Conference PaperPDF Available

Young Makers Becoming the Engineers of the Future and Implications

Authors:

Abstract

The purpose of this NSF-funded study “Might Young Makers Be the Engineers of the Future?” is to understand Young Makers in K-12 and how their knowledge, skills, and attitudes might prepare them to pursue advanced STEM education and careers. Makers are an emerging community of self-described DIY-enthusiasts, tinkerers and hobbyists. This work seeks to examine and better understand the context of their activities, particularly in informal engineering education and tinkering activities. Makers embolden characteristics from the Engineer of 2020, and in particular practical ingenuity, creativity, and propensity toward lifelong learning; making is of particular interest to the field of engineering and to engineering educators. Our specific research questions to be answered are: (1) What knowledge, skills, and attitudes do Young Makers possess that could be related to engineering?, and (2) How do pathways of Young Makers intersect with engineering? This study advances the currently limited knowledge of the Young Maker community by developing theory characterizing Young Makers and their pathways through the lens of formal engineering education. The aim is to establish evidence as to how Makers embody specific attributes of the Engineer of 2020 and discover additional attributes of Young Makers that could define the engineer of the future and effects their pathways to STEM majors and related careers. The results of this study will transform the conversation of who Young Makers could become, linking Making with engineering in the same way that students who excel in science and math are pointed toward engineering by parents and career counselors. We aim to illuminate pathways for Young Makers to become the engineers of the future. In addition, this study could inform future innovation in formal K-12 STEM pedagogy based on successful attributes of informal engineering education and tinkering activities. Using qualitative research methods of artifact elicitation and critical incident interviews, we are developing a theory describing Young Makers and their preparation to pursue advanced STEM education and careers. To date, 40 Young Makers and 22 parents have been interviewed at Maker Faire events. We intend to continue interviewing Young Makers at Maker Faire events and through additional channels in the coming year, in addition to continuing transcription and analysis toward our goal of developing a Young Maker theory. As interest and engagement in Making in K-12 increases, it is also interesting to note that this involvement overlaps with introductory engineering efforts. As this may very provide pathways to STEM majors and careers, it also may force reexaminations of what rudimentary STEM knowledge students may bring with them to university. As part of our ongoing synthesis of research findings, we are also considering what curricular, pedagogical and system-wide implications this may have for the engineering education enterprise.
Paper ID #19355
Young Makers Becoming the Engineers of the Future and Implications
Dr. Micah Lande, Arizona State University
Micah Lande, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor in the Engineering and Manufacturing Engineering pro-
grams and Tooker Professor at the Polytechnic School in the Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering at
Arizona State University. He teaches human-centered engineering design, design thinking, and design
innovation project courses. Dr. Lande researches how technical and non-technical people learn and apply
a design process to their work. He is interested in the intersection of designerly epistemic identities and
vocational pathways. Dr. Lande is the PI/co-PI on NSF-funded projects focused on engineering doing
and making, citizen science and engineering outreach, and ”revolutionizing” engineering education. He
has also been an instructor and participant in the NSF Innovation Corps for Learning program. He re-
ceived his B.S in Engineering (Product Design), M.A. in Education (Learning, Design and Technology)
and Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering (Design Education) from Stanford University.
Dr. Shawn S Jordan, Arizona State University, Polytechnic campus
SHAWN JORDAN, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of engineering in the Ira A. Fulton Schools of En-
gineering at Arizona State University. He teaches context-centered electrical engineering and embedded
systems design courses, and studies the use of context in both K-12 and undergraduate engineering design
education. He received his Ph.D. in Engineering Education (2010) and M.S./B.S. in Electrical and Com-
puter Engineering from Purdue University. Dr. Jordan is PI on several NSF-funded projects related to
design, including an NSF Early CAREER Award entitled ”CAREER: Engineering Design Across Navajo
Culture, Community, and Society” and ”Might Young Makers be the Engineers of the Future?,” and is a
Co-PI on the NSF Revolutionizing Engineering Departments grant ”Additive Innovation: An Educational
Ecosystem of Making and Risk Taking.” He was named one of ASEE PRISM’s ”20 Faculty Under 40” in
2014, and received a Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers from President Obama
in 2017.
