Content uploaded by Vince Wilczynski
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Vince Wilczynski on Mar 15, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Paper ID #13724
Academic Maker Spaces and Engineering Design
Dr. Vincent Wilczynski, Yale University
Vincent Wilczynski is the Deputy Dean of the Yale School of Engineering and Applied Science and the
James S. Tyler Director of the Yale Center for Engineering Innovation & Design. As the Deputy Dean,
he helps plan and implement all academic initiatives at the School. In addition, he manages the School’s
teaching and research resources and facilities. As the James S. Tyler Director of the Center for Engineer-
ing Innovation & Design he leads the School’s efforts to promote collaboration, creativity, design and
manufacturing activities at Yale’s academic makerspace. His professional interests in Mechanical Engi-
neering are in the areas of data acquisition/analysis and mechanical design. He is the Co-Chair of the
Executive Advisory Board of the FIRST Foundation and is a Fellow of the American Society of Mechan-
ical Engineering. Previously, he was the Dean of Engineering at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy and has
had fellowships at the MIT Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, the Harvard School of Public Health and
with the American Council on Education. He has also served as the Vice President of Public Awareness for
the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and was the 2001 Baccalaureate College Professor of the
Year by the Carnegie Foundation, the only national award that recognizes outstanding college teaching.
c
American Society for Engineering Education, 2015
Page 26.138.1
Academic Makerspaces and Engineering Design
Abstract
The arrival of academic makerspaces on college campuses signals an important development for
engineering design education. On a growing number of campuses, traditional machine shop
equipment has been combined with digital design and manufacturing tools to establish creative
communities. These communities support academic, extracurricular and personal design
activities under the watch of university faculty, staff, and students. As awareness of the value of
academic makerspaces increases in academic and non-academic settings, a larger number of
universities are developing these new facilities for learning and creating, often with unique
institutional purposes. This paper reviews facilities at Arizona State University, Georgia
Institute of Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Northwestern University, Rice
University, Stanford University, and Yale University and highlights the unique attributes of each
institution’s academic makerspace.
Introduction
Nationwide there is an increasing number of individuals who want to design and fabricate
physical objects. These skills are now more readily attainable because of advances in three key
technologies: design software, manufacturing tools, and integrated control systems. Intuitive
computer-aided design software programs provide users with an ability to quickly master basic
functions and design sophisticated systems. Once designed, components can be manufactured
(and some automatically) with a variety of traditional and modern machines including 3D
printers; laser, water and plasma cutters; and computer controlled mills, lathes and routers.
Sensors that measure nearly any physical parameter can then be readily integrated with systems
to monitor and control functions.
Access to manufacturing technology has been made easier due to a convergence of factors,
including the ease of use of tools, reductions in the cost of manufacturing equipment, the
development of integrated systems (especially with regards to software file-sharing
compatibilities), and the availability of open-source training. These factors have promoted
developments not only within manufacturing centers and universities, but more broadly
throughout society. A proliferation of individuals who are interested in the creation, design, and
fabrication of new objects has evolved into the self-branded “Maker Movement.”1
Using Maker Movement nomenclature, “makers” are individuals who design and build new
devices, and share their experiences with one another. A “makerspace” is a physical location
that serves as a meeting space for a “maker community” and houses the community’s design and
manufacturing equipment. Such spaces are commonly community-organized with the
community determining its structure, function, programming, and funding. In addition to being a
physical space for members to meet and use equipment, a makerspace typically offers training
Page 26.138.2
and certification programs to teach new skills. As a community organization, makerspaces
provide access to technology, training to use technology, inspiration for ideas, and support to
help members pursue design projects.
The idea of assembling individuals from a variety of backgrounds and talents while providing
access to technology for the sake of promoting creativity is not a new concept. As an historic
example, the Bell Labs “Black Box” research facility featured open corridors, glass perimeters
around labs, and open meeting spaces to promote a “serendipitous collision of ideas.”2 What
distinguishes the modern manifestation of this approach to discovery and creating is the drive of
individuals rather than corporations to create new contemporary affiliations that catalyze
creativity.
