willett, 2018). The Amsterdam Public Library created a network of ten makerspaces (Maakplaats021) where children can attend school- and after-school programs. These makerspaces were established in various urban neighborhoods to reach children from families with a lower socio-economic status. These children generally have little access to technology and creative resources at home, while schools in these communities often lack time and staff to focus on creativity and digital literacy.

In the first four years of the project Maakplaats021, the development of makerspaces was monitored through a formal research project examining what children and makerspace-coaches did and what they experienced during the school and afterschool programs in the library makerspace (Pijls, Van Eijck, & Kragten, 2020; Pijls, van Eijck, Kragten, & Bredeweg, 2022). In this contribution we present a new qualitative analysis of a portion of the data collected during this formal study (27 interviews with children and 12 interviews with makerspace-coaches), focusing on the characteristics of informal learning in the afterschool programs. We have selected typical passages of the interviews and use *thick description* to illustrate and explain learning in afterschool-programs in the makerspace and extract critical features of this learning environment. We also elaborate on the question what it takes from makerspace-coaches to support learning of the children. After a short general description of the project, we provide eight 'vignettes', i.e. snapshots that each highlight a particular aspect of the informal learning context. Five of these focus on the development of the children within the makerspaces and three on the professional development of the makerspace-coaches.

#### **2 The Project Maakplaats021**

Maakplaats021 was initiated by a consortium consisting of the Amsterdam Public Library and three partner organizations (Waag, the organization that started the first Fablab in Amsterdam in 2011; Pakhuis de Zwijger, an organization that focuses on community development; and the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, which performed the monitoring research). The project was funded by the municipality of Amsterdam. At ten library locations throughout the city, a makerspace was built, sequentially over a period of four years (2017– 2020). Each makerspace contained the same basic equipment, consisting of two or three 3D-printers, a laser-cutter, a vinyl-cutter, fifteen laptops, glue guns, two sewing machines and pencils, paint, paper, etc. The library-makerspace offered after-school programs for tinkering, community development and computer programming (coding) for children between the ages of 8–12. The name Maakplaats021 (Dutch for Makerspace021) is derived from the concept of 21st century skills (OECD, 2021), which include digital literacy, collaboration, communication, citizenship, critical thinking and self-regulation.

All after-school Maakplaats021 activities took place on weekday-afternoons. Children could sign-up for free and the administration of the participants was carried out by the makerspace-coach. Each program admitted twelve to fifteen children, who were guided by two to three makerspace-coaches. A program consisted of ten weekly classes, often concluded with a closing presentation for parents in the last week. During school holidays, special activities were scheduled. The programs comprised digital fabrication and tinkering, designing, community-art, programming/coding, each often based on a theme.

When a new makerspace opened its doors, experienced maker-educators from other locations 'ran' the programs in the first months, coaching the library-makerspace-coaches in their new role. A training program for staff was developed, while additional staff training comprised of a yearly two-daycourse, monthly meetings ('maker morning') and weekly 'developing time' as well as additional courses in pedagogy, maker education, digital fabrication, and design. Initially, maker educators of the partner-organizations developed the new programs, but gradually some of the makerspace-coaches created their own programs.

Makerspace-coaches were recruited from the library staff. Librarians with a passion for creativity and technology were schooled in digital fabrication. In addition, external staff, with experience in art, craft and technology was attracted. Ultimately, four of the twelve makerspace-coaches were current or former librarians. Whereas makerspace-coaches were scheduled to rotate the various locations, each makerspace had one coach who was in charge of that location only. This was particularly important for the maintenance of the equipment, tools and materials. Supplies were ordered centrally and distributed over the ten makerspaces by a 'makerspace-producer', hired by the public library.

In addition to cooperation within the project by the three partner organizations and library, the consortium also collaborated with various cultural foundations, museums and entrepreneurs in the city that offer art education and technology education. Student teachers assisted in the makerspaces, under supervision of the makerspace-coaches. The makerspaces also offered programs for school classes, again guided by the makerspace-coaches. All in all, the public library makerspaces have evolved into dynamic locations were children aged 8–12 come and visit school and afterschool programs, guided by maker-spaces coaches, whose professional development is arranged by the organization. In total, the Maakplaats021 registered 23,826 children visits in the after-school programs over its establishment period (2017–2020), with an approximate binary gender distribution of 50/50.

The following eight vignettes describe typical examples of learning in the public library makerspaces.

### **3 Developing Skills by Creating Creatures**

On Tuesday afternoon, a group of nine children sit around their table, concentrated on their project. The atmosphere is calm and focused. Some of the children have been visiting the makerspace for three years already, while others are relatively new. Children mention that they came to know about the makerspace by friends, or their mother signed them up, as 'she saw the makerspace when she visited the library and she thought I would like it'. A subscription list for the next season-course with handwritten names is lying on the table. There are twelve places, and the list is almost full. There will likely be a waiting list, like there was before.

The children are proud of what they make and have made. A girl says:

I made so many things. Once I made a bag with hamsters on it. It was really a beautiful bag. I used it very often. I also made a gym bag, and we once made a forest of fairy tales. I was very proud of that, too.

Within these projects, the children learned to work with a laser-cutter and a sewing machine, Tinkercad software for the 3D-printer, Inkscape and a sticker cutter. The experienced children became very skilled over time.

He is the youngest child of the group. He can work with all that software and with the sewing machine very well. His mother likes that too.

One of the successful programs was 'Creating creatures', which involved designing your own animal, cutting the fabric with a laser-cutter, sewing it – first inside-out! – and finally designing small ornaments, such as eyes, with the 3D-printer. Figure 4.1 shows the cut fabric of a Pikachu.

The makerspace-coaches have designed programs with structured assignments. They say:

Children need this structure. We also teach them a lot of social skills, to help each other, to wash their hands and so on. The children love it; they want to prepare the drinks for the break. One week ago, we were sitting with the children, chatting a bit and I asked them 'Who feels happy now?' Many raised their hands. The atmosphere was so peaceful.

This vignette illustrates the makerspace as a fruitful training site for digital skills. Further typical characteristics of this informal learning environment are:

Figure 4.1 Creating creatures: fabric cut with laser-cutter in the shape of Pikachu

# **4 I Learned So Many Things in the First Week**

A child is visiting a makerspace that was recently built. On this particular afternoon he is the only visitor. He mentions very enthusiastically the many things he learned over the past few weeks.

I love making things. My mother heard from somebody else about this place', he says. 'Here I work with my hands, and that is the difference between school and this place. And I use computers and a 3D printer, all very cool. At this moment I am working on a sticker with my name. Over the past three weeks we worked with all the equipment, and we learned how it worked: laser-cutter, vinyl-cutter. We used paper and pencil and Inkscape. Last week I worked together with another child, and we helped each other.

This vignette shows that although this child recently started in the makerspace, it already experienced that it learned a lot. The new technologies are fascinating and are distinctive from his experiences at school. Although children work on individual projects, helping each other comes naturally.

Another typical phenomenon of new makerspaces is that there are few visitors. In contrast to makerspaces that already existed for several years and often have a waiting list (see vignette #1), this place still must attract new visitors. This often goes by word of mouth or by people passing by, since these library makerspaces are often located near other shops and services.

# **5 Making a Robot to Help Grandma**

It is Wednesday afternoon in the public library in the shopping center, and the makerspace is upstairs; a rectangular space with six large tables with stools. Today's activity is 'Codeteam', a ten-weeks program about coding and programming. Eight children are divided into groups of two or three. On their table a sheet of paper, with a map drawn on it. They are working with little cars and Micro:bit, which they program to make the cars follow the path.

'I can speak robot-ish: T. taught me', says one of the children. 'Can you teach me that language too?' the other says.

Then they explain about the 'confetti-canon' they made last week: a robot that could move and throw confetti. Hence brightening up other people. A girl says:

I want to learn to work with things like robots and programming. I think it is important that a robot can move, can go somewhere. Catching things is also important: things like food or drinks, or the mouse of a computer. When elderly people are not able to walk or to grab things, the robot can do things for them. My great grandma, for instance, is alive but in the hospital. Sometimes she goes home. She lives nearby. I sometimes visit her with my mother and little brother. It is nice to see her. Then I can tell her what I did in the makerspace. That is nice to tell.

 The mother tells how happy she is that her daughter can visit the makerspace. Her daughter says:

I don't know yet what I want to become when I grow up. Now, I like working with people, and with computers and programming, and I also like dancing and swimming.

This vignette shows that this girl enjoys programming and is very motivated to learn more. Her residence indicates that she is from a low-income family. She thinks about technology and programming as something to help other people, so as a social tool. It also shows that she is confident in learning and considers programming as equal to dancing or swimming. Furthermore, this child wants to share her pleasure in learning with her family. What she experiences in the makerspace affects her family directly.

# **6 Collaboration with the Local Outdoor Market**

Thursday afternoon, the makerspace has a large window adjacent to the weekday market. On this afternoon, the atmosphere is restless. 'The children are a bit upset this afternoon, because of a violent incident that happened yesterday in the street', the makerspace-coach says. 'One of the kids knows one of the people involved and you can see that it bothers him'.  'We leave them quiet today; they usually collaborate well'.

Here, Makerspace021 directly collaborates with an established community program led by a local cultural foundation (The Beach). The makerspace-coach says:

I learn a lot from the maker educators from The Beach, who stimulate the children's autonomy and make them reflect on ideas, instead of taking an initial idea as a definite plan. Every week we look back: 'What did you do last week and where are you now?' Children made a neighborhood walk and photograph what they like and dislike. We also collaborate with market vendors, by recycling their packing material. This black plastic is used to pack fruit, now it became a fancy handbag.

Here, some of the clothes and accessories that the children made in the makerspace were sold on the local market as well. The open window of this makerspace symbolizes how it is connected to the urban neighborhood. Events in the community affect the children while the makerspace is a safe space where they can recover and connect with other children. They learn to reflect and to create. The cooperation with the local market vendors is a win-win situation for all: waste is cleaned up and the makerspace has free and interesting materials to work with. Children experience that they can contribute to the community by making and remaking.

# **7 Developing Confidence**

A makerspace-coach talks about the way she coaches children in their personal development in the makerspace.

A child that was very shy when she came for the first time, started to blossom after a few times, her mother said. She gained confidence and started to express herself. This is a safe space for her. I think it is very important that children feel safe. Once they do, the rest will follow. Children learn to cooperate with others, also people that are new to them. Parents are very happy with this development.

The coach explains how she creates an open atmosphere.

They have so much fun here. That is important, I think. If they have questions, they can come to us. If they have complaints, they should tell us too. You must always remain open to criticism, really.

Children learn to overcome personal barriers and beliefs.

Often, children can do more than they think. In the end they say: I first thought I couldn't make it. Like last week, there was one child; he wanted to sit apart, to focus. Two weeks later, he joined the group and he wanted to show something. It appeared that he continued to create at home; he made a story in Scratch, an animation. We always work with freeware and a login, so he continued making at home and was proud of that.

Initially, many of the children that come to the makerspace are not used to learning through open tasks and the freedom to come up with ideas and multiple solutions instead of one correct answer.