Dr. Jordan co-developed the STEAM LabsTM program to engage middle and high school students in
learning science, technology, engineering, arts, and math concepts through designing and building chain
reaction machines. He founded and led teams to two collegiate Rube Goldberg Machine Contest national
championships, and has appeared on many TV shows (including Modern Marvels on The History Channel
and Jimmy Kimmel Live on ABC) and a movie with his chain reaction machines. He serves on the Board
of the i.d.e.a. Museum in Mesa, AZ, and worked as a behind-the scenes engineer for season 3 of the
PBS engineering design reality TV show Design Squad. He also held the Guinness World Record for the
largest number of steps – 125 – in a working Rube Goldberg machine.
c
American Society for Engineering Education, 2017
Young Makers Becoming the Engineers of the Future and Implications
The purpose of this NSF-funded study “Might Young Makers Be the Engineers of the Future?”
is to understand Young Makers in K-12 and how their knowledge, skills, and attitudes might
prepare them to pursue advanced STEM education and careers. Makers are an emerging
community of self-described DIY-enthusiasts, tinkerers and hobbyists. Makers embolden
characteristics from the Engineer of 20201 like practical ingenuity, creativity, and propensity
toward lifelong learning. Making is of particular interest to the field of engineering and to
engineering educators. The mission of this research is to develop a theory, inductively grounded
in data and deductively built on literature, illuminating the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of
Young Makers related to pathways forward to engineering and STEM-related majors and
careers. By describing educational pathways to or around formal engineering education, we will
better inform future innovations to improve the practical ingenuity and lifelong learning of our
future engineers. The specific research questions to be answered are: (RQ 1.) What knowledge,
skills, and attitudes do Young Makers possess that could be related to engineering? and (RQ 2.)
How do pathways of Young Makers intersect with engineering?
Methods
Using qualitative research methods of artifact elicitation and critical incident interviews, we are
developing a theory describing Young Makers and their preparation to pursue advanced STEM
education and careers. The interview protocols were based on themes that emerged from our
related Adult Maker study (EEC-1232772)2. After interviewing our first round of participants at
the Bay Area Maker Faire in May 2014, we discovered that parents and families were extremely
important to supporting Young Makers. We then expanded our interviews to start looking at
Maker Families, interviewing children about their experiences Making, parents about how they
support their kids in Making and what they think their kids are learning, and siblings (who are
often also Makers). We are continuing artifact elicitation interviews at Bay Area and World
Maker Faires in 2015 and 2016, and conducting follow-up critical incident interviews. Some
analysis has begun to support early publishing of conference papers, but we intend to fill out
sampling gaps prior to a deeper analysis across all participants. To date, 40 Young Makers and
22 parents have been interviewed at Maker Faire events.
Maker Theory: Additive Innovation
Findings from our qualitative artifact elicitation and critical incident interviews showed that
Makers demonstrate the characteristics of an Additive Innovation3,4 mindset that describes the
open community of sharing and learning that is in the Maker community. Introduced in this
paper as an umbrella concept, Additive Innovation is a mode of collaboration where participants
in a community are:
a) inspired by shared artifacts/ideas,
b) openly share (and learn about) technology and processes used to create these,
artifacts/ideas,
c) design and prototype own modified version of the shared artifact/idea, and
d) share their modified artifact/idea back with the community.
Learning Attributes of Making
Making is rooted in constructionism, learning by doing or Making and constructing knowledge
through that doing 5. Aspects of Making that could appear in the engineering classroom are
described in the following sections. Attributes of Making come directly from themes emerging
from our ongoing research 2-4, 6-11 listed in Table 1. These learning attributes are described more
fully in the authors recent work 12.