The modern ease of access to technology has produced a large number of new makers and has
led to the formation of many maker communities. Several aspects of this phenomenon have been
recorded (and to a certain degree organized) by the popular press. For example, Popular
Mechanics, Popular Science, and Wired magazines modified their print and web formats based
on this new interest, adopting the branding label DIY (Do It Yourself) to appeal to segments of
this growing market. Central to the Maker Movement is the concept of DIWO (Do It With
Others), with this acronym now becoming popular in the press.
Of particular note is the rise of the “Make: enterprise” which originated as a magazine of the
same name but has now expanded to include products, workshops, and training to support maker
communities. As the lead organization of the otherwise unassociated bands of makers and their
communities, Make: advocates the following tenants: making is a community activity, making is
not competitive, failure is embraced as a step towards success, and making is available for
everyone.3 In addition to the print and online material, Make: popularized the concept of
community-based Maker Faires where members gather to exhibit, teach, and learn. The
legitimacy of the Maker Faire concept was highlighted in 2014 when the inaugural White House
Maker Faire was hosted by President Obama at the executive residence.
Increased interest in this subject has promoted growth in the supply side of these endeavors.
Recently founded commercial venues cater to the maker community, supplying individuals with
the components and training to design and build systems. Such vendors offer products well
beyond manufacturing tools (such as consumer market 3D printers) and include microprocessors,
interface boards, and supplies to construct electromechanical and embedded systems. Though
the Maker Movement is not centralized and there is no official measure of its size, these
examples indirectly indicate that a growing number of individuals are indeed making things and
doing so in community-based settings.
Makerspaces within the Academic Community
Universities have always provided elements of the now popular makerspaces, including machine
shops, assembly/testing areas, CAD labs, meeting spaces, and classrooms. What universities
Page 26.138.3
have not always done is include all of these elements in one location and make the resulting
space widely accessible to an academically diverse campus population. Influenced by the rising
societal interest in “making” and supported by a long list of design-focused initiatives within
engineering education, a number of colleges are now planning and building “academic
makerspaces.”
Before examining the impact of academic makerspaces on college campuses, it is important to
review the landscape that contributed to the creation of such spaces. The increased attention to
the role of design throughout the engineering curriculum advocated for by accreditation
commissions has helped produce change.4 This influence prompted engineering educators to
expand instruction beyond theory into applications, with an associated increase in course content
that included design-test-build activities.
Paralleling the accreditation driven move to increase design content in the undergraduate
engineering curriculum, the concepts of problem-based learning and service learning also
became popular approaches to connect course material with field applications, often using client-
driven scenarios and open-ended challenges.5,6 This attention to increasing student engagement
was in part prompted by an increased awareness of the value of active learning and team-based
problem solving.
These initiatives manifested themselves in a variety of fashions, including improving student
experiences using cornerstone and capstone design projects as well as the creation of U.S.
Government sponsored initiatives. For example, the grant-funded “Learning Factory” project
was developed to simultaneously create a practice-based curriculum and the supporting physical
facilities required to design/fabricate new products.7 Of note was the significant cost (in the late
1990s) to create facilities that could integrate design, manufacturing, and business development.
Advances in all of these areas have since reduced entry barriers and democratized product
development, thereby fueling the Maker Movement.
A more recent influencing factor in the trend to advance engineering student design skills is the
rise in student entrepreneurial interests. While translational and cooperative research had
historically been a university-led function that centered on faculty research, many institutions
have recently expanded their support for both faculty-led and student-led entrepreneurship
activities. As a result, there is a growing need for facilities that allow students to develop their
independent design projects and create prototypes of the products they are working to
commercialize.
Collectively this set of factors has increased student desires to access technology that supports
hands-on work within and beyond the curriculum. Combined with these factors, the Maker
Movement has also influenced engineering design education and, in some cases, accelerated a
culture shift on college campuses. That culture is one that promotes hands-on learning, is open
to new ideas, welcomes diversity within problem-solving teams, shares techniques and results,
Page 26.138.4
values teamwork, and is multi-disciplinary. Fundamental to this culture shift has been the
establishment of collaborative spaces for individuals and teams to learn, work, and share:
locations that are referred to as “academic makerspaces.”