I notice that children are insecure or lack self-confidence. They often ask me: 'Is this correct, did I do this well, do you like it? Then I ask them: 'What do YOU think of it? If you don't like it, you can make it better'. They are afraid to make mistakes, but programming is mostly about debugging, I tell them. And making is about repairing or remaking. Every child can do this and make it in its own way. Each at their own pace.

The makerspace-setting can be inviting for personal conversation, both during after-school programs and school visits.

This also works for school visits. Last week, at the end of the lesson, a child came to me: 'Can I give you a hug?' While they are involved in a project, they tell you about their lives. Sometimes only a little, sometimes even a little too much.

This vignette shows the opportunities for personal development in the makerspace. Programming and making require new approaches and new skills and these help children to gain confidence.

# **8 'Thinking in 3D Is… Mind-Blowing'**

One of the librarians who was involved in the setup of the very first makerspace had to master a lot of new skills. At that time, all makerspace-coaches had to learn from scratch to work with the software and the machines. This makerspace-coach makes clear what it meant to then to learn a new skill.

Thinking in 3D is what everybody must learn, the children too. It doesn't matter what age you have, when you do that for the first time, your brain must get used to it. It takes a few weeks, and then you know how to think. That is what we teach them here. To broaden your mind.

She explains that many of the new skills she coaches she had to learn by doing herself.

When I still worked in the library, I got time to work on my own in the makerspace. From now and then I asked my colleague for help. But you had to discover everything for yourself. I learned everything while I was here [in the makerspace] from morning to night. I had to dive in and discover how it works. We practiced and practiced and practiced.

This vignette shows that for future makerspace-coaches without a background in technology or programming, the new skills can be fascinating but require many hours of practice.

### **9 The First Time I Had to Present for a Group**

Some of the makerspace-coaches do have a background in designing and technology, but not in education. They must learn how to manage a group, like this makerspace-coach tells.

During the summer program, there were moments that I thought: there is too much noise, now I have to set stricter rules. I find that difficult. The first time I had to present for a group, I felt so shy. Because I also think 'just make fun'. It all went well. But there is a rule that children are not allowed to run in the makerspace. I want to learn how to address children if they do not behave.

The struggles and concerns of this makerspace-coach are comparable to those of beginning teachers. Since the groups of children are smaller and the setting less restrained than at school, the situation is less urgent, but makerspace-coaches must develop these leadership skills too. This makerspace-coach experiences that she could learn from a teacher-training student, who did an internship in the makerspace.

Last month, a student teacher came to help us weekly. She is interested in the makerspace and must learn to work with the equipment. But she helped me too, pedagogically she is more skilled than me.

### **10 Hands Off That Keyboard**

One of the new makerspace-coaches is a photographer. When asked about his main learning objectives, he talks about the pedagogy of inquiry-based learning.

In the first place, of course, I had to learn to handle the equipment. And we had to learn to coach the children and to keep order within a group of children and to know the right moment to intervene. I had to learn to hold back. It is so easy to take over and push the button yourself on a computer. Instead, we have now learned to use words and stimulate the children to learn, to provide more distant instruction so that children can find out for themselves. Corona has helped to normalize keeping distance too… [laugh].

The coach mentions that in the end he learns through practice and from and with colleagues.

I learned a lot from colleagues, you are left to dive in at the deep water after two days of technical training. How to cope with children is something that you learn through practice.

# **11 Critical Features of Informal Makerspaces**

#### **12 Conclusions and Discussion**

After-school programs in a public library makerspace fulfill an important role in the development of talents and to motivate children. There are requirements to fulfill in order to realize this rich learning environment. It takes time to reach children in the community and set up the makerspace. After-school makerspaces put high demands on staff, which needs to reserve time and require training and support. A makerspace-coach is a jack-of-all-trades who coordinates several roles (Pijls, van Eijck, Kragten, & Bredeweg, 2022). For the realization of training and support, collaboration with (local) organizations and universities is very important. The after-school context is an interesting learning space for teacher-students too.

It is challenging to keep children connected to the makerspace when they grow older. This seems especially important for stimulating children who are interested in technology and programming. Another challenge is to keep this service free of cost for children. One way to ensure continued participation may be by establishing a peer-tutor system, where older youth with experience in the makerspace can tutor the younger children (Sheridan, Clark & Williams, 2013).

# **Acknowledgements**

We wish to thank the makerspace-coaches and the children for their willingness to share their experiences in an interview. We are grateful to Hester Jiskoot for thoroughly reading and commenting an earlier version of this manuscript.

This research was funded by the Municipality of Amsterdam as part of the project Maakplaats021, by the Amsterdam Central Library (OBA), Waag, Pakhuis de Zwijger, and the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences.

#### **References**

# **Using "EcoMakerKits" to Stimulate Maker Mindset and Circular Thinking in Mexico**

*Álvaro Núñez-Solís, Suneel Madahar, Nathan Eskue and Miroslava Silva-Ordaz*

# **Abstract**

This chapter provides a recount of Maker Education using e-waste to stimulate the Maker Mindset and Circular Thinking in a Mexican context and the need to engage primary school children in this area.

It explores how the usage of "Eco Maker Kits" enables or hinders the learning concept of Circular Thinking and Maker Mindset by active learning introducing basic electronic hands-on experience and reusing materials that would normally end up in the landfill.

The results show that using a lesson plan with learning activities turns out to be useful to stimulate curiosity for Circular Thinking. The "EcoMakerKits" also helped to expand the Maker Mindset of the participants by assembling artifacts and electronic circuits. This provides an opportunity for young children to build upon their technical skills and motivate them to tackle global issue, such as electronic waste, highlighting the importance of reusing, repairing and repurposing.

#### **Keywords**

circular thinking – maker mindset – constructivism – hands-on learning – elementary

…

I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand. Confucius, 6th century BC

*∵*

#### **1 Circular Thinking and E-Waste as Global Challenge**

As an educator you might wonder how to foster sustainability awareness among your students. This chapter focuses on one of the many areas of sustainability: waste. Specifically, "How do we stimulate the Maker Mindset and Circular Thinking using e-waste"?

Making creates knowledge, builds environments, and transforms lives (Ingold, 2013). The resources for making are not always renewable resources. In this chapter we will explore how Circular Thinking requires a Maker mindset and Makers benefit from Circular Thinking in a Mexican context.

The Circular Economy thinking is based on the principles of design, repair, and reuse to keep products and materials in use, thus demanding less resources and energy (Korhone, Honkasalo, & Seppälä, 2018). "Now we have entered the Age of Anthropocene, the geological epoch signifying that human activity has become the dominant driver of change for the Earth's climate and ecosystems. Discarded garbage, plastics and e-waste have risen to unheard-of heights" (Wackman & Knight, 2020, p. 57).

E-waste following a linear economical model, that hasn't been designed to be recycled, is known as planned obsolescence (Bolow, 1986; Guiltinan, 2009; Waldman, 1993). The constant growth of obsolete electronic products generates a problem worldwide due to the lack of processes to reincorporate raw materials to a Circular Economy model, thus causing the overexploitation of virgin natural resources (Böni, 2005). Today, in the complex Covid 19 pandemic situation, there has been a rise in the purchase and the waste of electronic equipment since people have been forced to acquire or renew their electronic devices to meet the needs of work, school, family, and friends.

Meeting the contemporary social needs involves environmental and human health impacts (Kiddee, Naidu, & Wong, 2013); which could be addressed in a more sustainable way through Circular Thinking.

#### **2 Maker Mindset Connecting with Circular Thinking**

We are all makers; Dougherty (2016, p. 143) defined making as "the process of realizing an idea and making it tangible". Therefore, with the global challenge we are facing with e-waste and realizing that this linear economic system is no longer sustainable, the maker society is already present in the creative process of solving the problem. Makers are doing this by coming up with tangible solutions and alternatives to this linear economy and integrating more Circular Thinking into the development of new, more sustainable products. Later in this chapter we will share how a Mexican company has successfully addressed this problem and is using it as part of their business model.

But as educators, how do we prepare the new generations to learn about the principles of design, repair and reuse that characterize the Circular Thinking? How can we link circular thinking to Maker education by democratizing technology into a more sustainable living environment? Paul Blikstein (2018) suggests that the best way to foster curiosity and guide students to explore and construct their own knowledge is by letting them become makers.

The Maker Education mindset is based on skills, attitudes and knowledge that fosters active learning, curiosity, engagement, playfulness, and resourcefulness (Dougherty, 2016, p. 144). These attributes help the maker to transform their ideas into tangible artifacts using the tools and technology available. So, what if the technology available is based on Circular Thinking principles?

Andrews (2015) suggests that Circular Economy should also be embedded when designing the curriculum, so that it also becomes integral to the educational practice. It would enable sustainability issues to be addressed implicitly. For example, students would learn to design for longevity (creating products that can be repaired, upgraded and remanufactured, and have a high perceived value) and to design for reduced environmental impact and increased efficiency (via dematerialization, designs using waste/discarded products/parts, closed materials loops and service design; Andrews, 2015, p. 313).

In this chapter we explore how sustainability and especially the Circular Thinking approach can be added to STEAM. This term has been used regularly in Maker education. Martinez & Stager (2019) define it as a way to explore, tinker, imagine and create solutions to problems while developing skills in science, technology, engineering, art, design, and/or mathematics (STEAM). By adding Sustainability with the Circular Thinking approach, the term used in this chapter is STEAMS.

STEAMS is a project-based approach to create artifacts made out of reused, repurposed or repaired objects. It gives young children the opportunity to wonder and explore technological skills like electric circuits, multimedia, tinkering and engineering among others. Furthermore, 21st century skills like computational thinking, creativity, communication, collaboration and critical thinking are fostered while taking action to reuse, repair and repurpose objects. The aim of STEAMS is to make the new generations curious about the Circular Thinking and encourage educators and children to foster creative ways to solve problems using reused, repaired or repurposed materials.

This chapter recounts the connection between the principles of Circular Thinking and the Maker Mindset in a Mexican educational context.

#### **2.1** *Designing Mechanism to Take Action against E-Waste*

In 2006, in Queretaro, Mexico, Alvaro Nuñez, the CEO of "*Recicla Electrónicos México S.A de C.V* ". started the adventure of putting together a company to recycle e-waste, they call themselves "Eco Makers". Ever since, his company has been working with different partners and putting together a framework to address the local and national problem of electronic obsolete products. This framework provides a management system to reuse and recycle obsolete products. The framework has six sections represented in Figure 5.1.

The mechanism of the framework is human based design. By using Maker Mindset elements such as tinkering, engineering and problem solving, the Eco Maker team has come up with different strategies that make it accessible to the community by collecting their e-waste and creating a culture to recycle it and turn it into profitable products.

The company has developed an easy way to collect the e-waste from the community by using an app. They have developed an app in English and Spanish

figure 5.1 Management system to reuse and recycle obsolete products

where people can request to collect their electronic waste1 and the Eco Makers send a delivery company to collect it.

To share knowledge the company has created different channels. For example, the "Circular Economy podcast",2 their blog3 and Maker workshops.

