Makerspaces in Schools and Public Libraries

Cody J. Johnson

Lamar University

EDLD 5314
MAKERSPACES IN SCHOOLS AND PUBLIC LIBRARIES 2

Abstract

This paper examines research concerning the implementation of makerspaces in K-12

schools and public libraries in both the United States and in international settings. An effort is

also made to identify current barriers to makerspace implementation and gaps in research.

Keywords: makerspaces, libraries, STEM, learning environments

MAKERSPACES IN SCHOOLS AND PUBLIC LIBRARIES 3

Introduction

Library environments in both school and public settings are facing changes and

challenges as technological advances are requiring a shift in resources, physical setup, and

finances. Since 2015, The New Media Consortium’s K-12 edition of the NMC/CoSN Horizon

Report has listed makerpaces as a topic very close to implementation in the public school setting

(Adams Becker, Freeman, Hall Giesinger, Cummins, & Yuhnke, 2016; Freeman, Adams Becker,

Cummins, Davis, & Hall Giesinger, 2017; Johnson, 2018; Johnson, Adams Becker, Estrada, &

Freeman, 2015). The implementation of makerspaces in the public library setting is also

becoming a trend garnering attention (Belbin & Newcombe, 2013). The makerspace trend is also

finding its way in international schools and library settings as well (Hussain & Nisha, 2017;

Sheffield, Koul, Blackley, & Maynard, 2017). There is evidence, however, to support the notion

that the constructivist approach to makerspaces may not be beneficial in its current form to

adequately educate students (Gilbert, 2017). Even though the idea of making is not a new

phenomenon, how to successfully implement them into a school setting and public library setting

is still a work in progress. This paper will discuss the definition of a makerspace, the purpose of

implementing them both in local and global aspects, barriers to implementation, possible gaps in

the research, and issues for further study.

Defining Makerspaces

A standardized definition of a makerspace has proven to be difficult to obtain. In her

work A Meaningful Mess, McNair (2019) emphasizes the culture of making, creating, and

discovery over the physical location of the space mentioning that some schools may not have

space at all but a cart or mobile unit where everything is housed. Brejcha (2018) echoed this

when referring to makerspaces as unique to the setting and location as well as being an
MAKERSPACES IN SCHOOLS AND PUBLIC LIBRARIES 4

environment that is not always static even if the location does not change. Fleming (2015)

broadens the definition further by adding virtual space as well to the maker environment.

Not only is the definition of a makerspace difficult to narrow down, but it is also just as

difficult for educators and librarians to decide what types of making are involved. As Mann

(2019) has pointed out, a makerspace can include a variety of materials and subject matter

including 3D printing, music, lasers, and sewing, all of which seem out of place in a traditional

library. Some libraries, such as the Allen County Public Library, have even brought in trailers

loaded with equipment and tools for patrons to use that are typically found in woodworking and

fabrication shops (Belbin & Newcombe, 2013). While equipment of this nature may be

appropriate for adult patrons, libraries that focus on makerspaces with younger patrons may

utilize low-cost items such as cardboard, straws, and pool noodles (Scheer, 2017).

Regardless of what a makerspace is or what items are included or excluded, it is clear that

a movement of this type within a school or library settings involves making, a making space, and

a maker (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014). Also, as Fleming (2015), McNair (2019) and Thomas &

Brown (2011) have pointed out, it is not about the items, but the culture of learning, exploring,

and creating that are the most important aspects.

Purpose and Necessity of Makerspaces

Although defining a makerspace may be difficult, the need for such a space is not lost on

librarians and school personnel. School districts and public libraries are starting to take note of

the rising trend of makerspace implementation as a means of extending learning for students as

well as allowing patrons to pursue creative endeavors that might otherwise go untapped (Wang,

Wang, Wilson, & Ahmed, 2016). Fleming (2015) makes note that the makerspace movement has
MAKERSPACES IN SCHOOLS AND PUBLIC LIBRARIES 5

at its foundation the transition from consuming information and to creating as a result of the

knowledge obtained. The idea of the maker movement, although new to the public school

setting, is not a new movement in the public library setting. Wang et al. (2016) and Fleming

(2015) reference public libraries as far back as 1873 when patrons would meet together to have

conversations concerning books while sharing quilting and knitting skills. The concept of

making and collaborating is long-standing, however, the deliberate use of makerspaces in school

settings as a learning environment and mode of teaching is a relatively new practice (Hira &

Hynes, 2018). As Hira and Hynes (2018) point out, the research for makerspaces in educational

settings is lacking, however, educators are quickly understanding how a makerspace is the

perfect learning environment for their students due to the constructivist approach makerspace

environments naturally utilize (Kurti, Kurti, & Fleming, 2014).