Academic makerspaces have a variety of names which use words such as design, innovation,
creativity, and invention as adjectives for the labs, centers, and studios, as well as the more
creative descriptors of gymnasiums and kitchens, that house these communities. No matter what
they are called, these spaces have similar infrastructure, programming, and functions. The
specifics of each academic makerspace, including focus, access, and staffing vary with each
institution.
These spaces usually include traditional and modern manufacturing equipment, as well as digital
design tools to support the academic, extracurricular, and personal design activities of university
students, faculty, and staff. The community nature and openness of these spaces is an important
distinction. In academic makerspaces, community members formally and informally learn from
one another in a variety of classroom, workshop, and open-studio formats.
A review of the unique attributes of a collection of academic makerspaces is presented in the
following sections as models for institutions that are planning to create academic makerspaces.
The review does not detail the equipment, programs or operating policies for each reported space
but rather highlights the uniqueness of each institutional entity. This review is not intended to be
a complete record of the Maker Movement on college campuses. As an example of that scope,
over 150 colleges and universities detailed their contributions to the Maker Movement in reports
cataloged by the Executive Office of the White House.8
Academic Makerspace Model: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology does not have a singular academic makerspace on its
campus, but a network of small makerspaces strategically located across campus is a key aspect
of MIT’s long range plan.9 This plan details embedding the future spaces within academic
villages that include classrooms, meeting and study spaces, technical and library support, and
food service. The academic villages are based on a concept that “blended learning” requires
“blended spaces.” Given MIT’s codified approach to learning that combines the work of the
mind and the hand, incorporating academic makerspaces into planned learning communities is a
direction that aligns with the institution’s purpose.
The lack of an academic makerspace on MIT’s campus stems from the fact that since its
inception MIT has promoted hands-on learning. As a result of this focus, MIT has created many
teaching and research facilities to support this approach to learning, though such facilities are
generally associated with single entities, be that a discipline, course, medium (such as glass,
wood, or metal) or purpose (such as research, student association, or hobby). Given this history,
two facilities at MIT are noteworthy examples that partially fulfill the function of an academic
Page 26.138.5
makerspace: MIT’s Pappalardo Lab and a facility managed by the MIT Electronics Research
Society.
The MIT Pappalardo Lab is a combined design studio, meeting space, and manufacturing center
that supports high enrollment (150+ students/semester) design courses.10 This lab primarily
supports cornerstone and capstone project-based courses in the Mechanical Engineering major
(2.007: Design & Manufacturing and 2.009: Product Engineering Processes) as well as
intercessional programs in design and manufacturing (for MIT students during January and
outreach students during the summer). The facility includes an open studio (for project work),
an adjoining machine shop, and adjacent meeting rooms. Storage for designed systems, supplies,
and stock is incorporated into the space. The machine shop, which is connected to the work
studio, is only open during hours when the professional staff is on site, with those hours
expanded at the end of the semester. This facility is a component of MIT’s Department of
Mechanical Engineering and primarily serves that segment of the MIT student population.
Figure 1. MIT: Pappalardo Lab
The Pappalardo Lab can be characterized as a notable academic makerspace for its level of
staffing and its training programs. The lab is staffed by six fulltime manufacturing educators
who provide training and instruction in using the facility’s equipment. This staff augments each
course’s teaching and support team to provide education, training, and oversight. Because of the
large number of students that use the space and the course turnover each term, equipment
training and certification instruction is regularly conducted in the lab, thereby making this
facility’s training system an exemplary model for certifying a large number of users on a
Page 26.138.6
periodic basis. Also noteworthy about this facility are the resources deeded to the users, with
each team assigned its own work bench, storage lockers, tools, and whiteboard for the duration
of the project (course).
Very different from this academic facility is the site managed by the MIT Electronics Research
Society (MITERS) student organization. While MITERS historically was associated with
electronic devices, it is now an organization that supports student design initiatives by providing
access to a mill, lathe, band saw, welding equipment, hand tools, and bench-top electronics
equipment. The oversight of and funding for this facility is accomplished solely by students
(with a student-run electronics recycling program being its primary funding mechanism).