# 2.1.1 Reusing E-Waste to Design "EcoMakerKits"

The Eco Makers put special effort on the educational part of their framework. They developed an "Innovation Lab" based on the maker principles of engagement and resourcefulness. Its members are a team of engineers and mechatronic students working collaboratively to reuse different parts of the e-waste and turn it into upcycled new products to support Circular Economy education. After several design cycles they have created many innovative prototypes, and some of them make it into the Maker Store as innovative products. For example, in Figure 5.2 you can see how at the front a mechatronic student is developing a 3D printer using the e-waste of an old printer. The idea is that some of the parts of the old printer will be used for other 3D printers.

The Eco-Maker store reincorporates e-waste to new cycles and products and make these accessible to the society. For example, they have refurbished laptops and desktops.  These EcoMakerKits" provide users with the opportunity to develop technical skills while using electronic waste, highlighting the importance of reusing, repairing and repurposing.4 In Figure 5.3 you can see some

figure 5.2 Innovation lab

figure 5.3 Eco-maker store

of these products like a desktop computer, a Bluetooth loudspeaker, a Fan, an electricity convertor, and an LED lamp.

The philosophy of the company shares the Maker Education principle of "invention literacy". Silver (2016) advocates to foster "invention literacy" as part of the contemporary education. He suggests that people should learn, understand and name how things are made. He implies that there is a "hidden literacy" in the man-made world, and when putting apart objects, this gives the opportunity explore and name the parts of what it is made of and hopefully give insights and inspiration to build new things.

There are many products being developed by the Eco Maker team, but with the inventor's mindset, the technical and understanding skills using e-waste, we will focus on the Bluetooth loudspeaker and the Fan, where we have documented information from educators and students using them.

# **2.2** *Hands-on Learning with the "EcoMakerKits"*

The Eco Maker team has come up with two ways to share their "EcoMakerKits" to the educational community. One is focusing on educators through donations campaigns, and the other is focused on students and extended community through trainings and access to the products in the web shop.

#### 2.2.1 Educational Campaigns to Share "EcoMakerKits"

In Mexico every May 15th is the Teachers National Day. In 2021, the Eco-Makers team came up with the idea of making a "Fan Maker Kit" based on what they had on storage (Figure 5.4). They donated the Fan Maker Kits to teachers interested in STEAMS education. The campaign reached 147 schools, with 219 kits

figure 5.4 Teacher with Fan Maker Kit

donated to 86 municipalities in 24 out of the 32 states in Mexico. Some of the reactions of the teachers were: "Thank you Eco-Makers, I will use them in my robotics class", "I am looking forward to using it when we come back to face-toface learning", and "I will use it as a complement to my STEAM class". In Figure 5.4 you can see Eduardo Chamodi, who is one of the teachers that applied for the STEAMS education campaign.

This example shows how part of the Maker Education principles goes beyond the profit purpose and embraces the sharing knowledge values. Through the "EcoMakerKits", Maker Education and Circular Thinking principles accessible to an extended community as well as linking it to the Global Goal from the United Nations of "Quality Education".

# 2.2.2 Hands-on Learning Using the "EcoMakerKits"

The educational perspective of Circular Thinking focuses on extending the life of a product and valuing the materials coming from nature. This concept is not easy to grasp for primary students. Therefore, the Eco Maker team developed a pilot workshop to stimulate curiosity for Circular Thinking, especially assembling artifacts with electronic circuits by making a Bluetooth loudspeaker and an electric Fan.

The pilot of the workshop took place in July 2021 in Querétaro, México, at a "Summer Course" that lasted four hours. The participants were fourchildren between 10 and 13 years old, the 13 years old participants having just finished primary school. The facilitator was a retired engineer that volunteered to facilitate the workshop and gave special input on the technical part of the activities. The researcher, the last author of this book chapter, developed the instructional design and documented the pilot.5

The learning activities were based on the constructivist approach from Roger Bybee (Walia, 2012) called the "5E Model": Engage, explore, explain, elaborate, and evaluate. The learning goal was to practice the following 21st century skills: Creativity, collaboration, communication, and critical thinking.

The learning objectives were:

The first activity was to engage the students with the topic by asking them about what they already know about Circular Economy and documenting their answers using a self-assessment worksheet. The participants self-assessed the following learning goals based on their previous knowledge:

They had to choose between three different answers:

The second activity was to explore the concept of Circular Economy. The participants watched a video6 made for children by the Eco-Maker team. Afterwards the facilitator helped them discuss the global challenge that every year, tons of obsolete electronic products are discarded in the world, causing environmental pollution and damage to the health of living beings on the planet. After the discussion they had to come up with keywords that represent the Circular Economy, then present it to the group and finally write a sentence with their own definition of Circular Economy.

Music and melodies are an important part of humanity (Martinez & Stager, 2019) and a great way to explain how humans interpret their world. Therefore, the third activity was to explain how to create an original melody that would represent the concept of Circular Economy using an open-source website.7

The fourth activity was to elaborate on the conceptual understanding of Circular Thinking by a hands-on activity. They had to put together the Bluetooth loudspeaker (represented in Figure 5.5) and an electric Fan (represented in Figure 5.6). The facilitator explained how these products were made of electronic components recovered from damaged or obsolete electronic products, preventing more kilos of electronic waste from being erroneously deposited in landfills. After putting the kit together, they had to play their "Circular Economy melody" using the speaker, and they had to turn on the electric Fan.

Both the speaker and the electric Fan "EcoMakerKits" come in a box with all the parts to build it, including the case, engines, and wires to connect it.

The participants had to put them together using a set of instructions and video tutorials. The electric Fan had a hard copy with instructions represented in Figure 5.7, as well as a video tutorial.8 The Bluetooth loudspeaker had a digital version of the instructions9 and a video tutorial.10

figure 5.5 Bluetooth loudspeaker

figure 5.6 Electric fan

figure 5.7 Set of instructions for electric fan

Finally, the fifth activity was to evaluate and self-assess their understanding and knowledge based on the rubrics from the first self-assessment activity and to reflect on their learning by answering the questions:

In the next section we describe the results of the pilot workshop as an example of STEAMS hands-on learning activities.

#### **3 Findings and Insights Using the "EcoMakerKits"**

The two "EcoMakerKits" help to showcase how hands-on learning can impact the vision and understanding of Circular Thinking and Maker Mindset. As a result, we share some findings and insights based on two questions:

# **3.1** *The Enablers and Disablers of Understanding of Circular Thinking Using "EcoMakerKits"*

The teacher's campaign to share the "EcoMakerKits" was a great initiative for educators to have access to STEAMS resources, but it didn't include a lesson plan to explain what Circular Economy is. Therefore, a pilot was organized to showcase how educators and students could use these resources and to document their understanding of "Circular Economy" while using these resources.

In the next paragraphs the finding and insights of the five different activities of the workshop can be found. The participants were two boys and two girls, the facilitator, and the researcher. The two boys decided to work together, and the two girls worked as a team as well.

The first, second and fifth activities were done individually, they focused on grasping the conceptual understanding of what "Circular Economy" is. The participants practiced their critical thinking and communication skills. The third activity focused on their creative and tinkering skills to create an original melody that would represent the concept of "Circular Economy".

The original melody of the girls represents the disassembly process of e-waste and turning it into reusable electronics.11 The boys decided to write the word "economy" using Morse Code.12

During the first activity and the self-assessment, the participants acknowledge that they needed support to explain what "Circular Economy" is but after the video and the discussion they were able to give their own definitions. It is interesting to see that three out of four definitions focused on electronics, except for "Participant 1". We believe that the influence of the video made by the Eco Maker team and the discussion around e-waste impacted on this narrowed vision of what "Circular Economy" is. During the group discussion the facilitator did mention that Circular Economy goes beyond electronics. It can also take place with fabrics, metal, and other types of materials. Thus, even though there is a broader definition to it, the participants came up with their own definition based on the experience from the first and second activities.

The positive effect is that the participants were able to develop technical skills, a limitation, considering that the learning goal is about "Circular Economy" using resources based on e-waste, but it seems that they needed support to grasp the "Circular Thinking" skills.

# **3.2** *The Enablers and Disablers of the Maker Mindset Using "EcoMakerKits"*

The students that participated in the workshop were able to benefit from the lesson plan that guide them through the technical skills and Maker Mindset, like resourcefulness, playfulness and especially focused on the technical skills to assemble the artefact and to connect the electric circuit practicing engineering, tinkering and critical thinking skills.

They put together the Bluetooth loudspeaker and an electric fan in pairs. The girls chose to build an electric fan represented in Figure 5.8 with the facilitator's assistance. The boys chose to build the loudspeaker represented in Figure 5.9.

They followed the video tutorial and the steps to build it. The resources provided by the Eco Maker team were very useful to guide them step by step to put it together.

figure 5.8 Assembling the electric fan with the facilitator's assistance

figure 5.9 Boys assembling the bluetooth loudspeaker

One major observation during the workshop was that it was a positive impact to invite a retired engineer as he has plenty of experience, patience, and time to share his knowledge with young generations. Especially, when it came to assembling the Bluetooth loudspeaker and the electric Fan. He was able to give some suggestions to use the tools and how to carefully follow the instructions to make sure that the electric circuits were put together in the correct order.

The participants found it challenging to put together the electronic circuits and had to go back to the video and the instructions many times to do it correctly. Their curiosity went beyond the novelty of the product and went deeper into scientific curiosity (Jirout et al., 2012). The participants were able to express it in the reflection activity. For example, in the last reflection activity they shared that they were curious to know how the electric Fan works, where energy comes from, realized how small the Bluetooth hardware is, and how wires work. These insights that might encourage them to find out more about technical skills related to assembling and electronic circuits.

The educators that participated in the teachers' campaign with "EcoMakerKits" have also access to the video tutorials and manuals made by the Eco Maker team. Hopefully these resources make it easier for them to integrate the technical skills into their educational environment and share the Maker Mindset with their students. Unfortunately, this has not been documented yet.

The workshop helped to document how in using "EcoMakerKits" the participants can actively learn how it is not acceptable that the society continues to send products to the trash when there is a high probability that many of their parts and/or components still work or can be repaired.

The limitation of this workshop is that is the educational part focuses on e-waste, leaving aside other industries such as fashion and plastic packaging that are part of the linear model of take-make-waste.

Another limitation is that the "EcoMakerKits" are part of a well-defined business model that provides the infrastructure to make it sustainable to provide to the society this type of maker education. As a result, there is limited access to this type of educational resources.

#### **4 Conclusions**

We can conclude that in the workshop the "EcoMakerKits" resulted in growing curiosity of "Circular Thinking" and technical skills to ensemble artifacts made out of e-waste, especially with the older participants.

In the workshop, the participants received practical experience in a country with a lack of resources for materials in education. They learned to follow a manual, develop basic electronic understanding, and gained the experience of re-using materials to assemble something useful.

It was possible for the participants to develop a certain understanding of Maker Mindset and the technical skills to build their "EcoMakerKits". It would be advisable to have a facilitator with technical knowledge to explain how electrical circuits work, how to essemble them, and to help solve technical questions from the participants.

The instructional design focused on the Bluetooth loudspeaker "EcoMaker-Kit". It gave specific learning goals and steps that were used in the workshop to give more emphasis on concepts like "Circular Economy" and "Electronic Circuits" to build the loudspeaker and a website to make the melodies to be played using the Bluetooth loudspeaker. The participants might also benefit from a lesson plan that could give a functional context to use the electric Fan.