In spite of the limited amount of research implementing makerspaces in educational

settings, schools are still proceeding with incorporating them because of current trends and needs

of students. One such trend prompting the change is the current underrepresentation of females

(Sheffield, Koul, Blackley, & Maynard, 2017) and minorities (Barton, Tan, & Greenberg, 2016)

in STEM vocations. Another over-arching need in the school system to be met is the learning

needs of today’s students. Citing Trilling and Fadel (2009), Fleming (2015) believes

makerspaces to be the ideal solution to meet the learning needs of 21st-century learners. The 21st-

century learner that educators and public libraries are now working with cannot, according to

Thomas and Brown (2011), be engaged with traditional informational transfer models. They

suggest a learner-centered approach, which includes learning environments such as makerspaces,

to address the needs of a generation of people who are accustomed to ubiquitous access to

information through the use of technology. Public libraries are also noticing this type of trend
MAKERSPACES IN SCHOOLS AND PUBLIC LIBRARIES 6

with patrons as well. LeMire (2018) noted that information literacy skills are enhanced due to the

implementation of makerspaces in the public library setting even if the complexity seems

daunting to library staff.

Global Makerspace Implementation

Makerspace environments in libraries and educational settings are not only trending in

the United States but on the global scene as well. In Australia at the St. Aidan’s Anglican Girl’s

School, Daley and Child (2015) state how makerspaces are ideal for libraries due to the fact that

is where information is traditionally kept and used. They also note how inquiry-based learning,

which is ideal in a makerspace environment, supports the Australian Curriculum. Citing Chubb

(2015), Sheffield, Koul, Blackley, & Maynard (2017) point out that Australia’s Chief Scientist

has called for a push in STEM education as he believes this will stimulate economic growth for

the country. This is why Sheffield et al. make the case for an integrating STEM and

makerspaces. In Indonesia, research was conducted with makerspace and STEM integration with

students and found that the social constructivist approach of makerspaces was very effective in

not only engaging students and stimulating interest in STEM, but they also found it beneficial for

adhering to the country’s official philosophical stance as well as the current curriculum of

Indonesia (Blackley, Rahmawati, Sheffield, Koul, & Fitriani, 2018).

In the UK public library sector, Taylor, Hurley, & Connolly (2016) point out the change

in use of libraries by patrons and how libraries are the ideal environment for makerspaces

because of the communal aspect makerspaces have as well as the low or no cost access for

patrons to be able to use equipment and materials they might otherwise not have the opportunity

to use. In India, Hussain & Nisha (2017) collected data on makerspace awareness and use in
MAKERSPACES IN SCHOOLS AND PUBLIC LIBRARIES 7

Indian libraries and they found makerspaces in libraries, even though fairly new, to be valuable

for research and experimentation for those pursuing graduate-level degrees and for boosting the

image of the library among the community.

In a case study of two early childhood centers incorporating makerspaces, one in the U.S.

and the other in Denmark, similar findings concerning young children and makerspaces were

found in both settings despite the fact the makerspace settings were different from another, not to

mention societal differences (Bers, Strawhacker, & Vizner, 2018). From their work, Bers,

Strawhacker, & Vizner were able to find that works and displays created by children stimulated

community growth among peers and that children explored ideas and content through the use of

the material and technologies they might otherwise ignore or not show interest in.

Barriers to Makerspace Implementation

Successfully implementing makerspaces in any setting is not without obstacles and

setbacks. In the Auckland Libraries system in New Zealand, Dugmore, Lindrop, & Jacob (2014)

came upon obstacles immediately due to the fact there was successful roadmap to follow nor

knowledge of even how to begin. Their research, consultation, and training they attended

indicate the need for librarians to have a standardized approach to makerspaces much like the

Dewey Decimal system gives a standardized approach to cataloging literature. Hussain & Nisha

(2017) point out the need for successful models to follow in their work as well. However, as The

New Media Consortium reports have pointed out more than once, this is an emerging trend in

technology and in the library systems of both public libraries and schools, so it is understandable

that successful models are not available yet (Adams Becker, Freeman, Hall Giesinger, Cummins,

& Yuhnke, 2016; Freeman, Adams Becker, Cummins, Davis, & Hall Giesinger, 2017).
MAKERSPACES IN SCHOOLS AND PUBLIC LIBRARIES 8

Another barrier that follows on the heels of the lack of successful models to follow would

be inadequate training of library staff. Hussain & Nisha (2017) mention this need as well as

training of patrons. However, with technology devices and services advancing at such a rapid

rate, library and school staff have a hard time keeping up-to-date. This is why many proponents

of makerspaces promote the idea of a maker culture rather than equipment, materials, and

services because of the constant changes that occur with technology (Fleming, 2015; McNair,

2019; and Thomas & Brown, 2011).