Figure 2. MIT Electronics Research Society Workshop
The projects completed in the MITERS facility are often whimsical and technically sophisticated
pursuits of individual members who engaged in such work as personal activities (unassociated
with courses or engineering student clubs).11 Rarely is the facility used to support curriculum or
research activities. Given its purpose to support student design interests, this facility perhaps
qualifies to be called an academic makerspace but that title may not be appropriate due to a
unique attribute of the facility. The MITERS workshop operates nearly independent from MIT,
with the student members directing all aspects of its operation. This organizational structure is
more reflective of that found in community-based makerspaces outside of the academic
environment.
What is striking in these two examples from the same institution is their very different
organizational models, each driven by the facility’s primary purpose. While the Pappalardo Lab
Page 26.138.7
is staffed by professionals and supports academic projects, the MITERS shop is student-operated
and supports the creative needs of its student members. These examples illustrate how the
fundamental purpose of a facility determines structure and organization.
Academic Makerspace Model: Stanford University
Like at MIT, a number of facilities at Stanford University focus on the acquisition and
development of design and manufacturing skills. Two facilities at Stanford University have
unique attributes related to academic makerspaces.
Figure 3. Stanford University: Product Realization Lab
The Stanford Product Realization Lab, a descendent of the Student Shops from Stanford’s 1891
founding, developed into a comprehensive educational component of the Mechanical
Engineering Department nearly 40 years ago. The Stanford Product Realization Lab is a
collection of shops that provides machine and tool access, training (including but not limited to
video tutorials), and materials for designing and manufacturing.12 The supported manufacturing
processes include laser cutting, additive manufacturing, casting, machining, welding, forming,
woodworking, electronics, finishing, plastic working, sewing, and vinyl cutting. In addition to
tools and training, the Product Realization Lab also hosts a series of events including student
presentations, design lectures, and “Meet the Makers Expert Sessions” to increase skills and
product design awareness.
As an organizational component of the Department of Mechanical Engineering, the lab primarily
services departmental courses, with this alignment being its unique attribute. While the reported
academic facility at MIT supported one course each semester, the Product Realization Lab
supports all of the mechanical engineering department’s design courses each semester. In
Page 26.138.8
addition, the lab also supports a small number of design-build courses offered by Stanford’s
Department of Art. Access is provided for students enrolled in these courses as well as for any
Stanford student through an open access program (during scheduled work periods in specific
shop areas). As the single facility for all design courses in the Department of Mechanical
Engineering, the Product Realization Lab provides an efficient method for delivering consistent
instruction in machine use, safety, and manufacturing techniques. With its focus on learning
how to make while designing and manufacturing, the lab provides a baseline set of expectations
and resources for the program’s students.
Similar to the organizational structure of the Stanford Product Realization Lab, the Stanford d-
school (which is officially titled the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design and is not one of
Stanford's professional schools) is a component of the Department of Mechanical Engineering.
The Stanford d-school offers academic courses (open to all Stanford students), hosts a robust set
of corporate and academic outreach education sessions, and is the institutional home for some
national design initiatives.
Figure 4. Stanford University: d-school
The unique attribute of the Stanford d-school relative to the academic makerspace discussion is
the program's focus on “innovators and not innovations.”13 The Stanford d-school emphasizes
design thinking as a team-based problem solving technique throughout the program's courses,
web resources, and workshops. The emphasis on methods as opposed to products is fundamental
to all activities conducted within the d-school. The d-school does not have much of the
manufacturing equipment found in a typical academic makerspace, with the d-school's
fabrication equipment inventory limited to hand tools for early stage prototyping of concepts.
The facilities at these institutions illustrate a unique academic makerspace characteristic:
Page 26.138.9
course specific focus (MIT Pappalardo Lab)
infrastructure to support extra-curricular efforts (MITERS facility)
infrastructure to support curricular and co-curricular design activities (Stanford PDL)
design methodology instruction (Stanford d-school)
The remaining profiled institutions generally combine aspects of these functions in their
academic makerspaces.
Academic Makerspace Model: Georgia Institute of Technology’s Invention Studio
The Georgia Institute of Technology’s Invention Studio is a 3,000 square foot facility that
includes design and manufacturing equipment for students at all levels and in all disciplines.14
The Invention Studio falls under the oversight of the George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical
Engineering at Georgia Tech, similar to the reported facilities at MIT and Stanford. Funding for
establishing and maintaining the studio is provided by the mechanical engineering program's
capstone design course where industry sponsors fund student teams to investigate topics of
interest to the sponsoring companies. These funds not only cover the specific project costs, but
also provide overhead support for the design and fabrication studio where the work is conducted.