For further research, it would be interesting to consider adding to the Eco Makers educational campaigns the educational resources that go beyond teaching technical skills as a strategy to approach the "Maker Mindset", but also help to grasp the concept of "Circular Thinking". This could help other educators locally and globally to have inspiration on how to approach these concepts using hands-on learning activities.

It would also be interesting to dig deeper into the business model of the Eco Maker company who supplies these kits, especially to see if this business model can be adopted by others in order to increase the amount of e-waste recycling and increasing the supply for educational kits like this. Further research could take the lessons learned from the company and package it as a template for others, perhaps other areas within or even outside Mexico could get up and running quickly, managing a sustainable business model with an important environmental/educational purpose.

The current environmental crisis calls us to carry out actions that mitigate the effects of Climate Change. It is through the Circular Thinking and the type of educational resources used in this chapter, that we may also demonstrate the importance to incorporate e-waste in education.

Educators could consider using components with a useful life for the creation of new maker educational resources as alternatives to reduce the environmental impact; As well as helping to accomplish the following Sustainable Development Goals: Quality Education, Responsible Consumption and Production, and Climate Action (Morton, Pencheon, & Squires, 2017).

We also find a positive impact on the education of young generations to foster the curiosity and to expand their Maker Mindset. This can be done through STEAMS activities like the two presented in this chapter with the "EcoMakerKits". These activities provided hands-on learning that helped the participants to raise awareness of Circular Thinking, grasp the concept of e-waste, and develop electronic circuits technical skills. The participants were also able to make a melody that helped them to represent these concepts in a personal way, providing them with more agency to own their knowledge.

It might be interesting for other educators to have next to their "Maker Space" a "Breaker Space" designated to dismantle e-waste and help to make the connection on how things work and are made, and how they can be reused or repaired to extend their usable life.

Hopefully the children participating in this type of maker education are inspired to become professionals that can develop new products with the knowledge and methodology of the Circular Thinking and Maker Mindset.

# **Acknowledgements**

The authors would like to thank the participants, the facilitator, and the Eco Maker team for their support.

#### **Notes**

#### **References**

Andrews, D. (2015). The circular economy, design thinking and education for sustainability. *Local Economy*, *30*(3), 305–315.

Blikstein, P. (2018). Maker movement in education: History and prospects.

In M. J. de Vries (Ed.), *Handbook of technology education* (pp. 419–435). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44687-5\_33

# **Playful Learning by Design in Kenya** *Remote Development of Design Education Workshops for Rural Kenya*

*Marten B. Westerhof, Mathieu Gielen, Annemiek G. C. van Boeijen and James Otieno Jowi*

# **Abstract**

Design projects can function as a carrier for learning a subset of 21st century skills – but how does that play out in a rural community in Kenya that is unfamiliar with this approach to design education, and in a culture and context that the developers of such design education are not familiar with? This chapter recounts the development of a workshop programme that aims to teach design-related skills to primary school aged children in the non-formal context of a community centre in rural Kenya. As a collaboration between a Dutch academic design school and a local Kenyan non-profit organisation, the project required rethinking design education for a different cultural and economic context. This impacted the educational approach, including learning goals and design goals, didactics, educator support, and communication channels. Travel restrictions due to the Covid-19 pandemic enforced a remote development process, which created space for increased agency of the participating children and facilitator. The resulting workshop instruction guide scaffolds the local facilitators' design (education) knowledge and supports playful group learning processes.

# **Keywords**

co-design – playful learning – design education – culture – maker activities

# **1 Kenyan Children Designing Toys: The Initial Assumptions and Aims**

Times of hardship can spark initiatives with unforeseen value. In 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic brought formal primary education in rural Kenya largely to a standstill. In West Kenya, in Kisumu County, there is a local community centre run by Sustainable Rural Initiatives (SRI). The director of SRI sought opportunities to provide the local children with alternative informal learning experiences. He contacted old acquaintances from the Dutch design school Industrial Design Engineering (IDE) at Delft University of Technology. At IDE, a research and development project had previously been conducted on co-design as an educational format for children in primary education in The Netherlands (Gielen et al., 2020; Klapwijk et al., 2021). Hence our thoughts went towards creating a programme that would implement design education for children in the specific cultural and economic context of rural families in SRI's community.

The project was loosely defined around various assets at SRI. The community centre housed workshop facilities for crafts such as woodworking and tailoring that could be used. A facilitator was available to support children's learning process. At IDE, knowledge was available of design methodologies (Van Boeijen et al., 2020), including culturally sensitive design (Van Boeijen & Zijlstra, 2020). The previous project at IDE had identified factors that enhance design as a learning process (Klapwijk & van den Burg, 2019) for training a subset of 21st century skills (Voogt & Pareja Roblin, 2012), such as creative problem-solving and communication. Finally, IDE could provide a Master student eager to develop a design education format. Designing and building toys was deemed an appropriate focus for the workshops, based on the following assumptions: toys relate to children and motivate them to engage in the design process; designing toys would enable the children to replace their current imported toys with ones that reflect their own cultural identity and individual play preferences; it could replace plastic with more sustainable locally sourced materials; and it might even provide a basis for setting up production and sales of toys – an opportunity to train their entrepreneurial skills. Combining the perceived assets and focus on toys, an assignment was drafted to develop an educational design programme for the children attending workshops at SRI's community centre. Over the course of five months and within the evolving constraints of the Covid pandemic, this project was carried out by a graduating Master student in Industrial Design Engineering (1st author), operating as education developer. During this period, a series of workshops with supporting instructions and videos were developed, sent to the local SRI employee, discussed before and after each session for as far as communication channels were available, and improved in an iterative design research process. In some cases, the results of the workshops were shared with the education developer, who could send feedback to the children through video messages. After several iterations, the final workshop instruction sheets and supporting videos were integrated in a toolkit that aims to aid in hosting a series of educational design workshops for children at SRI, and for the workshop facilitator to independently host follow-up workshops. This chapter recounts the insights evolving from the project and the playful design toolkit in which it resulted (Westerhof, 2021).

# **2 Drivers for the Workshop Development Process**

Designing is dealing with uncertainty. The result is never clear at the start and the solution space may alter, depending on intermediate insights and contingencies. Five main drivers that influenced the solution space of this specific project are identified and discussed below.

# **2.1** *Remote Collaboration during a Pandemic*

Usually, designers attach great significance to experiencing a context they are not familiar with themselves (Van Boeijen, 2015). As an outsider (Banks, 1998), it is key to participate closely with local people to avoid biases and to understand what is relevant for the design and what not. Subtle details are difficult to understand from, for example, literature alone (Hao, 2019; van Boeijen & Stappers, 2011). However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic the education developer was not able to travel and study the context locally or facilitate early versions of the workshop himself. Therefore, new ways of research and development were implemented via remote collaboration with SRI's employees and the involved children.

To cope with remotely developing the education programme, the education developer's efforts focused on facilitating 'learning by doing' by preparing digital instruction materials. With the help of these materials, the local facilitator took on the role as organiser and facilitator. Conversations after each workshop and the photos and videos of the activities that the workshop host recorded allowed the education developer to acquire an understanding of the local context and to improve the workshop materials.

Few funds were available at SRI, which put heavy constraints on how the communication could be sustained. Video or audio calls between the education developer and the workshop host and participating children were too costly and unreliable to maintain during the workshops. To limit these costs, it was essential that the toolkit would make the facilitator function independently during the workshops. Thus, the workshop toolkit came to focus on instructions for the facilitator rather than the children. It was the facilitator who needed to understand and apply the characteristics of the workshop that triggered children to learn design skills.

#### **2.2** *Co-developing Culturally Embedded Workshops*

For the workshops to be effective, a culture-sensitive design approach (Van Boeijen & Zijlstra, 2020) is key. The way in which the workshops are structured and fleshed out is important to the suitability of their use in the context, but also to what they teach and in what way. A variety of aspects was considered, including the topics for the design challenges, design terms (language and jargon), and the language and music that are used in the supporting videos in the toolkit.

During the development of the toolkit, the children's opinions of the activities were mainly interpreted by the facilitator and then relayed to the education developer. Because of the constant dialogue between these two during the project, the facilitator, and indirectly the children, could suggest changes or specific additions or omissions from the workshops, and thus had a strong say in the development of the toolkit. Because the facilitator performed the bulk of the activities after the education developer had prepared the materials, he could not only tailor the instructions for hosting the activities to better fit the occurring situation, but also translate, interpret, and adapt specific aspects of the workshops to better fit the context. For the education developer, this meant that the toolkit needed to be developed with a strong focus on supporting an effective transfer of the necessary knowledge to the facilitator.

# **2.3** *Children's Participation Motives*

The absence of the education developer during the workshops not only put more responsibility on the facilitator, but it also affected children's motivations to participate. As the community centre does not provide formal education, children are free to come and go as they wish. Their initial curiosity towards what the design educator could teach them dwindled once it became clear that these workshops followed a strict task-based structure that felt like formal schooling. Not being present during the sessions, the education developer could not improvise on the spot to mitigate the negative aspects of the set-up. He had to rethink the programme from the perspective of children, as recounted by the facilitator, and decide how to keep them engaged. The workshops had to be inviting, have exciting relatable topics for the children, be fun to partake in, and give the children a sense of accomplishment. And for a large part, the facilitator had to accomplish this with the support of the workshop toolkit.

There already is a variety of educational programmes that aim to teach children design skills. The first activities organised at SRI were based on the 'Your Turn' design education programme (Klapwijk et al., 2021). This programme focuses on letting the children experience working on real design challenges in multiple design sessions in structured classroom settings. The workshops at SRI were initially also planned as a series of sessions, each dedicated to a phase in the design process. It turned out to be difficult to make this set-up work in SRI's context. The children experienced the organised activities as school-like and quickly lost interest in taking part in them, which meant they would also not experience the joy of seeing their design come to life. To enthuse the children for joining the activities, it helped to give them tangible design goals that were feasible to reach in a single workshop. It also helped if assignments were relatable and interesting to a diverse group of boys and girls.

#### **2.4** *Scarcity of Resources*

The scarcity of resources available for the project had a strong influence on the workshop activities. Initial proposed formats, based upon Dutch examples, made use of a variety of materials, e.g., printed paper templates for brainstorming activities, colour pencils for sketching, raw materials to build models through woodworking and tailoring, and a mobile phone or computer (including internet costs) for recording videos. All of these materials proved difficult to make available, possibly because the children's activities were not deemed economically relevant. To make a viable programme that would survive in the economic conditions after the project had ended, it was essential that SRI could independently organise these workshops with the toolkit alone without external funding after the collaboration ended. Thus, it was decided to only make use of materials that are widely available for free in SRI's surroundings, such as twigs and clay. The children collected the materials before creating artefacts as integral part of the workshops to limit the costs. The use of local, freely available materials makes the workshop less dependent on external contributors, more resilient to adverse circumstances, and hopefully also easier to disseminate to other locations.