Table 1: Attributes/themes of Making and common definitions 12
Sharing
give jointly
Practical ingenuity
of doing, quality of cleverness
Personal investment
of one, commit money
Playful invention
amusement, creative abilities
Risk taking
danger, application
Community building
group of people, constructing
Self-directed learning
initiative, knowledge to acquire
Discussion
Preliminary findings also indicate the critical and significant involvement of parents in the
additive innovation networks of Young Makers are a part. Parents of Young Makers enable
participation in making by supporting their children financially, technically, logistically, and
emotionally. They also have strong opinions about the benefit of Making for their kids, so we
plan to expand our interview strategy to include parents. This study will advance the currently
limited knowledge of the Young Maker community by developing theory characterizing Young
Makers and their pathways through the lens of formal engineering education. The aim is to
establish evidence as to how Making benefits Young Makers and affects their pathways to
STEM majors and related careers. By highlighting such connections, the results will inform
subsequent planned future research on the accreditation of informal and formal Maker activities.
This study could inform future innovation in formal K-12 STEM pedagogy based on successful
attributes of informal engineering education and tinkering activities. The results of this study will
transform the conversation of who Young Makers could become, linking Making with
engineering in the same way that students who excel in science and math are pointed toward
engineering by parents and career counselors. By sharing a diverse (by age, gender, ethnicity) set
of success profiles of Young Makers widely in the formal education system (to students, K-12
school administrators, university leaders, and admissions officers) and to Young Makers both
online and at Young Maker community events, we aim to illuminate pathways for Young
Makers to become the engineers of the future.
Future Role for Making in the Classroom
There is also an opportunity to place engineering Making and doing to into a formal classroom
learning environment in K-12 and undergraduate engineering program. Making-Based
Learning12 can support students in academic Makerspaces. Making may attract and recruit a
broader base of engineering students. An inversion of the values of engineering analysis and
engineering doing may be necessary to fully and authentically support the role of Making in the
classroom. At the very least, it is possible to imagine engineering curricular reform and support
for active and project-based learning wrapped up in Making-Based Learning. We have shared
learning attributes of making; it could be a useful intellectual exercise to consider how such
values are amplified or lessened within an engineering learning culture. The concept of additive
innovation is mentioned above. Can that be supported in K-12 and undergraduate learning
experiences? Is the current implementation more convergent and less exploratory in nature?
The study of Makers, Making and Making-Based Learning is a ripe opportunity for the
engineering education community to reflect on our approach to teaching and learning. Making-
Based Learning may already fit into some aspects of the engineering curriculum, such as first-
year Introduction to Engineering courses and project courses in programs with a project spine
(e.g., Arizona State University, Harvey Mudd College, Olin College). However, engineering
faculty critics of the Maker movement argue that Makers do not actively learn and apply
engineering fundamentals in their projects, thereby limiting the applicability and appropriateness
of Making-Based Learning pedagogical techniques in the engineering curriculum. We seek to
continue our research by better understanding the role and expectations of Making in the formal
engineering setting through future case study examples and to better capture and understand
perceptions of Making by engineering faculty. Making may offer new opportunities to engage
young people in STEM majors and careers and stretch the bounds of how we conceive of
engineering and engineering learning.
Acknowledgements
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.
1329321 “Might Young Makers Be the Engineers of the Future?” The authors also gratefully
acknowledge the participants in this study and the contributions of our research team.
References
1. Clough, G. W. “The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century.” National Academy of
Engineering, Washington, DC 2004.
2. Jordan, S. & Lande, M. “Additive innovation: Radical collaboration in design thinking and making.”
International Journal of Engineering Education. 32-2. May/June 2016.
3. Lande, M., and Jordan, S. “Methods for examining the educational pathways of adult makers.” In proceedings
of the American Society for Engineering Education Conference. 2014.
4. Lande, M. & Jordan, S. “What Do Young Makers Learn?” In proceedings of 2016 American Society for
Engineering Education Conference. 2016. New Orleans, LA.
5. Papert, S., & Harel, I. Situating constructionism. Constructionism, 36, 111. 1991.
6. McKenna, A., Kellam, N., Lande, M., Brunhaver, S., Jordan, S., Bekki, J., Carberry, A. and London, J.
“Instigating a Revolution of Additive Innovation.” In proceedings of American Society for Engineering
Education Conference. 2016. New Orleans, LA.