Figure 5. Georgia Institute of Technology: Invention Studio
The Georgia Tech Invention Studio is unique in that the facility, which is supported by the
mechanical engineering program, is primarily student-run. Maintenance and general oversight of
the equipment is provided by the mechanical engineering program but the day-to-day operation
of the facility, including supervising students using equipment in the space, is under the purview
of expertly trained undergraduate students who work in the Invention Studio. The space and its
Page 26.138.10
equipment (which includes 3D printers and industrial mills and lathes) is available 24/7 to the
expertly trained student instructors. All other students have access to space on a regular basis
during the week. Free access is available to students from all disciplines to work on curricular
and personal projects. The openness of the facility has contributed to a cultural transformation
on campus, with recorded positive impacts on student engagement in engineering disciplines and
a marked increase in student manufacturing skills.15
Academic Makerspace Model: Northwestern University’s Segal Design Institute
Human-centered design projects are the primary focus of the Segal Design Institute at
Northwestern University which is housed in the Ford Motor Company Engineering Design
Center. The institute is functionally a component of Northwestern University’s McCormick
School of Engineering & Applied Science and is closely affiliated with the Department of
Mechanical Engineering. The institute provides design resources as well as collaboration space
to facilitate innovative problem solving. Central to the institute is the Prototyping and
Fabrication Lab which consists of a machine shop and a project assembly area. Additive
manufacturing equipment, mechatronics support, CAD/CAM software, CNC mills and lathes, a
laser cutter, welding equipment, and a paint booth are also available. The facilities are used for
courses, graduate research, and student engineering association projects.16
Figure 6. Northwestern University: Segal Design Institute
The unique attribute of the Segal Design Institute is its role as an interdisciplinary academic unit
that grants specific degrees. For example, the Segal Design Institute offers a B.S. degree in
Manufacturing & Design Engineering, two Master’s degrees (Master of Science in Engineering
Design & Innovation and Master of Product Design & Development), and supports a Ph.D.
Page 26.138.11
research program. The institute also sponsors a dual-degree program (MS in Design Innovation
and an MBA) in partnership with Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management.
With the exception of the MBA degree, all degrees are awarded by Northwestern University’s
McCormick School of Engineering. This academic emphasis and the alignment of its design
curriculum with the degree-granting aspects of the university is a unique attribute of the Segal
Design Institute.
Academic Makerspace Model: Rice University’s Oshman Engineering Design Kitchen
The focus of Rice University’s Oshman Engineering Design Kitchen is to provide undergraduate
students majoring in engineering, computer science, and applied math with the ability to design,
manufacture, test, and deploy solutions to real-world problems.17 At 18,000 square feet, this
facility is among the largest campus spaces devoted to developing undergraduate design skills.
The Oshman Engineering Design Kitchen includes a classroom, meeting rooms, a wet lab, and a
number of workshops. With a full time staff of ten, including three Ph.D.-level staff members,
the Oshman Engineering Design Kitchen provides technology and a large support team to guide
students. Access is granted to students who are enrolled in Oshman Engineering Design Kitchen
courses, team members working on approved projects, and graduate students working on
research projects.
Figure 7. Rice University: Oshman Engineering Design Kitchen
A defining attribute of the facility is its commitment to a diverse population of engineers,
material scientists, applied mathematicians, and computer scientists. Within the School of
Engineering & Applied Science at Rice University, the facility supports not only mechanical and
electrical/computer engineering students, but also students majoring in chemical/biomolecular
Page 26.138.12
engineering, bioengineering, civil/environmental engineering, statistics, computational/applied
mathematics, computer science, and materials science/nanoengineering. Supporting this wide
range of technical disciplines requires specific equipment, such as that housed in the facility’s
wet lab, as well as workshops and programs that appeal to a diverse membership base.