# **2.5** *A Shift from Toys to Playful Design Experiences*

The original intent of the Kenyan stakeholder for this project was for the designer to co-design and craft toys with the children, that could potentially also be sold locally by the children to train their entrepreneurial skills. Creating their own toys would have allowed children to develop crafting skills and get access to toys that were potentially more affordable and durable than the current supply of imported plastic goods. Furthermore, these toys would reflect the local cultural context, as the children having access to 'appropriate toys', as an extension to 'appropriate technology', was deemed important. Although play itself is a universal phenomenon, what children play with is informed by the context and surroundings. Through play, children explore and acquaint themselves with the rules and symbols of their communities (Else, 2009, pp. 44–45). Appropriate toys were thus seen as a valuable medium to support their social development.

However, early in the development process of the workshops, the emphasis shifted away from the end-product (available, affordable, sustainable toys) to the playful learning experience of design and creation. The low durability of the local materials that were available during the workshops greatly reduced the feasibility of creating durable toys. Thus, the building activity itself became more dominant. Initially, the shift in focus away from creating usable toys was perceived as a great setback and loss of value. However, crafting is a universal form of play and toys are a popular crafting category. So, could the activities in the workshops become a form of play and still have the desired educational effect?

A review by Zosh et al. (2017) concludes that, although free play is an important part of child development, adults can also help to facilitate learning by structuring children's play. When adults guide children's play, they can help them to develop skills by providing them with joyful, engaging, iterative and socially interactive play experiences. By extension, in this case the workshops could help children develop design skills in a fun and engaging way through structuring children's crafting and building during the workshop as a design process, an exploration of form and function. In a conventional design cycle (Van Boeijen et al., 2020, pp. 45, 47, 57), the prototyping stage follows on ideation. Here, the building activity itself became the core of the ideation process. Making, assessing, and altering the artefact became a fluent process which encapsulated divergent, convergent, presentation, and feedback activities, as a form of iterative 3D-sketching. The artefact was no longer a prototype or model referring to a possible future product; the artefact was the nascent toy – or rather, the clay and twigs were the toys, and designing was the play. The distant collaboration made it hard to assess the actual playfulness during activities. However, some indications were found through video reports and discussions with the facilitator.

Children could freely explore the materials and their expressive potential. Construction play, the process of 'creating meaning', was the dominant play type. Artefacts showed a variety in design, level of detail, and backstories. This suggests that the children experienced freedom to express personal fascinations, which is an indication of an open-ended playful process. The joyful pride of the children for their final artefacts signals the importance of working towards an end goal, but there was ample room for enjoying the process: this is an important aspect of playfulness as well.

The above-mentioned drivers for the solution space of the project (remote collaboration, culture-sensitive co-development, children's participation motives, scarcity of resources and focus on a playful design process), helped shape the final design of a toolkit that allows local facilitators to independently carry out educational design workshops. It offers a blueprint that structures the activities and supports the facilitator in applying productive didactic techniques but becomes more open-ended with every follow-up workshop.

# **3 The Design: A Workshop Format and Toolkit**

A workshop format and several workshops based on this format were developed through which the children can learn design skills, based on design skill didactics (Klapwijk & van den Burg, 2019). Several tools were developed to support the facilitator to host these workshops independently, and thereafter create more workshops based on the same format: instruction materials and challenge suggestions collected in a manual, as well as supporting videos. The series of workshop descriptions and tools together thus form an open-ended toolkit.

# **3.1** *Workshop Format*

The workshops are divided in three distinct phases: Exploring, Building, and Presenting. See Figure 6.1 for an illustration of the three phases. The structure of the workshop is based on contemporary design methodologies (Van Boeijen et al., 2020). Typical elements of these design processes are adapted to fit an afternoon-long workshop, e.g., the iterative element present in many design processes is given a subordinate position in the final format. This helped to put more emphasis on the joy of building (in contrast to deliberate and timeconsuming iterations) and to streamline the process for both the children and the workshop host.

In the first phase, a topic is introduced and explored by asking several questions to provoke discussion between the children, as illustrated in Figure 6.2. With each question and subsequent discussion, the children further elaborate on their design goal

In the second phase, the children gather the materials they want to use, and then build their solution with those materials. See Figure 6.3 for an example from one of the workshops. Throughout the process of building, the children further ideate, test, and iterate on their initial ideas to develop their ideal solution.

In the third and final phase, the children present their designs to each other, and discover and celebrate the great diversity of possible solutions to come out

figure 6.1 The workshops are divided in three distinct phases: Exploring, building, and presenting

figure 6.2 The facilitator introduces the children to the topic of a workshop through a video

figure 6.3 A child in the process of building an artefact as his answer to his design goal

figure 6.4 Children presenting their designs in the third phase of the first workshop

of the design goal they defined in phase 1. An example from the third phase of one of the workshops is given in Figure 6.4. This three-part process provides a minimal logical structure to the children's design process, guiding them through the design process, while maintaining an enjoyable pace and a natural flow throughout the workshop.

# **3.2** *Predefined Workshops*

A sequence of several workshops was developed. The first two of these workshops are predefined through videos that introduce the topic and pose questions that help the children define their design. In the first workshop the children design a toy car. In the first phase of the workshop, a video is played to introduce the topic of car design to the children, after which it poses questions to define their design goal. The questions relate to the aspects of the design, such as what it will be used for, by whom, when, where, and how. The video prompts the facilitator to pause the video after each question to allow the children to discuss it. At the end, the video gives the children examples of how they could prototype specific parts of their design e.g., how they can use clay and twigs to make wheels affixed to an axle to allow their toy car to be rolled around. Figure 6.5 gives an overview of the first workshop video through a selection of stills.

In this video the children are first shown how clay models are used in car design processes. Then, several questions are posed in the video to help the children specify the aspects of the car they will design through discussions. The video concludes with a question to trigger them to think about what they

figure 6.5 A selection of stills from the first workshop video

want to design. In the second phase of the first workshops, the children are asked to collect clay and some wood from around SRI's grounds, after which they can start to build their toy car. The children inspire each other, but also have distinct ideas about what the function of their toy car is. As they figure out how to build the functions of their car into their design, the children experience the fun of creating something. Finally, in the third phase, the children show off their designs to each other and celebrate all the different outcomes of the workshop.

The topic in this first workshop is narrowly defined. As the children develop their design skills with each subsequent workshop, they are given a bigger 'solution space' for the challenge they are faced with while receiving less strict support in how to address the design challenge, as illustrated in Figure 6.6. The video structuring the second workshop in the sequence poses fewer constraints, and consequently the second workshop itself is more open as well. In this workshop the children are asked to design 'a building' that aims to serve a specific purpose in their own community. The video poses several questions to make them think about what kind of building would be of value to their village, and lets the children discuss that amongst themselves. In contrast to the previous video, this one does not give examples of what materials the children

figure 6.6 The solution space gradually increases with each workshop through the way in which topics are introduced and the design goals are formulated

could use and how they could answer the other questions in the video. The larger solution space in this workshop as compared to the first challenges the children's design and problem-solving skills more extensively. The focus thus also further shifts from building a specific toy, to an artefact that is more like a scale model for a solution in the real world.

The facilitator may refer to the manual for a structured instruction on how to independently organise the third and further workshops. The instructions contain several suggestions for topics with a large solution space to be used in workshops, such as e.g., challenging the children to design something to help someone cross a river or to make a boat that can stay afloat. After having organised these workshops, it is up to the facilitator to come up with more workshops with the appropriate solution space to challenge the children.

# **3.3** *Toolkit and Tools*

The toolkit consists of a manual and several videos that help the facilitator to host the workshops, which are illustrated in Figure 6.7. By using these tools to organise the workshops, the facilitator becomes acquainted with the workshop format and proposed didactics and gradually becomes independent in designing more workshops himself.

The manual contains an introduction to the toolkit, explanation of the workshop format, elaboration on the suggested progression of difficulty in the workshops, and step-by-step instructions for organising the first two workshops in the outlined sequence. Additionally, it contains a format to help the facilitator come up with topics and challenges for further workshops. It also

figure 6.7 Overview of the contents of the developed toolkit

contains several suggestions for workshops based on that format e.g., letting the children design something to help someone cross a river. This format aims to help the host to become self-reliant in carrying out subsequent – more open – assignments.

The toolkit also contains several instructional materials, which are illustrated in Figure 6.8. The videos in the toolkit support the workshop host in preparing, facilitating, and concluding the workshops. From the third workshop onward the workshop host has the responsibility to introduce the topic and questions to the children without the support of a video. The manual provides the facilitator with suggestions through several 'challenge sheets'. Each challenge sheet presents the story of a main character who faces a problem in reaching their goal. The children are then invited to help solve the problem through their design.

In addition to the videos that aid the workshop host in organising the first two workshops in the sequence, the toolkit contains two recruitment videos and a conclusions video. The two recruitment videos briefly introduce the workshops and theme in an uplifting way, to help the host enthuse local children for joining the activities. These videos are played to the children at the community centre.

The final video in the toolkit, the conclusions video, helps the workshop host communicate to the children which skills they are developing. Klapwijk (2017) describes seven key design skills that are considered the most relevant for primary school pupils: 'thinking in all directions' (divergent thinking), 'developing empathy', 'making productive mistakes' (early and frequent iteration), 'making ideas tangible' (convergent thinking), 'sharing ideas' (communication), 'defining your direction', and 'making use of the process' (meta-cognitive skills). All these skills come into play during the design workshops, and they are illustrated in the conclusions video by the narrator, who links them to the phase of the workshop in which the children applied them and celebrates the children's work. The facilitator can point at evidence of applying these skills in the children's designs and design processes to increase the learning outcome.

figure 6.8 The developed instruction materials: With each workshop, the supporting materials become less prominent and elaborate, transferring the responsibilities for hosting the workshop to the facilitator

#### **4 Conclusion**

This chapter explained the remote development of a workshop to introduce children living in small villages in rural Kenya to design in a playful way. The original goal of the project was to help children build their own toys. These self-made toys would reflect their environment and cultural background better than imported toys. The project took on a longer-term focus in which building toys or other objects served a higher-level goal; children who are skilled at design. In this new focus, learning to design is ascribed a quality similar to what toys represent, that is 'playing'.

The following paragraphs present reflections on each of the five drivers of the workshop development process that were introduced in Section 2.

# **4.1** *The Remote Collaboration during a Pandemic*

During the development of the workshop format and toolkit a disadvantage unexpectedly turned into an advantage. The travel restrictions due to the Covid-pandemic enforced a remote collaboration and made the education developer highly dependent on the facilitator, in which the latter became more involved and influential on the end result, leading to a reciprocal relationship. Inadvertently, the specific remote collaboration approach taken in this project helped to further embed the workshops in the context effectively. Although it increased the responsibilities of the facilitator, who had the task of inviting children, hosting the workshops, and documenting the children's process during these workshops, it also helped to shift the agency in the design process from the education developer to the facilitator.

