Introduction

J.C. Charyk (JCC) is a small kindergarten through twelfth-grade rural public school serving Hanna, Alberta. It is part of the Prairie Land School Division, one of Alberta’s largest geographical divisions despite its low student population. In the 2016 – 2017 school year, during an audit of the year’s achievements and goals, a common trend was discovered that alarmed educators and stakeholders, as students maturated through the school system, their ability to think critically and apply knowledge diminished. This trend was especially evident in the upper-grade levels. In an attempt to help curve this inclination, many ideas were put forward; one idea was to create a MakerSpace.

The term MakerSpace is associated with many synonyms: (1) fablabs, often using 3D printers, laser cutters, and computer numerical control (CNC) machines to construct products, (2) hackerspaces, often associated with computer programming and hardware, while traditional (3) MakerSpaces focus solely on making or producing products, that may or may not use sophisticated technologies (Mersand, 2020). In terms of functionality and goals, the JCC MakerSpace would become an amalgamation of all three types; however, it was officially labelled a MakerSpace by the facility and students.

Design and Process

The goal of the MakerSpace was to reengage students in learning by giving them control over the application, creation, and discovery of their knowledge. Multiple theories, methodologies, and designs were explored to solve the following problems:

• How can educators encourage engagement with the curriculum and increase motivation? 
• How can educators help facilitate activities that encourage critical thinking?
• How can educators ensure that students have the tools and skills to be successful as they move beyond the secondary education system?

The idea of a MakerSpace helped address most of these issues by (1) driving students to engage with content, often through experimental play, (2) designating and creating a space of practice that had a variety of supplies, and (3) encourage engagement with the curriculum by working and learning with related technologies (Hsu et al., 2017). However, despite the MakerSpace creating initial excitement (see Video 1), many students still found they needed guidance to succeed in their endeavors.

Video 1

Novel Experiences with Electric Scooter

Note. This video shows one of the first projects completed with the initial excitement around the MakerSpace. It is a electric scooter powered by a 48 volt DC motor.

The idea of creating a process to solve nearly any problem was a daunting task. Educators needed to ensure their students had the skills and strategies they needed to be successful. Likewise, students required educators to step back and allow them to explore the content. This perceived tension created a need for a means to define the roles and expectations of the MakerSpace. The design process resonated with many educators most likely because it is a derivative of the ADDIE model, which stands for: analyze, design, develop, implement, and evaluate (Bates, 2015, p. 128). The design process focuses on developing large projects by following six steps: (1) define the problem, (2) collect related information, (3) brainstorm and analyze, (4) develop possible solutions, (5) gather feedback, and (6) improve on your design (Chicago Architecture Center, n.d.). However, due to time constraints, a simplified version was adapted from the Chicago Architecture Center’s design model. The model referred to as the condensed design process involved four steps: (1) ideate, research and brainstorm ideas that could solve the problem, (2) prototype, create a possible solution, (3) analyze, test the prototypes focusing on its strengths and weaknesses, and (4) improve, adjust the design based on what you discovered by analyzing (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

The Condensed Design Process

Note. The condensed design model used to facilitate large projects at J.C. Charyk in Hanna, Alberta.

One interesting byproduct of following this design was that educators involved in the MakerSpace became pseudo-experts in many fields by coaching students through various projects. Holistically and over time, materials were created that ranged from traditional pen and paper artefacts to videos and interactive content to help ease students’ understanding of complex concepts and tasks. One vital repository of these artefacts was one educator’s learning management system (LMS) (MacKay, 2020). This LMS hosted many in-house explanations that focused on understanding the tools and technologies needed to complete a given task. Other innovations evolved naturally based on perceived needs creating many just-in-time learning experiences for students. For example, it was found that many students wanted to use 3D printed objects to create artefacts for other classes but lacked the required knowledge and skills. A video walking students through the technology was developed that led to a micro-course that taught students the fundamentals of the design software by completing small projects that required them to develop the needed skills to finish (see Video 2).  

Video 2

Micro-Lesson in TinkerCAD

Note. A video from one of the micro-lesson showing students how to make a product and use the tools the software affords.

Evaluation

Much of the innovations and design happened holistically based on the needs of the students and educators. Initially, it was thought that having an abundance of tools and media to explore would be enough to motivate learning. Of course, it was observed that some students were waiting on the proper tools; others needed guidance and an overarching process to design large projects. While the initial design process was most likely the superior model, a condensed model was necessary for a school setting where time is limited. The condensed model still allowed students to think critically about their projects and gave them a common terminology to discuss their plans with their teachers and peers. Likewise, it created the expectations of the MakerSpace, a collaborative space where educators tended to participate in the learning as much as the students.

Another unexpected result of following the design process was that educators tended to apply this model as they developed artefacts to aid students in their learning. The method of ideate, prototype, analyze and improve when applied to learning materials afforded educators the ability to quickly create content, adjust it, and improve it as needed. The more popular a topic, the more time educators spent refining and improving their materials and processes to aid students in their learning. It created an environment where students and educators worked together to solve problems transforming the traditional teacher-student hierarchy. In its place was a collaborative process where everyone worked together to solve a problem, whether that be improving student learning or understanding how to construct a robot (see Video 3).

Video 3

J.C. Charyk Battlebots

Note. J.C. Charyk Battlebots started because educators and students became knowledgeable enough in the fields of electronics, programming, 3D design, and fabrication to start their own Battlebots league. This video shows a match between the finalist of the 2019-2020 school year.

References

Bates, T. (2015). Teaching in the digital age. BCcampus. http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage

Chicago Architecture Center. (n.d.). DiscoverDesign Handbook. https://discoverdesign.org/handbook

Hsu, Y. C., Baldwin, S., & Ching, Y. H. (2017). Learning through making and maker education. TechTrends, 61(6), 589–594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0172-6

MacKay, M. (2020). TheClass. https://themrmackay.com/

Mersand, S. (2020). The State of Makerspace Research: a Review of the Literature. TechTrends. https://doi-org.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/10.1007/s11528-020-00566-5