Academic Makerspace Model: Arizona State University and TechShop
“TechShop” is a commercial endeavor that provides access to a makerspace based on a
subscription model, similar to that used by other membership-based businesses such as health
clubs. The member’s monthly membership fee allows unlimited access to the facility and its
equipment. Certification to use specific pieces of equipment, such as mills and water jet cutters,
is provided once members are trained on the particular piece of equipment (with an additional
cost for most training sessions). The concept of a subscription-based makerspace is relatively
new, with fewer than 10 locations currently in operation across the U.S.
Figure 8. Arizona State University and TechShop
Arizona State University joined with the Chandler TechShop and a public-private partnership
(ASU Chandler Innovation Center) to provide makerspace access for ASU students.18,19 The
partnership provides access to 35,000 square feet of state of the art fabrication equipment and
software to support courses, workshops, and events. The partnership intends to advance
innovative learning and interdisciplinary education programs in engineering, management, and
entrepreneurship at ASU. This partnership is the first between the commercial entity TechShop
and an academic institution. Opened in the fall of 2014, the operating parameters are currently
being established and refined. Though in its infancy, this partnership represents a unique method
to establish and operate an academic makerspace.
Page 26.138.13
Academic Makerspace Model: Yale University’s Center for Engineering Innovation and
Design
The Yale Center for Engineering Innovation and Design opened in 2012 as a university resource
to catalyze design, creativity, and engineering activities.20 As one component of a faculty-
developed strategic plan, the Center for Engineering Innovation and Design (CEID) was
established to help advance the engineering culture on campus. The center is housed in and
managed by the School of Engineering & Applied Science and is available to any member of the
Yale community. Members of the CEID have 24/7 access to the center’s design studio and
meeting spaces, with access to the fabrication equipment (beyond hand tools and 3D printers)
restricted to times when one of the CEID’s full-time shop supervisors is present. In addition to
the infrastructure, the CEID hosts design-centered classes, offers workshops, supports student
organizations, and provides consulting assistance to its members. CEID members are allowed to
use the facility for course, club, research, and personal projects, with an expectation that they
share their work with others.21,22
Figure 9. Yale University: Center for Engineering Innovation and Design
The university-wide access structure is a unique attribute of this facility. Undergraduate students
from all disciplines and graduate students from the majority of Yale’s professional schools are
members of the CEID. The design courses taught in the CEID encourage university-wide
participation and include classes on social entrepreneurship (jointly taught by faculty from
Engineering and Global Affairs), the design of musical instruments (taught by Engineering &
Department of Music faculty), medical device design (with instructors from Engineering and the
School of Medicine), and using light as an art form (led by School of Art and Engineering
Page 26.138.14
instructors). The Yale CEID has had a dramatic effect raising the culture for engineering at Yale
and has developed as the university’s hub for creativity and innovation.
Observations
While some of these programs (such as those at MIT and Stanford University) have existed for
decades, there is new interest in establishing spaces for students to collaborate, design,
manufacture, and share. Table 1 summarizes aspects of the profiled academic makerspaces. The
ASU-TechShop example was not included in the tabulated summary due to its commercial
origin. These examples illustrate a variety of models for incorporating academic makerspaces on
college campuses.
This review suggests a number of best practices that can be incorporated at existing and planned
spaces. The mission of the academic makerspace must be clearly defined from the onset, with
the space then designed around that mission. The Stanford Product Realization Lab example
illustrates how a traditional machine shop (in this case with an 1891 origin) can be adapted to
serve as an academic makerspace by hosting courses and creating a self-sustaining culture of
users to share information and develop fabrication skills. The example at Rice University
illustrates how the physical site can be used to establish a design culture, in this case across nine
different majors. To address this issue, the design of the Rice University facility included
components to draw in all majors, with the wet lab a key aspect of that plan.
The most successful academic makerspaces ensure that the facility is properly staffed with
educators, manufacturing and design professionals, and administrative support. The impact of an
academic makerspace on a campus correlates with the staff support provided in the space. As
evidenced in the presented examples, multi-talented staff support is needed to offer instruction,
training, supervision, and programming within the space. Providing adequate staff support is an
important consideration when planning, funding, and operating academic makerspaces.