# **4.2** *Co-developing Culturally Embedded Workshops*

The result – a series of compact workshops accompanied with a toolkit – is based on an established notion of what design is and how designing, the design process, basically functions. This process is not universal but rooted in a specific design school culture. In this case, this was a design culture that can be typified as systematic, research-based, and problem-solving-focused. Although the education developer and his supervisors have done their best to approach the project in a culture-sensitive way, one should still stay critical towards the extent to which the result is attuned with the local situation, that is, in line with the local context, people's values, and practices. By default, a design, which is here the series of workshops and a toolkit, cannot be value-free. Many decisions are made in its creation, and they are partly based on designers' cultural backgrounds, understanding of the situation, and their beliefs about what is a good answer to the problem posed. Especially in vulnerable situations, such as the one here with children and with economic dependence, we need to be modest and give space for a discussion on possible long-term effects. For example, one could question whether the systematic design process, with three separated phases, is an appropriate export product that is useful to teach the children or whether the learning should address a more fundamental set of knowledge and skills: the understanding and ability to confront life's diverse challenges with a creative mindset of solution-focused flexibility. There are also more intuitive and artistic ways to approach design. Would they be more appropriate? We do not know. Another consideration is the kind of design assignments. In what way do they address the interests of children, for example regarding gender roles, but also regarding what they know about it. In the first workshop, the children were introduced to 'building a car'. Several archetypes for specific functions (truck, bus, pick-up, etc.) were shown to get the children started. In the following workshops the assignments were more open; from 'designing a building for the community' to 'something to cross the river', giving children the space to come up with their own interpretations, avoiding communicating norms about what a car, a house, or a bridge should look like. To what extent do we need to encourage children to follow the existing world with its current dominant values and practice? Or do we want them to think differently, imagining a world we could not even think of.

Furthermore, the division of roles has not been explicitly discussed. For example, the relationship between the facilitator and the children and the involvement of parents and other people responsible for the children's upbringing were not addressed. Moreover, the form of the instruction videos, the representation, is a point of attention. Practical aspects, such as orientation of illustrations in the manual that need to be read from left to right were attuned to local conventions. And we assume that the drawn figures in the video that represent the targeted children were rather abstract. Together with the chosen music, voice-over, and language, they were understood for their practical purpose, but what about the symbolic meaning of these manifestations?

#### **4.3** *Children's Participation Motives*

Rewards in, for example, the form of seeing oneself and what one has made in a video proved important. Furthermore, informality and playfulness were needed to motivate the children to come to the workshop. Compared to prior primary school design approaches such as 'Your Turn' (Klapwijk et al., 2021), many of the formal design phases have been omitted or simplified, e.g., the well-known procedure of creating many ideas and then selecting or combining the best ones for further elaboration. This repeated divergent/convergent thinking process is regarded as an essential procedure to arrive at higher-quality design outcomes (Van Boeijen et al., 2020, p. 51), yet it also leads to frustration in novice designers who cling to initial ideas (Schut et al., 2020). Instead of forcing each individual participant to produce many ideas, the SRI design workshop format and toolkit use the power of the group as it reviews and celebrates the diversity of outcomes of each workshop, thus conveying at least part of the learning experience that there are multiple solutions with various qualities for each problem. It may be less adherent to formal design-methodological training but superior in its support of children's intrinsic motivations to engage in the workshop.

# **4.4** *Scarcity of Resources*

As in every 'Base of the Pyramid' project in rural – often vulnerable – areas a holistic approach is key, which considers the principles Affordability, Accessibility, Availability (of resources), Reliability, Sustainability, and Acceptability (Van Boeijen et al., 2020, p. 27). Except for the internet costs needed to download the videos, the materials were chosen in line with these six principles.

# **4.5** *A Shift from Toys to Playful Design Experiences*

We might wonder if the children actually made toys in the end; a house, a car, a bridge to play with? Ultimately, we focused on the making itself and not on what the children could and want to do with the result at a later date. It would be worth investigating this further.

It is too early to answer the question if this design is scalable, which means that other rural community centres in Kenya or elsewhere, with similar circumstances, could successfully use the workshop format with the toolkit. It would be helpful to first see how the design is used at the SRI centre independently, without the background support of our education developer. More testing of the workshop format and toolkit at SRI's community centre and in other similar places is necessary to assess their robustness and long-term value.

#### **References**

Banks, J. A. (1998). The lives and values of researchers: Implications for educating citizens in a multicultural society. *Educational Researcher*, *27*(7), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.2307/1176055

Else, P. (2009). *The value of play*. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Gielen, M. A., Klapwijk, R. M., Schut, A., & van Mechelen, M. (2020). *Vaardig in ontwerpen op de basisschool: Onderzoek naar het ontwikkelen van 21e-eeuwse vaardigheden via ontwerpprojecten met een externe partner* (Insitutional Repository). Delft University of Technology; TU Delft Research Repository. http://resolver.tudelft.nl/ uuid:76339c1f-3e0e-4e8d-ab8d-c3faf8b1a8c4

# **Connecting Maker Education to Secondary School Technology Education in Korea**

*A Case of the Technology Teachers' Learning Community in Republic of Korea*

*Hyuksoo Kwon*

# **Abstract**

This chapter introduces trends and cases of maker education in South Korean technology education. In particular, this study investigates a technology teachers' professional learning community for maker education. Four themes were drawn from a qualitative analysis of the four technology teachers' interviews and relevant literature reviews: sharing and communication, we are makers, technology teachers as practitioners for maker education, and diffusion and movement. MAKERS, a technology teachers' professional learning community is focused on sharing and communication. In addition, MAKERS became makers and experienced making and collaboration presenting a balanced interest and practical ability in both hardware and software parts. Lastly, MAKERS is very active in practicing and spreading maker education and technology education.

# **Keywords**

maker education – technology teachers – Professional Learning Community – Republic of Korea

### **1 Introduction**

Our society is developing through innovative technologies and transitions. These changes have brought about a shift in the educational paradigm. Therefore, the global educational community has been interested in new ways to solve complex problems creatively and cooperatively, moving away from passive education in which only transmitted knowledge is acquired (Taylor, 2016). The core idea of this educational innovation is learner-centered learning participation. To this end, many researchers and practitioners have studied and practiced approaches to the maker education. From a practical point of view, maker education prompts students to learn and experience their needs, goals, and activities and then share the results (Blikstein, 2013; Bullock & Sator, 2015; Martin, 2015; Martinez & Stager, 2013).

Specifically, maker education in schools refers to self-directed activities in the context of problem solving according to student needs and interests, and includes various values subsequently used in future education (Gerstein, 2017; Kim, 2018). Interest in maker education is increasing globally, and the Korean government implements maker education in various forms under the leadership of national and local organizations. In addition. the Korean government introduced the philosophy of maker education into the school curriculum, and teachers have shown great interest in a problem-based approach centered on hands-on activities (Kim, 2020).

This chapter introduces trends and cases of maker education in Korean technology education. In particular, this study includes key issues on maker education by a technology teachers' community through the case of maker education.

#### **2 Maker Education and School Technology Education in South Korea**

South Korea is one of the countries that establishes and implements educational policies based on a national standardized curriculum. Moreover, technology education is one of the national curriculum subjects that must be completed in elementary and middle school in the national curriculum. However, Korean technology education has a problem with its identity because it has been merged with home-economics education. In addition, there has been a struggle with public's low perception or misunderstanding of technology and technology education.

The Korean government's interest in maker education in an effort in the context of educational innovation, and the Ministry of Education and regional offices of education have also made great efforts to embrace the key philosophy of school maker education and worked toward an efficient diffusion of the approach (Lee & Kwon, 2020). In promoting convergence education and software education, which were already being promoted in Korea, the philosophy of maker education provided a foundation for good practice. The Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education (2017) introduced maker education based on creativity, cooperation, and sharing. The Busan Metropolitan Office of Education (2017) introduced a Busan-type maker education that combines science, technology, arts, and culture with the vision of fun, sharing, and growth. Each provincial office of education has also established various types of school maker spaces and has been planning and operating student-centered making activities.

As these educational efforts continue, the need for teachers who are capable of taking charge and leading school maker education has been emphasized. One study explored which teachers have most practiced maker education, and found it was technology teachers (Jeon & Song, 2019). Furthermore, in the context of Korean maker education, the most frequent content areas include Arduino, software, and 3D printing (Jeon & Song, 2019).

The core concepts for technology education currently presented in South Korean curriculum are shown in Table 7.1. The core concepts refer to the fundamental idea being employed in the current Korean national curriculum (Go, 2021). All core concepts are strongly related to the maker education. In addition, technology education curriculum includes learning content such as 3D printer, software education, invention, etc. (Ministry of Education, 2015)

In addition, technology classes use strategies such as problem solving and engineering design a lot in terms of teaching and learning and emphasize collaboration and communication. Technology teachers have actively participated in various national-led projects and demonstrated exemplary application of the philosophy of maker education in school classes and projects.

#### **3 Design**

This chapter used the method of case study to show examples of maker education in Korean technology education. The purpose of this study is to describe how the Korean technology teachers' community has been practicing maker education in the school setting.

The subject of this study is a professional learning community (MAKERS, a pseudo name) running a technology teachers' association in Seoul, the capital of South Korea. This group started as a learning community of voluntary technology teachers and is now playing a leading role in the field of maker education. This group participated in projects related to the maker education for various government office and Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education. The main activity is a teachers' community meeting, which is developing from the past workshops and seminars to a recent Maker-A-Thon meeting and a movement to spread the making culture.

To achieve the research objectives, this study reviewed MAKERS websites, professional development sessions they conducted, the making activities they developed, and their research reports. In addition, an interview was conducted

table 7.1 Technology education in Korean National Curriculum

with two technology teachers (Daehan & Minkook) experienced in maker education training and workshops as well two leading teachers (Hyukshin & Changjo) for MAKERS. All participants in the interview gave consent, as shown in Table 7.2.

Participants voluntarily participated in the interview indicating that it was a good opportunity to contribute to the spread of technology education and maker education. For data analysis, a theme analysis was employed for

qualitative data, and efforts were made to triangulate the findings from various data analyses additionally to reach a conclusion.

# **4 Maker Education and Technology Teachers' Effort**

The results of the collected data can be expressed four themes. In South Korea, the efforts of technology teachers of maker education can be explained by focusing on the following themes: sharing and communication, we are makers, technology teachers as practitioners for maker education, and diffusion and movement.

#### **4.1** *Sharing and Communication*

The MAKERS started as a meeting to improve the competency and professionalism of technology teachers. They mainly participated in regular meetings, lectures and seminars, and training in various ways. Through these activities, technology teachers had time to talk about difficulties in the field of technology education classrooms that could not be learned at teacher education institutions and finding solutions together. This philosophy of sharing and communicating was the starting point for technology teachers to easily accept and practice the culture of the maker education.

What is very impressive is that the attitude of technology teachers who are willing to share their work has spread rapidly through website management, training, and regular meetings.

I was really inadequate, so I went to the MAKERS and got a lot of help. The content that I did not learn during my undergraduate days, and the problems of the school field have been resolved. Because of the willingness and interest in giving out what they have, I have personally received tremendous help, and I wanted to be of some help. (Daehan)

My full-scale experience with maker education started with my interest in Arduino. Let's practice sharing by teaching Arduino tool with technology teachers in the MAKERS! Isn't this what maker education points out? (Hyukshin)

We believe in maintaining the teacher community with this mindset. 'I like what you did. Share it! Sharing will create an ecosystem, and then I can influence other people, and from that person I can be influenced, build relationships and form networks.' (Changjo)

In a recent workshop by MAKERS, technology teachers practiced sharing and communication through group projects activities (see Figure 7.1). In the interview, the technology teachers showed spontaneity and actively shared and communicated. In this respect, technology teachers could more easily accept the culture of maker education. In summary, MAKERS is a teacher community that started based on the philosophy of communication and sharing and has been able to practice the spirit of maker education well by practicing voluntary sharing and communication with each other.