A third barrier that public and school libraries will undoubtedly come across at some

point is sustainability. In their research with makerspaces in early childhood settings, Bers,

Strawhacker, & Vizner (2018) recommend makerspaces that offer a range of tools and devices to

meet the goal of choice and ownership, however, with that comes a cost that many facilities may

not be able to sustain (Wang, Dunn, & Coulton, 2015). However, Scheer (2017) in her work of

bringing makerspaces to children in the public library, found they were able to not only able to

keep the cost down but also engage the community by taking donations. She also stated they

were able to run their makerspace program less than $20 per program with the intent of reducing

that amount.

A final barrier to mention is one that school and public makerspaces could accidentally

make stronger rather than breakdown if caution is not taken to avoid. Barton, Tan, & Greenberg

(2016) in their research with minorities in STEM vocations, claimed that if a focused agenda and

approach is not put into place, only patrons or students who already have a high socioeconomic

status will benefit from the makerspaces thereby widening the learning gap they are attempting

to close. Cross (2017), in her dissertation concerning makerspaces and constructivism, stated that

as long as advocacy for makerspaces and STEM for minorities and other underrepresented
MAKERSPACES IN SCHOOLS AND PUBLIC LIBRARIES 9

groups remains high, this type of barrier could be broken down. She goes on to say, however,

that the constructivist approach of makerspaces may be intimidating to educators causing them to

shy away from such learning environments.

Gaps in Research and Further Study

The barriers mentioned above and the gaps in the research associated with them will need

to be addressed by both school and public libraries alike if makerspaces are to be successful.

Dugmore, Lindrop, and Jacob (2014) and Hussain and Nisha (2017) mentioned the need for a

successful model to follow for implementing such a change, however, Halverson & Sheridan

(2014) cautioned against institutionalizing such as framework as it would contradict the very

essence of a makerspace. Therefore, further study would need to be conducted to determine if a

standardized framework implementing makerspaces would be an appropriate endeavor. This

would also be the issue for library staff and educator training, which is also a barrier noted

above. If makerspaces are to be unique to the location and setting as stated earlier, a standardized

approach to training stand in conflict with the purpose of makerspaces.

The sustainability barrier will also need further investigation due to the fact that resources

and funds are limited for schools and public libraries. If school districts and public libraries are

not able to sustain or keep the interest of patrons, funding projects and purchasing equipment

may not be an appropriate use of funds. Also, sustainability may not be an issue if current

makerspace trends stay as they are. Gilbert (2017) makes the case that makerspaces, as they

currently function, are not working as a disruptive technology or even benefitting learning, but

that they have the potential. If Gilbert is correct and makerspaces are not currently beneficial as

they appear to be, especially in the educational setting, the barrier of accidentally widening the

gap of student learning as mentioned above is undoubtedly a topic that would require further
MAKERSPACES IN SCHOOLS AND PUBLIC LIBRARIES 10

study. This also would need to lead to studies into whether makerspaces should come alongside

traditional models of teaching and learning or replace them as the standard.

Future study also needs to be conducted to determine if constructivist approaches such as

makerspaces are always beneficial to students and patrons of the library. Research was

mentioned above regarding 21st Century learners, however, other approaches to education and

learning cannot be ignored. There are undoubtedly instances in learning when other approaches

may be more appropriate. As Gilbert has already pointed out, current makerspace practices may

not be having the positive effect constructivist are promoting. Something else that needs to be

considered when implementing makerspaces is mandating the use of them. Educational settings

usually require the use of such endeavors when they are implemented. Patrons and students who

do not hold to a constructivist approach could possibly find the use of makerspaces not only

unenjoyable but also hindering their learning.

Conclusion

If the available research is any indication of the change happening in public and school

libraries, then makerspaces in some form or fashion will be a mainstay in libraries for the

foreseeable future despite the scant research against the use of them in education settings. What

remains to be seen, however, is the long-term impact makerspaces will have on patrons in the

public library and students in educational settings. What may be appropriate for the public

setting may not work or be viable for the educational setting and vice versa. Careful research and

planning will need to be key components regardless of budget size and goals. What is clear

regarding makerspaces is the interest and impact in the U.S. and in the global community. The

makerspace phenomenon may soon find its way from being a trend to being a standard in library

settings around the world.

MAKERSPACES IN SCHOOLS AND PUBLIC LIBRARIES 11

References

Adams Becker, S., Freeman, A., Giesinger Hall, C., Cummins, M., and Yuhnke, B. (2016).