7. Foster, C., Lande, M. & Jordan, S. “An Ethos of Sharing in the Maker Community.” Proceedings of American
Society for Engineering Education Conference. 2014.
8. Jordan, S. & Lande, M. “Work in Progress: Should Makers Be the Engineers of the Future?” Proceedings of
Frontiers in Education Conference. 2013.
9. Lande, M. & Jordan, S. “Making It Together, Locally: A Making Community Learning Ecology in the
Southwest.” Proceedings of Frontiers in Education Conference. Madrid, Spain. 2014.
10. Lande, M., Jordan, S. & Nelson, J. “Defining Makers Making: Emergent Practice and Emergent Meaning.”
Proceedings of American Society for Engineering Education Conference. 2014.
11. Oplinger, J., Lande, M., Jordan, S. & Camarena, L. Leadership characteristics in the making community.
American Journal of Engineering Education. 7:2 65-82. 2016.
12. Lande, M., Jordan, S., & Weiner, S. Making people and projects: Implications for making-based learning.
ASEE Pacific Southwest Conference. Tempe, AZ. 2017.
... Scaffolded prototyping, suggested in [51], provides a systematic way "to support self-regulated learning by offloading feedback from the instructor to students' evaluation of their own built prototype in the context of iterative feedback from a user." Scaffolded prototyping follows Kolb's Experiential Learning Cycle [52], which, in the context of design education, allows students to move reflectively from abstract understanding of the place prototyping has in the design process to concrete understanding, Fig. 1. ...
... Kolb's [52] Experiential Learning Cycle. Image from[51]. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
The purpose of this NSF-funded study is to understand Young Makers in K-12 and how their knowledge, skills, and attitudes might prepare them to pursue advanced STEM education and careers. Makers are an emerging community of self-described DIY-enthusiasts, tinkerers and hobbyists. Popularized by the quarterly magazine MAKE and annual Maker Faire events, this work seeks to examine and better understand the context of their activities, particularly in informal engineering education and tinkering activities. Makers embolden characteristics from the Engineer of 2020, and in particular practical ingenuity, creativity, and propensity toward lifelong learning; making is of particular interest to the field of engineering and to engineering educators. Using qualitative research methods of critical incident, artifact, and context elicitation interviews, we are developing a theory describing Young Makers and their engineering education pathways. Our primary research questions are: What knowledge, skills, and attitudes do Makers possess that could be related to engineering? and How do pathways of Makers intersect with engineering? This study will advance the currently limited knowledge of the Young Maker community by developing theory characterizing Young Makers and their pathways through the lens of formal engineering education. The aim is to establish evidence as to how Makers embody specific attributes of the Engineer of 2020 and discover additional attributes of Young Makers that could define the engineer of the future and effects their pathways to STEM majors and related careers. The results of this study will transform the conversation of who Young Makers could become, linking Making with engineering in the same way that students who excel in science and math are pointed toward engineering by parents and career counselors. By sharing a diverse (by age, gender, and ethnicity) set of success profiles of Young Makers widely in the formal education system to students, K-12 school administrators, university leaders, admissions officers, and to Young Makers both online and at Young Maker community events, we aim to illuminate pathways for Young Makers to become the engineers of the future. In addition, this study could inform future innovation in formal K-12 STEM pedagogy based on successful attributes of informal engineering education and tinkering activities.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
The objective of this paper is to propose guidelines for designing open-ended, hands-on making educational experiences within the context of undergraduate engineering coursework. The aim is to expand understanding of what making-based learning (MBL) in the context of undergraduate engineering design education might be, especially for current Millennial students. This work seeks to illuminate the engineering classroom experiences of making in ways beyond just tools and places – including those who engage in authentic engineering practice through imagination and making, design and analysis, and also tinkering, hacking and tweaking. We seek to apply our previous work understanding Adult Maker and Young Maker educational pathways in a way useful to those responsible for engineering studios, prototyping labs, and academic maker spaces. We build on our prior qualitative research work and understanding of Makers’ educational pathways and experiences to distill a working framework for designing Making experiences for student learners and design principles for framing making-based learning projects. Hands-on building experiences are underfunded in secondary schools and engineering science is a more prevalent approach to teaching college students than human-centered design. While opportunities exist to nurture one’s interest in making and tinkering are growing, means to truly foster creativity in the classroom is limited. Coupled with calls for competitiveness, a search to find new learning models to create innovators in the classroom is needed. With ubiquity of information and promises of technology, such potential can be manifested in the Maker Community, through both technology but also open-source collaborative efforts that include a breadth of fields. The research questions guiding this study are RQ1: “How might engineering students learn and apply making in undergraduate engineering?” and RQ2: “What are the attributes of making in the engineering classroom?” With some understanding of making in the wild, as presented at Maker Faires and Adult Makers and Young Makers sharing their work, we apply those learnings to inform the engineering education enterprise. Engineers participate in the Maker movement. Some Makers do not pursue formal engineering education but both the engineering field and their own vocational advancement could readily benefit. With our ongoing research into understanding Adult Maker and Young Maker educational pathways, we seek to understand making and how making activities and work are inclusive or exclusive of what we expect from engineers and engineering students. From the Engineer of 2020, we highlight practical ingenuity, creativity and lifelong learning for likely opportunities to leverage the Maker experience in the engineering classroom. With an ultimate goal of facilitating more effective teaching and learning of making through the experience of learning engineering and design in the undergraduate engineering classroom, we build on a list of qualities that have emerged from our previous making-related work and place in the context of undergraduate engineering education. We share these learning attributes below with examples from Making and engineering, and how it may become reflected in the engineering classroom in the future. This makes for quite an opportunity to further bolster relevance and context for the instructor and the student learner.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
The project described in this paper is part of a cohort of projects funded to revolutionize engineering and computer science departments (National Science Foundation RED initiative). The focus of our work is to take a systems-level perspective regarding how change can be facilitated within an organization. Our efforts aim to empower faculty to be agents of change and to cultivate a culture that recognizes and rewards risk-taking in the classroom. We approach our work by attending to the larger ecosystem of people and organizations within which change happens. Our evidence-based methods are intended to foster revolutionary advances within our engineering program. We are in the third year of our five-year project and have recognized that part of the revolution entails how our team adapts internally and externally through the different stages of the project. From an internal perspective, we have been intentional in reflecting on team process, team dynamics, and team structure so that we modify and adapt as necessary to maximize performance. From an external perspective, we are intentional to recognize and be responsive to changes that happen in the larger ecosystem, i.e., our institution and professional community, within which we are situated. We are nearing completion of foundational aspects of the project and are transitioning during the pivotal year three to new focus areas and different phases of work. This paper provides a summary of our progress to date regarding meeting the project objectives, in addition to recent adjustments made to support our next steps. These adjustments are driven by our reflection of what, precisely, is our revolution, and how our project team is adapting to accelerate progress on the pathway to reach the revolution.
Article
Full-text available
This study examines the emergence of leadership characteristics within a new organizational community of individuals: the Maker community. The Maker community is a group of individuals that classify themselves as “Makers” and have become innovators and entrepreneurs through the creation of technological gadgets, artistic projects, and other end products. Historically, so-called Tinkers were motivated to design and develop objects in their garages apart from other people with similar motivations. Drawing from Quinn’s Competing Values Framework, these Maker communities exemplify emergent leadership characteristics within collaboration frameworks. Forty critical incident interviews with Makers express the leadership characteristics of these individuals. Characteristics may differ from individual to another, but a general representation of the community as a whole can be made from observing sub-groups within the community. The results hold important implications for leadership growth, cross-cultural management, and the future for what has become an emerging organizational community. The growth of this community has implications for the field of engineering education and new project-based learning coursework. The emergence of the Maker community including maker spaces has also become relevant in this context and the future of how we education engineers.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
The purpose of this study is to systematically explore a vein of the Maker ethos: enthusiasm for Making and sharing knowledge and technical artifacts that have been Made. This exploration encompasses surveying how Makers engage in communities of practice and knowledge brokering11. Although their work is done outside of structured engineering education, their commitment to collaborating and engagement in the community is something that can be better understood to advantage our teaching in the engineering classroom. This approach aligns with project-based learning as a teaching method in the classroom, a call made in Sheppard’s Educating Engineers: Designing for the Future of the Field12. Engaging future engineering students may mean developing curriculum and pedagogy that allows students to apply their knowledge and Make. ABET and the Engineer of 2020 emphasizes that future engineers must be lifelong learners and able to communicate and collaborate with multiple stakeholders13. There is opportunity to leverage the Maker experience to better understand collaboration and communication among a group of self-ascribed lifelong learners.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
This paper presents our methods for examining the educational pathways of adult Makers. Through critical incident interviews and artifact elicitation interviews of a segment of Makers collected at Maker Faire events, we seek to develop a theory based on the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and pathways of Makers to inform future innovations in formal engineering education, specifically in the areas of practical ingenuity, creativity and lifelong learning of our future engineers. Our primary research questions are: (RQ1) What knowledge, skills, and attitudes do Makers possess that could be related to engineering? and (RQ2) How do pathways of Makers intersect with engineering? The focus of this paper is to convey our methods for this work.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Makers are an emerging community of self-described DIY-enthusiasts, tinkerers and hobbyists. Popularized by the quarterly magazine MAKE1 and annual Maker Faire2 events, this work seeks to examine and better understand the context of their activities, particularly in informal engineering education and tinkering activities. Makers embolden characteristics from the Engineer of 20203, and in particular practical ingenuity, creativity, and propensity toward lifelong learning; making is of particular interest to the field of engineering and to engineering educators. We explore what it means to make. A review of definitions was undertaken via two methods. The first was convergent, relying on a literature review spanning several academic disciplines. The second means was divergent, collecting definitions via an ad-hoc, grounded, in-situ approach at a recent Maker Faire event. Respondents were provided with post-it notes, posed with the question How Do You Define Making? and asked to contribute to a shared, public wall of multiple definitions. Both approaches yield information that can be used to characterize perceptions of making and contribute to its definition. The review showed several common terms and perceptions that can be used to define making. Words such as maker, hacker and hobbyist appear in several varying contexts, from education to history, and in the context of the maker movement. The open-ended question activity also had interesting trends. Many responses described building or making of something from a creative viewpoint. These methods helped to characterize making in a manner that can be useful to a larger study investigating the educational pathways of makers.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
This paper illustrates the spaces, tribes and experiences within the Maker community. Using a theoretical framework of learning ecology and communities of practice, we illustrate and provide the context of Making, Maker Faires and Mini-Maker Faires, and Makers' experiences. We contribute a proposed taxonomy by which makerspaces can be categorized. We begin to compare Makers in our Southwest region of the United States to information known about Makers throughout the United States.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Engineers participate in the Maker movement. Some Makers do not pursue formal engineering education but both the engineering field and their own vocational advancement could readily benefit. We seek to understand Makers and how they are inclusive or exclusive of what can be expected from engineers. From the Engineer of 2020 list of characteristics (National Academy of Engineering, 2004), we highlight practical ingenuity, creativity and lifelong learning for likely opportunities to leverage the Maker experience. The mission of this research is to develop a theory, inductively grounded in data and deductively built on literature, illuminating the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of Makers, describing their pathways in formal engineering education to better inform future innovations in order to improve the practical ingenuity and lifelong learning of our future engineers. Artifact elicitation interviews, based on the method of photo elicitation and critical incident technique interviews will be administered to participants. Results from the inductive and deductive analyses will be triangulated to generate a preliminary theory of Maker knowledge, skills, attitudes, and pathways. This theory, inductively grounded in data and deductively connected to literature, will describe aspects of Makers, along with how their pathways intersect with formal engineering education experiences.