# **4.2** *We Are Makers*

After the educational policy for maker education was launched, many technology teachers announced that they were makers in their community meetings

figure 7.1 Sharing and communication in a workshop by MAKERS

and that they had been conducting various workshops and voluntary professional development sessions on maker education.

The title of the professional development sessions for technology teachers for the past five years was "We are maker." Every time I attended the sessions, I felt that it is the word that best describes a technology teacher. What I experienced during that professional development was that of a maker. (Minkook)

Technology teachers have included a Maker-A-Thon or project-based activities in most training sessions (see Figure 7.2).

The technology teachers themselves became makers and experience making and collaboration. In addition, technology teachers have a balanced interest and practical ability in both hardware and software parts, so they are suitable as makers.

MAKERS once ran a Maker-A-Thon with a company. As the technology teachers participated and experienced it together, I thought that the experience of diverse making and collaboration activities was valuable for maker education. I was convinced at Maker-A-Thon that I can never do it alone! Collaboration is important. (Daehan)

If you look closely at the activities of maker education, there is a hardware component as well as the software. Those who are interested in both areas at school are technology teachers. When such teachers gather, a learning community is formed, and we are becoming makers. (Changjo)

figure 7.2 Maker-A-Thon project by MAKERS

# **4.3** *Technology Teachers as Practitioners of Maker Education*

Technology teachers who have directly experienced making activities often noted that there are many similarities in teach methods between technology education and maker education. Teachers of MAKERS emphasized that technology classes have the same flow of maker education because many technology teachers start with a problem in their class and structure the class as a problem-solving process.

Technology teachers are very accustomed to the experience of recognizing and solving problems from real life. I think that most technology teachers are accustomed to divergent thinking and excel at problemsolving strategies. The reason is that the class emphasizes the flow of problem solving. The core of maker education is a focus on building on what has already been done to take it to the next level, rather than repeating. Technology teachers are strong in this area and show an active attitude toward collaboration. (Hyukshin)

Based on the making experience in the technology classes, MAKERS created the maker class model (see Figure 7.3). This model is derived from the accumulated class practice of technology teachers, and it can be said that the great ideas of maker education originate in the technological problem-solving process.

To finalize the model, MAKERS concentrated on the design thinking and Problem Based Learning (PBL) for maker education. This model can be implemented in both online and offline modes using open portfolio project. In

figure 7.3 Teaching and learning model for maker education developed by MAKERS

addition, writing, sharing, and feedback process should be continuously implemented under this model.

# **4.4** *Diffusion and Movement*

Technology teachers have struggled with low public awareness of their field. The attitude that the MAKERS had at the initiation of the meeting of technology teachers was "Let's show the true value of technology education". Whenever technology teachers meet for the MAKERS, they practice a cultural movement that discusses and practices strategies that can inform technology education. Therefore, MAKERS are very active in practicing and spreading maker education and collaborating with other teachers in the school and implementing professional development sessions.

There are many misconceptions about technology and technology education, including in schools. I was worried and upset about that. However, when technology teachers get together to share their concerns and discuss their own solutions, it miraculously leads to better practice. (Daehan)

I think that the MAKERS's pride is in its' practical ability. Technology teachers from other regions also collaborate with us to practice maker education together. I once conducted a maker education professional development with professional learning community for maker education in Jeju-island. Maker education seems to be a good opportunity to properly promote the value of technology education in schools. (Minkook)

# **5 Conclusion and Discussion**

Maker education has received a lot of attention in the context of educational innovation that emphasizes the flow of student-led learning in South Korea. The main group that practices school maker education in Korea is technology teachers. What is important here is that they are technology teachers who can together with on spirit rather than one excellent technology teacher. South Korean technology education has problems such as low awareness, merged subject name with home-economics, and insufficient infrastructure (Lee, Ham, & Kwon, 2020). However, the subject of this case study, MAKERS, is fighting these difficulties and is trying to solve current problems in technology education.

Through the examples of makers, this study identified how technology teachers connect maker education to technology education classes. The following conclusions were drawn from a qualitative analysis of the four technology teachers' interviews and relevant literature reviews. MAKERS started as a voluntary professional learning community that gathered to identify and solve problems on current issues in technology education classes. Technology teachers who experience the same difficulties and problems can practice and organize through sharing and communication. When the maker education policy was first introduced to the educational field, the MAKERS demonstrated his practical and organization abilities and conducted various professional development sessions and events to let the technology teachers see themselves as makers. In addition, technology teachers have played a role in promoting the value of technology education to others as a major leader in school maker education.

Based on the case study of the MAKERS and literature review, Korean technology teachers have contributed to Korean maker education. The justification and strategy for Korean technology education to further promote and convince school maker education can be summarized as follows.

First, technology education and school maker education have considerable commonalities in terms of their contents. Maker education is related to creative activities such as arts, robots, and programming, and is similar to the main learning contents covered in technology education of Korean national curriculum.

Second, technology education and school maker education have many things in common in terms of their process. The teaching strategies of school maker education, which explores problems and the process of solving problems using various materials, tools, and equipment, has many similarities to technological problem solving.

Third, there are various examples of upgrading and using existing technology laboratory in the school maker spaces project initiated by Korean government. This should be an opportunity for the technology laboratory, which was a relatively alienated space from the school, to receive relatively attention and be reborn as the most innovative space in the school. In addition, the current Korean school maker education is too limited to 3D modeling, Arduino, and coding education. If the dynamic teaching capabilities are facilitated by collaboration with the teachers' community, more diverse cases can be developed and implemented.

#### **Acknowledgements**

I would like to express my special thanks to Korean Technology and Engineering Teachers' Association and the sharing data and Maker model created by 'Seogimo' (Seoul Technology Teachers' Learning Community).

#### **References**

#### chapter 8

# **Case Studies of Maker Education in China**

*Jianjun Gu and Qiuyue Yang*

# **Abstract**

With the promotion of national innovation and entrepreneurship education policy, makers have stepped out of old workshops, basements, coffee rooms, old factories, simple classrooms and laboratories, and stepped into the vision of government, industry, society, and schools. For this chapter, two typical cases have been selected to analyze the educational practice of Maker education in China. These cases could provide a reference for world education reform and the promotion of lifelong learning for all people.

# **Keywords**

China – maker education – project teaching – tertiary and secondary education – entrepreneurship

# **1 Tsinghua University iCenter: A New Educational Model That Integrates the Spirit of Creativity into Teaching Practice**

Tsinghua University iCenter is an interdisciplinary platform for innovation and entrepreneurship education built by the Tsinghua University Basic Industrial Training Center. It is one of the most important bases for engineering practice and innovation education in China.

The "I" concept refers to "Industry", "Interdisciplinary", "Innovation", and "International", as well as being "Student-oriented". The Tsinghua iCenter has always inherited the craftsmanship spirit of "actions speak louder than words", and innovated the trinity education concept of "value shaping, ability cultivation, and knowledge transfer", which is integrated with the culture of creators (Li et al., 2017). The Tsinghua iCenter, based on the university and open to the whole society, forms a scalable dual innovation education system and business incubation model to promote innovation and entrepreneurship education nationwide.

The iCenter formation included the following stages:

# **1.1** *Teaching and Learning Activities for Creative Tertiary Education*

The Tsinghua iCenter has explored and formed a new teaching model based on "student-oriented, creator-driven, project-guided teamwork and crossfertilization". With the construction of "Manufacturing + Internet + Creative Space" as the core, the university integrates advanced manufacturing technology units and forward-looking system construction into the dual-creation education process, expands innovation and entrepreneurship services, and has built a new reorganizable, dynamic, digital and open innovation and entrepreneurship activity base.

In terms of the construction concept, it is committed to "making students' dreams come true", fully unleashing their creative potential and creating a good atmosphere of creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship on campus; in terms of systems, it has built an open service platform and teaching system for creative activities, providing support in terms of incubation sites, technical training, product development, processing and production, management consultation, and so forth. In terms of the mechanism, an open construction mechanism has been formed to activate the campus into a more creative learning space through the active participation of relevant faculties, teachers, students, domestic and international enterprises, and the global creator community.

The iCenter at Tsinghua University has formed a training center curriculum based on the Engineering Training Series, the Innovation and Entrepreneurship Series, and the Engineering Culture Series. Creativity education is implemented based on the Innovation and Entrepreneurship series. This series comprises several competitions and courses:

# **1.2** *Science Based Innovation Workshops for Primary and Secondary Students at the Tsinghua University*

For example, the Tsinghua iCenter program established the "Science Base Innovation Workshop" in cooperation with the Basic Industry Training Center, an important support unit for the popular science base of Tsinghua University. The basic Industry Training Center provides popular science experts for the popular science base of Tsinghua University, provides projects for science week, projects for popular science tours, and has established innovation workshops as the place for popular science activities. The Training Centre for Basic Industries has built innovative workshops to provide a venue for popular science activities.

The Science Based Innovation Workshop focuses on science popularization projects and has built an "explosion-proof demining robot", a "3D printer", a "smart home", a "Smart Arm", and other projects to support science popularization. Through the construction of a photovoltaic power generation system, the Innovation Workshop has a green theme innovation environment. It also relies on the mechanical workshop and electronic craft workshop of the Basic Industry Training Center to provide a real engineering environment for popular science activities.

The basic industry training center is the first batch of experimental practice bases in colleges and universities focusing on primary and secondary school students and is established by the Beijing Municipal Education Commission. The establishment of an experimental practice base for primary and secondary school students in colleges and universities by relying on the advantages of teaching, scientific research, laboratories, and other conditions as well as 110 GU AND YANG

teachers, promotes the reform of the new curriculum in primary and secondary schools and cultivates innovative talents. Meanwhile, it also serves society and basic education for colleges and universities, and provides a working platform for sustainable development.

As such, the Innovation Workshop of the Science Popularization Base of the Basic Industry Training Center provides teaching support and hands-on practice space and equipment for experimental practice activities of primary and middle school students with mature teaching projects. At present, the teaching activities include metal processing technology, electronic technology, explosion-proof demining robot design, 3D printer design and production, intelligent home design and production, and so on.

# **1.3** *Creative Space Societies*

Inspired by the Tsinghua iCenter project, Tsinghua University students started the Tsinghua Makerspace community. Founded in 2013, Tsinghua Makerspace is an on-campus science and innovation club focused on the development of creators and the incubation of projects. The club is made up of 18-to-24-yearold Tsinghua university students. The Tsinghua Makerspace not only provides a platform for college students to conduct Makerspace activities and training but also actively develops courses and instructional tools for primary and middle school students. Tsinghua Makerspace also provides consulting services for the construction of Makerspaces for primary and middle schools. The daily activities of Tsinghua Makerspace include skills training, brainstorming, guest sharing, and a creator marathon. The team has designed tools for brainstorming to gather the wisdom of the team and to produce the best ideas; guest sharing is to invite guests to share their ideas from time to time to broaden students' horizons; and the Makerathon is a semester-long competition to get students' projects off the ground and to win prizes.