Open environments promote collaboration within academic makerspaces. The images detailed
in this paper illustrate that large open areas are common within academic makerspaces to
promote the awareness of activities, projects, and interests. Such spaces spur dialog and idea
exchange since one’s work is conducted in a public venue. The open architecture format that is
favored in academic makerspaces has even greater value when workstations are mobile, thereby
allowing options to arrange the space to best fit changing needs. The profiled examples include
membership models where students from a variety of academic programs use the space and, as a
result, offer diverse perspectives for amplifying creativity and solving problems.
Aligning access times with the student work schedules increases the utility of academic
makerspaces. Academic makerspaces can operate with non-standard access schedules, including
24/7 access to the facility. Access to academic makerspaces is generally limited to trained and
Page 26.138.15
authenticated members of the community, with additional training required to use specific
manufacturing equipment.
Providing user training is essential to making academic makerspaces productive. This training
often takes the form of staff-delivered training modules for each piece of equipment. The
training can also include student-delivered workshops on programming, CAD, or other technical
topics of interest to the local academic makerspace community. While the training provides
individuals with new skills, it also serves as a mechanism to further establish and foster the
maker culture on campus. In this context, the training sessions have important social purposes as
forums for campus makers to meet one another and as a mechanism for community building.
Attention must be devoted to establish a maker community on campus, with the academic
makerspace being one component of that community. Interactions between members of an
academic makerspace are the most valuable component of these endeavors. The community of
like-minded creators has the potential to fuel itself, with the members teaching each other and
serving as resources to spawn new ideas. The operation of the academic makerspace can help
create and strengthen this community by offering programming that connects members and
eliminate barriers.
While the purpose of this paper was to detail unique attributes of existing academic makerspaces
as a guide for planning new spaces, this review also suggests there is great value in studying and
cataloging best practices of such spaces. The list of best practices can include outfitting,
training, programming, safety, financing, and staffing models that allow others to benefit from
the collected practices. Given the proliferation of academic makerspaces, it is expected that
these facilities will continue to influence the engineering education landscape. Documenting and
sharing academic makerspace best practices has potential to accelerate that impact.
References
1. C. Anderson, “Makers: The New Industrial Revolution,” Crown Business Publisher, 2012.
2. J. Gertner, “The Idea Factory: Bell Labs and the Great Age of American Innovation,” Penguin Press, 2012.
3. http://makezine.com/education/ (retrieved on February 2, 2015).
4. ”Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs – Effective for Evaluations during the 2014-2015 Accreditation
Cycle.” ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission, 2014.
5. Smith, K.A., Sheppard, S.D., Johnson, D.W., and Johnson, R.T., “Pedagogies of Engagement: Classroom-Based
Practices,” Journal of Engineering Education, Volume 94, Issue 1, pages 87-101, 2005
6. Tsang, E. Van Haneghan, J., Johnson, B., Newman, E.J., and Van Eck, S., “A Report on Service-Learning and
Engineering Design: Service Learning’s Effect on Students Learning Engineering Design in ‘Introduction to
Mechanical Engineering,’” International Journal of Engineering Education, 17(1), pages 30-39, 2001.
7. Lamancusa, J.S., Jorgensen, J.E., Zayas-Castro, J.L., “The Learning Factory—A New Approach to Integrating
Design and Manufacturing into the Engineering Curriculum,” Journal of Engineering Education, Volume 86,
Issue 2, pages. 103-112, 1997.
Page 26.138.16
8. Executive Office of the White House, “Building a Nation of Makers: Universities and Colleges Pledge to
Expand Opportunities to Make,” Washington, D.C., June 2014.
9. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “Institute Wide Task Force on the Future of MIT Education,”
Preliminary Report, November 21, 2013.
10. http://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/machine_shops_part_1 (retrieved on February 2, 2015).
11. https://www.flickr.com/groups/miters/pool/ (retrieved on February 2, 2015).
12. https://productrealization.stanford.edu/ (retrieved on February 2, 2015).
13. http://dschool.stanford.edu/ (retrieved on February 2, 2015).
14. http://inventionstudio.gatech.edu/ (retrieved on February 2, 2015).
15. C. Forest, et al, “The Invention Studio: A University Maker Space,” Advances in Engineering Education,
Summer 2014.
16. https://segal.northwestern.edu/ (retrieved on February 2, 2015).
17. http://oedk.rice.edu/ (retrieved on February 2, 2015).
18. http://techshop.ws/ts_chandler.html (retrieved on February 2, 2015).
19. https://entrepreneurship.asu.edu/techshop (retrieved on February 2, 2015).
20. http://ceid.yale.edu/ (retrieved on February 2, 2015).
21. Wilczynski, V., O’Hern, C.S., and Dufresne, E. R., “Using an Engineering Design Center to Infuse Design
Experiences into a Mechanical Engineering Program, American Society for Engineering Education Annual
Conference Proceedings, 2014.
22. Wilczynski, V. “Designing the Yale Center for Engineering Innovation and Design,” National Collegiate
Innovators and Inventors 18th Annual Conference – Open 2014 Proceedings, 2014.
Page 26.138.17
Table 1. Characteristics of institutional academic makerspaces
1
Official name: Hasso Plattner Institute of Design
2
Support 9 additional ME courses and 3 Art courses
FACILITY
MIT Pappalordo
Lab
MIT
MITERS
Stanford Product
Realization Lab
Stanford
d-school1
Host unit
ME Dept
students
ME Dept
ME Dept
Staff
4 FTE
40 students
6 FTE
69
Disciplines
ME
all
all
all
Size (sq ft)
20,000
1,000
not available
24,000
Established
1995
1973
circa 1970
2005
Traditional
manufacturing
Y
Y
Y
N
Additive
manufacturing
Y
Y
Y
N
Dedicated team
meeting space
Y
N
Y
Y
Academic
courses
supported
3 ME courses
taught in the space
none
8 ME courses2
taught in the
space
supports 30
courses from
multiple depts.
Workshop
presentations
N
Y
Y
Y
Access: people
course enrollment
club members
open-access
course enrollment
Access: time
M-F 8AM-5PM
T&W 6PM-9PM
24/7
8AM-11PM, every
day
M-F 9AM-5PM
Use
course projects
personal projects
course, club,
personal &
research projects
course projects
Users
Course enrollment
(est. 400/yr)
40 members
1,700 members
650/yr
Finances
dept. funded
club funded
$100/yr member
fee
“school” funded
Uniqueness
exclusively
supports 3 ME
courses
user training
program
student-run
student-funded
university-wide
access sponsored
by a department
Design Thinking
focus
Page 26.138.18
Table 1 (cont.). Characteristics of institutional academic makerspaces
3
Bioengineering, Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Computational &
Applied Mathematics, Computer Science, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Materials Science & Nano-
Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, and Statistics
4
Industry, student technology fee & research reimbursement funded
FACILITY
GA Tech Invention
Studio
Northwestern
Univ. Segal Design
Institute
Rice Univ.
Oshman
Engineering
Design Kitchen
Yale
Center for Eng
Innovation &
Design
Host unit
School of ME
School of Eng.
School of Eng.
School of Eng.
Staff
1.5 FTE
80 Students (PT)
14 FTE
10 FTE
4.5 FTE
Disciplines
all
all
Rice Engineering3
all
Size (sq ft)
3,000
20,000
18,000
8,500
Established
2009
2007
2008
2012
Traditional
manufacturing
Y
Y
Y
Y
Additive
manufacturing
Y
Y
Y
Y
Dedicated team
meeting space
N
Y
Y
Y
Academic
courses
supported
supports 25
courses each
semester
49 graduate and
undergraduate
courses
14 courses taught
in the space &
supports 10
additional courses
10 courses taught
in the space &
supports other
courses
Workshop
presentations
Y
N
Y
Y
Access: people
open access
course enrollment,
project teams,
researchers
course
enrollment,
project teams,
researchers
open-access
Access: time
M-F 10AM-6PM
24/7 for student
staff
M-F 8AM – 7PM
24/7 except for
machine shop
(M-F 8AM 7PM)
24/7 except for
machine shop
(staffed hours)
Use
course, club,
personal &
research projects
course, club &
research projects
course, club,
research &
approved design
projects
course, club,
personal &
research projects
Users
1000
students/semester
1,500
1,000
1,200 members
Finances
multiple sources4
school funded
school funded, w/
industry sponsors
school funded
Uniqueness
primarily student-
managed
offers undergrad &
graduate degrees
serves 9
engineering
majors
university-wide
membership
encourages
collaboration
Page 26.138.19