NMC/CoSN Horizon Report: 2016 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media

Consortium. Retrieved from https://www.nmc.org/publication/nmc-cosn-horizon-report-

2016-k-12-edition/.

Avneet Hira, & Morgan M. Hynes. (2018). People, means, and activities: A conceptual

framework for realizing the educational potential of makerspaces. Education Research

International.

Barton, A. C., Tan, E., & Greenberg, D. (2016). The makerspace movement: Sites of possibilities

for equitable opportunities to engage underrepresented youth in STEM. Teachers College

Record, 119(6), 11-44.

Belbin, N., & Newcombe, P. (2013). Fab labs at the library. The Education Digest, 78(7), 65.

Bers, M. U., Strawhacker, A., & Vizner, M. (2018). The design of early childhood makerspaces

to support positive technological development: Two case studies. Library Hi Tech, 36(1),

75-96. doi.org/10.1108/LHT-06-2017-0112

Blackley, S., Rahmawati, Y., Sheffield, R., Koul, R., & Fitriani, E. (2018). Using a Makerspace

approach to engage Indonesian primary students with STEM. Issues in Educational

Research, 28(2), 18.

Brejcha, L. (2018). Makerspaces in school: A month-by-month schoolwide model for building

meaningful makerspaces. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press Inc.

MAKERSPACES IN SCHOOLS AND PUBLIC LIBRARIES 12

Cross, A. (2017). Tinkering in k-12: an exploratory mixed methods study of makerspaces in

schools as an application of constructivist learning (Doctoral dissertation, Pepperdine

University).

Daley, M., & Child, J. (2015). Makerspaces in the school library environment. Access, 29(1), 42.

Dugmore, P., Lindop, H., & Jacob, B. (2014, October). Making the makers: An exploration of a

makerspace in a city library. In LIANZA Conference (pp. 12-15).

Fleming, L. (2015). Worlds of making: Best practices for establishing a makerspace for your

school. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Freeman, A., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., and Hall Giesinger, C. (2017).

NMC/CoSN Horizon Report: 2017 K–12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media

Consortium. Retrieved from https://www.nmc.org/publication/nmccosn-horizon-report-

2017-k-12-edition/.

Gilbert, J. (2017). Makerspace in education: Disruptive technology or just another passing

fad? Teachers' Work, 14(2), 80-98.

Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard

educational review, 84(4), 495-504.

Hira, A., & Hynes, M. M. (2018). People, means, and activities: A conceptual framework for

realizing the educational potential of makerspaces. Education Research

International, 2018.
MAKERSPACES IN SCHOOLS AND PUBLIC LIBRARIES 13

Hussain, A., & Nisha, F. (2017). Awareness and use of library makerspaces among library

professionals in India: A study. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information

Technology, 37(2), 84–90.

Johnson, C. (2018). Makerspaces in public school library. Retrieved from

https://thelibraryguy.weebly.com/literature-review.html

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., and Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report:

2015 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from

https://www.nmc.org/publication/nmc-horizon-report-2015-k-12-edition/.

Kurti, R. S., Kurti, D. L., & Fleming, L. (2014). The philosophy of educational makerspaces part

1 of making an educational makerspace. Teacher Librarian, 41(5), 8.

LeMire, S. (2018). Making a place for makerspaces in information literacy. Reference & User

Services Quarterly, 58(2), 82–86.

Mann, L. (2019). Information literacy and instruction: Making a place for makerspaces in

information literacy. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 58(2), 82-86.

McNair, A. (2019). A meaningful mess: Student-driven classrooms that engage and empower

learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Scheer, C. (2017). Time to Tinker: Bringing Maker Spaces to Younger Patrons. Children and

Libraries, 15(1), 16-18.

Sheffield, R., Koul, R., Blackley, S., & Maynard, N. (2017). Makerspace in STEM for girls: a

physical space to develop twenty-first-century skills. Educational Media

International, 54(2), 148–164002E.

MAKERSPACES IN SCHOOLS AND PUBLIC LIBRARIES 14

Taylor, N., Hurley, U., & Connolly, P. (2016, May). Making community: the wider role of

makerspaces in public life. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human

Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1415-1425). ACM.

Thomas, D., & Brown, J.S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a

world of constant change. CreateSpace: Lexington, KY.

Trilling, B., & Fadal, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wang, D., Dunn, N., & Coulton, P. (2015). Grassroots maker spaces: a recipe for innovation?

Retrieved from http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/73030/1/ding_ead.pdf

Wang, F., Wang, W., Wilson, S., & Ahmed, N. (2016). The state of library makerspaces.

International Journal of Librarianship, 1(1), 2-16.

https://doi.org/10.23974/ijol.2016.vol1.1.12