Tsinghua Makerspace has incubated many projects (Figure 8.1), for example, the Little Yellow Bean Interactive Bird Kit (Figure 8.2). This is a DIY assembly kit suitable for children's creative education. Children need to put together the internal electronic modules with the shell by themselves and draw the appearance with crayons.

# **2 A Case Study of Creative Teaching in Tianyi Senior Middle School, Jiangsu Province: "The Design and Creation of a Small LED Green Energy-Saving Table Lamp"**

Experts generally believe that technology is the innovation and transformation of nature or the surrounding environment in order to meet the higher needs

figure 8.1 Students' creative projects

figure 8.2 Students' work

of human beings. The case described in this section is from a Chinese middle school and is based on real-life problems.

The case "Design and creation of a small green LED lamp" is based on reallife problems in the classroom (see Figure 8.3). The students aged sixteen to eighteen are guided through the design and operation of the lamp so that they can develop their technical and behavioral skills in innovation and creation. Here are the details of the case study.

# **2.1** *Identifying and Clarifying Problems*

The teacher introduces the topic through the example of students needing a desk lamp for doing homework, and guides them to design a small lamp. Design requirements are presented in Table 8.1.

figure 8.3 Students' work

# **2.2** *Development of Design Solutions*

# 2.2.1 Design Principles

The design objects of this design program are practical products for life created by the students themselves. In addition to grasping the principles of innovation, practicality, economy, and sustainability, the materials are required to be inexpensive and easily accessible. In addition, it should be able to develop students' awareness of green and collaborative learning; design and manipulative learning activities should be able to be carried out throughout the learning process of technical design, be based within a dedicated classroom, and be completed by all the first year high school students.

# 2.2.2 Structural Design

The overall structure of the LED Green Energy-Saving Small Table Lamp piece consists of seven parts: the battery component, the LED lamp assembly, the booster and voltage regulator circuit assembly, the switch, the base, the support frame and the lampshade assembly. The first four parts belong to the electronic circuit subsystem, while the last three parts belong to the mechanical component subsystem. The innovation of the whole device is that it can make effective use of the large number of discarded "three-layer new" or above dry batteries in our daily life; secondly, it can guide students to pay attention to their surroundings and develop their awareness and ability to turn waste into treasure. The conceptual design is shown in Figures 8.4 and 8.5.

# 2.2.3 Functional Objective Design

The overall design objective is that the LED light is convenient, practical, aesthetically pleasing, meets the reading lighting requirements of a study or dormitory, and is achieved through the specific functional objectives of the two subsystems consisting of seven component devices.

The electronic circuit subsystem should have boost and voltage regulator control functions: firstly, it can boost the input voltage below 3.3V to 3.3V (the

figure 8.4 Block circuit section subsystem 1

rated operating voltage required by the LED lamp assembly); secondly, it can reduce the input voltage above 3.3V to 3.3V; thirdly, when the input voltage fluctuates within a reasonable range, the output voltage can be kept stable.

The mechanical structure subsystem should have the function of supporting the whole work: firstly, the design of the base part can ensure the stability of the product; secondly, the design of the bracket part can ensure that the height and tilt of the light source can be flexibly adjusted; thirdly, the design of the lampshade part, which is both beautiful and generous, can play the role of guiding the direction of light dispersion.

# **2.3** *Development of Design Solutions*

The special room for production activities was equipped with the following tools and materials:

The following materials had to be prepared by the middle school teachers before their students carry out maker activities to ensure the smooth progress of the activities. The steps are as follows:

table 8.2 List of materials

to purchase as needed (e.g., a full set of circuit boards, solar panels, printed circuit boards, LED lights, battery boxes, 1 meter of wire, soldering wire, hot melt glue, push-button switches, brackets, universal circuit boards, etc.).

– LED desk lamp overall creation: first of all, the use of common hand tools (hacksaw, file, hobby knife, vise, scissors, tweezers, etc.), common machine tools (drill press, wire saw, sander, belt sander, laser cutter, etc.), and common adhesives (502 glue, universal glue, resin glue, etc.) should be taught and trained before large-scale creative activities can be launched.

# **2.4** *Testing, Evaluation, Optimization, Preparation of Specifications* 2.4.1 Testing Process and Methodology

Out of 90 participating students, a total of 89 individual completed tests on the created lamps. In terms of gender, 60.6% were female. After completing the LED Green Energy-Saving Lamp, students had to do at least four tests and fill in Table 8.3. The four tests include:

– Testing stability. Can the lamp be placed smoothly on the table without external forces? Can the lamp still be placed smoothly on the table when

subjected to common external forces, such as hand impact or wind from an electric fan?

# 2.4.2 Program Optimization

#### **3 Conclusion and Discussion**

Maker education is a lifelong, whole-person development-oriented educational orientation that fosters individual DIY, a sharing spirit, and creativity, and promotes the cultivation of innovative talents in the era of crowdsourcing through maker spaces, courses, and activities. We showcased the implementation of maker education at the higher education level, represented by the iCenter at Tsinghua University, and at the basic education level, represented by Tianyi Senior Middle School and by the Innovation Workshop of the Science Popularization Base of the Basic Industry Training Center.

Maker education in primary and secondary education is the trend of social development. As Maker education aims for the development of the whole person, in the basic education stage, maker education mainly focuses on the development of a minimum level of maker literacy. Zhu and Luo (2015) pointed out that creator literacy is the ability to creatively use various technical and non-technical means to identify problems, deconstruct them, find solutions through teamwork, and form creative artifacts through continuous experimentation, which is related to learners' abilities in interpersonal communication, teamwork, creative problem solving, critical thinking, and professional skills, and also determines the learners' ability to adapt to society and work and achieve self-fulfillment in the future.

Tianyi Senior Middle School in Jiangsu Province has been actively carrying out maker teaching activities. The school focused on cultivating the maker literacy of all students, just as the typical case introduced in the first part – "The design and creation of LED green energy-saving small table lamp". First of all, the case teaching is based on the real problems in daily life, to find and clarify the problem; the second step is to formulate the design plan; the third step is model making; the third step is to test, evaluate and optimize the teaching process to guide students to learn the design and operation of desk lamp works. Thus enhance students innovation, creation of technical behavior ability and maker literacy.

Creative education is a form of learning that returns to the original human learning experience of learning while playing, incorporating the concepts of motivation, learning situations, active learning, collaborative communication, timely feedback, and respect for failure. Unlike traditional technology production classes, craft classes, and social practice classes in school education, the classes are arranged with simple half-finished assembly experiments that the children simply follow step by step. Through creative activities, learners' self-awareness, self-efficacy, and sense of teamwork can be continuously enhanced, enabling the development of a full range of skills including interpersonal communication, teamwork, creative problem solving, critical thinking, and professional skills. The development of creative literacy-oriented maker education in schools requires systematic promotion, including building distinctive maker spaces, training a group of maker education instructors, offering interdisciplinary maker courses, organizing maker activities, and conducting student maker work fairs.

Maker education in higher education is an education with the basic value of cultivating students' spirit of innovation, entrepreneurial consciousness, and entrepreneurial ability. In the context of the strategy of "mass entrepreneurship and innovation", innovation and entrepreneurship have become a national strategy, and colleges and universities in China have become an important position for innovation and entrepreneurship. The General Office of the State Council of the People's Republic (2015) of China has issued the Implementing Opinions on Deepening the Reform of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education, pointing out that further guiding universities to carry out innovation and entrepreneurship education can be done at four levels.

Firstly, to stimulate students' awareness of innovation and entrepreneurship, and to cultivate the mindset of creators, through general education, we cultivate the entrepreneurial spirit of all students who think hard, question well, and dare to challenge authority, cultivate a culture of innovation, stimulate students' entrepreneurial motivation, entrepreneurial interest, and entrepreneurial ideas, and enhance students' market awareness, business awareness, and risk awareness.

Secondly, we develop innovation and entrepreneurship courses, create a space for university creators, integrate and share the academic and scientific research resources of the whole university, build an open and scattered "crowdsourcing space" to serve "creators" based on the existing foundation of the university and combined with various training programs for top innovative talents. "The university will also establish a system of cultural education, peer sharing, and public services to meet the needs of the "creators".

Thirdly, integrate innovation and entrepreneurship education into the whole process of training professional talents, highlighting "new theories, new technologies, new tools, and new methods", integrating innovation and entrepreneurship ideas into professional education, and focusing on the socialization and radicalization of professional knowledge.

Fourthly, the school provides highly efficient entrepreneurial services to ensure that students can share, start, operate, and secure their entrepreneurial projects.

Tsinghua University iCenter is committed to integrating the maker spirit into teaching practice, so as to set up a new interdisciplinary education model and platform. Inspired by the iCenter activities, Students at Tsinghua University launched Tsinghua Makerspace Club activities. The club has incubated many programs suitable for children's maker education, such as DIY assembly kits. Through these children need to use their own hands and give full play to their imagination for the product's appearance. In this program, the children's practical ability, imagination, cooperation and communication and other aspects of innovation quality and ability have been fully practiced and improved.

# **References**

# **Maker Education in the Applied Physics Bachelor Programme at Delft University of Technology**

*Freek Pols and Rolf Hut*

# **Abstract**

Two mandatory courses that use maker education as learning activity are included in the applied physics bachelor programme at Delft University of Technology. In this chapter we provide the rationale for its inclusion, the associated learning goals, and the need for a makerspace with readily available makertools. We highlight the design of the makerspace and describe how it affected education. Finally, we illustrate how this all accumulates in a final project.

# **Keywords**

Delft – The Netherlands – maker education – makerspace – engineering – applied physics

# **1 Building Future Engineers and Scientists**

At Delft University of Technology, we 'build' engineers. Moreover, at the program of Applied Physics, students are trained to become the next generation scientist as well. Whether students pursue a career as a scientist or as an engineer, design skills are indispensable for physicists. When working at the frontier of our knowledge, e.g. building a quantum computer, or when solving problems as a consultant, e.g. climate control with 0.01°C tolerance, students have to have a grasp of what is technically possible, what limits the instruments, what the effect is of their design choices on their measurements and so on. Although they might not be required to build instruments themselves in their future jobs, in considering suitable solutions, discussing the merits and trade-offs of various options with technicians and other experts, they have to understand what is (roughly) possible, how their choices affect and propagate throughout the entire design and result in obtaining the data with a required accuracy and precision within a reasonable amount of time.

Where many theoretical courses aim at the development of the physics conceptual knowledge, lab courses aim at the development of inquiry knowledge, the first- and second-year courses Design Engineering for Physics Students (DEPS) aim at teaching students skills to combine and apply their content knowledge in designing solutions to given problems (Hut, Pols, & Verschuur, 2020). The problems given and addressed in the course are related to their future careers: isolating instruments from environmental vibrations, calibrating instruments, reducing experimental uncertainties and so on.

# **2 Learning Goals, Structure, Workshops & Final Project for DEPS**

To develop the required design skills, to have students gain experience in designing, to learn that there are different design approaches and to apply these, the following learning goals are set out for the first-year course:

After successfully engaging in DEPS1, a student is able to:

In the second-year, the focus is on designing and building an instrument that measures a physical quantity. The following learning goals are set out: