Conference PaperPDF Available

Social innovations within makerspace settings for early entrepreneurial education - The DOIT project


Abstract and Figures

The H2020 project DOIT and its 13 partners contribute to youth employment and to the creation of new jobs in the social economy by nurturing in young pupils’ entrepreneurial mind-sets, knowhow and skills. The project empowers primary and secondary school pupils (6-16 years) alongside educators to apply open innovation methods, digital maker tools and collaboration skills to tackle societal problems. In this paper, the authors introduce to the background and approach of the project and the design of its learning activities called “DOIT actions”.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Preliminary version - EDMEDIA 2018
- The H2020 DOIT project
Preliminary version, published here:
Schön, Sandra; Jagrikova, Radovana & Voigt, Christian (2018). Social innovations within makerspace settings for
early entrepreneurial education - The DOIT project. In T. Bastiaens, J. Van Braak, M. Brown, L. Cantoni, M. Castro, R.
Christensen, G. Davidson-Shivers, K. DePryck, M. Ebner, M. Fominykh, C. Fulford, S. Hatzipanagos, G. Knezek, K.
Kreijns, G. Marks, E. Sointu, E. Korsgaard Sorensen, J. Viteli, J. Voogt, P. Weber, E. Weippl & O. Zawacki-Richter
(Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 1716-1725), retrieval
date, from
Preliminary version - EdMedia conference 2018 - Social innovations within makerspace settings for EEE
„DOIT – Entrepreneurial skills for young social innovators in an open digital world"
Consortium: Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft m.b.H. (AT, co-ordinator), Stichting Waag Society (NL),
Lappeenranta University of Technology (FI), Zentrum für Soziale Innovation (AT), mediale - Verein für
Medienbildung e.V. (DE), eduCentrum (BE), ZAVOD Kersnikova (SI), Polyhedra d.o.o. (RS), Capital of Children A/S (DK),
University of Zagreb (HR), Institut d'Arquitectura Avançada de Catalunya (FabLab Barcelona, ES), European Social
Entrepreneurship and Innovative Studies Institute (LT), and YouthProAktiv (BE)
Duration: 10/2017-09/2020
Grant: H2020-770063 (Call H2020-SC6-CO-CREATION-2017)
Contact (co-ordinator):
Dr. Sandra Schön
Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft m.b.H.
Disclaimer: This document’s contents are not intended to replace consultation of any applicable legal sources or the       
necessary advice of a legal expert, where appropriate. All information in this document is provided "as is" and no
guarantee or warranty is given that the information is fit for any particular purpose. The user, therefore, uses the
information at its sole risk and liability. For the avoidance of all doubts, the European Commission has no liability in
respect of this document, which is merely representing the authors' view.
 
Preliminary version - EdMedia conference 2018 - Social innovations within makerspace settings for EEE
Description of the Publication
Preliminary version, published here:
Schön, Sandra; Jagrikova, Radovana & Voigt, Christian (2018). Social innovations within
makerspace settings for early entrepreneurial education - The DOIT project. In T.
Bastiaens, J. Van Braak, M. Brown, L. Cantoni, M. Castro, R. Christensen, G.
Davidson-Shivers, K. DePryck, M. Ebner, M. Fominykh, C. Fulford, S. Hatzipanagos, G.
Knezek, K. Kreijns, G. Marks, E. Sointu, E. Korsgaard Sorensen, J. Viteli, J. Voogt, P.
Weber, E. Weippl & O. Zawacki-Richter (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World
Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 1716-1725), retrieval date, from
CC BY 4.0, see
CC BY 4.0 DOIT,, H2020-770063
Publication Date
 
Preliminary version - EdMedia conference 2018 - Social innovations within makerspace settings for EEE
Social innovations within makerspace settings for
early entrepreneurial education - The DOIT project
Sandra Schön
Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft m.b.H.
Christian Voigt
Centre for Social Innovation
Radovana Jagrikova
The H2020 project DOIT and its 13 partners contribute to youth employment and to the creation of new jobs in the
social economy by nurturing in young pupils’ entrepreneurial mind-sets, knowhow and skills. The project empowers
primary and secondary school pupils (6-16 years) alongside educators to apply open innovation methods, digital
maker tools and collaboration skills to tackle societal problems. In this paper, the authors introduce to the background
and approach of the project and the design of its learning activities called “DOIT actions”.
1. Introduction
Social innovation and early entrepreneurship education for tackling social issues as well as generating sustainable
businesses are seen as critical for achieving growth within Europe and, with a different frame of value references,
other regions of the world. However, scientifically proven concepts are still lacking and practical applications are rare.
The current European interest on a policy level provides a window of opportunity to innovate and implement novel
strategies for a new European approach towards early, social innovation and entrepreneurship education. Such    
innovations include open didactical learning methods, such as project work within a workshop with self-set learning
goals, the use of applied digital production technologies and the provision of social business collaboration and
networking opportunities.
Preliminary version - EdMedia conference 2018 - Social innovations within makerspace settings for EEE
The H2020 Innovation Action DOIT aims to develop learning materials and activities that promote the core
idea of an early entrepreneurship education for children and youth who are 6 to 16 years old. The DOIT concept as
presented in this paper is based on the current discussion around skills and competencies within entrepreneurial
education and their application to solving today’s most pressing societal problems (e.g. the UN’s Millennium Goals
(UN, 2016a) and Sustainable Development Goals (UN, 2016b), the EU Sustainable Development Strategy adopted in
2001, see Eurostat, 2015). Acknowledging the importance of situating education in meaningful ways (Kulikowich &
Young, 2001), this paper also presents a way to embed entrepreneurial education and social innovation within
makerspace education (Schön, Ebner & Kumar, 2014; Unterfrauner & Voigt, 2017).
2. Current European early entrepreneurial education
2.1 Early entrepreneurial education as a key driver for Europe’s wealth
Entrepreneurship education has been defined by the European Commission’s Thematic Working Group on
Entrepreneurship Education (2014) as developing the skills and mind-set that allow people to turn creative ideas into
entrepreneurial action. Both social enterprises and commercial companies need new ideas for meeting the challenges
of the future and providing options for a young, skilled workforce being potential intra- or entrepreneurs.
Intrapreneurs are “those who take hands-on responsibility for creating innovation of any kind, within a business”
(Pinchot, 1984). Given today’s current socio-economic climate of high unemployment among young people and rising
social inequality, strengthening the entrepreneurial skills of citizens from early in their education is crucial for
creating wealth and future employment (OECD, 2012). Entrepreneurship education is therefore recognised as a key
driver for growth and job creation in the Europe 2020 strategy (European Commission, 2016). However, it is
acknowledged that potential young entrepreneurs face significant barriers, because they lack entrepreneurial skills,
education about applied digital production technologies and social business networking abilities (Flash Eurobarometer
354, 2012, p. 117). The lack of adequate entrepreneurship education is related to a lack of role models, since teachers
do not see themselves as entrepreneurs, and an overly theory-driven approach to entrepreneurship, which neglects
the primacy of action and emotional development needed for experiencing entrepreneurship in situ. Generally, people
are not aware of what entrepreneurship involves, highlighted in a survey in which only 28 per cent of EU respondents    
said that their school education raised their interest in becoming an entrepreneur (Flash Eurobarometer 354, 2012, p.
117). The current EU Commission’s Eurydice report suggests that it is above all the inclusion of entrepreneurial
activities in everyday school life that can be strengthened (Eurydice, 2017, p. 9).
2.2 Two strands of EEE: Not young millionaires, but social innovators
One strand of early entrepreneurship literature, originating from the USA, focuses on the accumulation of financial    
wealth. This area of early entrepreneurship education can be illustrated by the following list of some of the titles of
such books: “The Lemonade Stand Millionaire: A Parents' Guide to Encouraging the Entrepreneurial Spirit in Your Kids”
(Haynes, 2013) or “How to Let Your Parents Raise a Millionaire: A Kid-To-Kid View on How to Make Money, Make a
Difference and Have Fun Doing Both!” (James & Coffey, 2012).
Preliminary version - EdMedia conference 2018 - Social innovations within makerspace settings for EEE
Another strand, and this could be also seen as the European alternative to the above mentioned approach, is    
not emphasizing financial success, but focusing on entrepreneurial attitudes as starting points for young people to get
involved in changing the future living and working conditions for the better. Here, the social aims and ambitions of
entrepreneurial skills are inherently linked to the definition of an entrepreneur’s goals. The working definition which
has been developed by the European Commission Thematic Working Group on Entrepreneurship Education (2014, p.
8) is also emphasizing such an understanding: “[…]. This is a key competence for all learners, supporting personal
development, active citizenship, social inclusion and employability. It is relevant across the lifelong learning process,
in all disciplines of learning and to all forms of education and training (formal, non-formal and informal) which
contribute to an entrepreneurial spirit or behaviour, with or without a commercial objective.” Entrepreneurial
education is therefore the measure to enable future civilians to shape society, societal processes and developments.
Social entrepreneurial education is not only related to economic activities, but also to other areas of social and        
cultural life. It is about finding new solutions to societal challenges, such as providing development chances for
disadvantaged and marginalized groups of youth. Such social innovations are regarded as the ultimate and first key
driver for equitable and sustainable societies (Nidumolu et al., 2009).
Lackéus (2015) provides an overview of the wide variety of “early entrepreneurship education” and
differences in the meaning and learning goals and approaches in the diverse European countries. He suggests the   
term “entrepreneurial education” for approaches that do not directly address children’s competencies as the world’s
next youngest CEO, but for a broader approach focusing on children’s skills and interests that give them the
opportunity to shape the (future) world.
2.3 Skills and opportunities European entrepreneurship education
should bring about
There are several ideas and models that describe which personal effects early entrepreneurial education can have.
These typically include competencies, attitudes, ambitions and skills. Most of the overviews are addressing adults (i.e.
students in higher education), for example the EntreComp framework (Bacigalupo et al., 2016) or the overview of
“critical competencies for social impact leader” provided by Kraemer (2016). A current study by Eurydice (2017)
gives an overview of goals entrepreneurship education in European addresses at secondary school level (see the
following Table 1).
Table 1: Addressed goals of entrepreneurship education at European secondary school level by Eurydice. Source:
Excerpt of figure 3.8, titled “Learning outcomes for entrepreneurship education in general upper secondary education
and school-based IVET, 2014/2015”
Entrepreneurial attitudes
Entrepreneurial skills
Entrepreneurial knowledge
sense of initiative
financial literacy
managing resources
managing uncertainty/risk
assessment of opportunities
role of entrepreneurs
entrepreneurial career options
Preliminary version - EdMedia conference 2018 - Social innovations within makerspace settings for EEE
3. Maker education and social innovation
The DOIT framework draws on two approaches, which, if systematically combined, will convey early entrepreneurial
education is only rarely practiced before. DOIT suggests bringing together principles of the maker movement and
specific methods aiming at social innovations.
3.1 Maker spaces, tinkering and educational technologies
To help filling the gaps that are present in this field of early entrepreneurial education, DOIT introduces makerspaces
as its core place of action and education. Makerspaces offer collaborative spaces for innovative forms of production
and digital do-it-yourself work. They come in all shapes and sizes and can be found in many places throughout Europe.
Linked to these makerspaces, the maker movement fosters the creation and development of new things using new
tools. According to Chris Anderson, CEO of 3D Robotics, “any time you give the means of production to everybody, it
changes the world.”[1] This view on the role of open access to digital fabrication within the Maker Movement explains
why it can be regarded as a catalyst for (social) innovation and entrepreneurship. Several reports describe how
makerspaces or teachers can support children in their personal development and learning journey with digital
fabrication (Young Makers 2012, Makerspace / Maker Media 2013, New York Hall of Science 2013, Honey and
Kanter 2013; Schön, Ebner & Narr, 2016). Martinez and Stager’s (2013) “Invent to Learn” encourages educators to      
implement the practice of “making” and “tinkering” in schools. As put forward by Resnick and Rosenbaum (2013)
“The tinkering approach is characterized by a playful, experimental, iterative style of engagement, in which makers
are continually reassessing their goals, exploring new paths, and imagining new possibilities. Tinkering is undervalued
(and even discouraged) in many educational settings today, but it is well aligned with the goals and spirit of the
progressive-constructionist tradition—and, in our view, it is exactly what is needed to help young people prepare for
life in today’s society”. The quote shows how existing preferences in the educational system, e.g. emphasizing content
delivery and quantitative assessment, run counter to a pluralism of learning paths, including the bottom-up
experiences of creating tangible objects.
Making as a constructionist activity is a theoretically and historically founded principle for successful
learning, coined as “learning by making (doing)” (Papert & Harel, 1991). It helps young and old experiment with
innovation, develop an open mind, be creative, compute, and problem-solve, while considering the impact of their
creations on society, ecology, and the environment. Construction as part of making can lead to various products and
other concrete results, both tangible (machines, tools, 3D-printed parts, etc.) and digital (stop motion, apps, games,
etc.). Compared with typical learning results for students (e.g. ranked test results and marks), this can provide a        
valuable sense of achievement that can be especially important, but is not restricted to, school underachievers. The
greatest sense of achievement may come when making helps to solve problems in the real world and/or when
teachers and parents are surprised by students’ ideas, solutions and constructions. However, failure is also an inherent
aspect of learning by doing and constructionism. Failure is an important stimulus for learning (Lenz, 2015), best    
summarised by John Dewey: "Failure is instructive. The person who really thinks learns quite as much from his failures
as from his successes."
Maker education is a learning and teaching approach where a concrete or virtual product developed,
constructed and/or done by oneself or in collaboration with others using not always, but eventually also, digital tools
provided in a makerspace (Schön, Ebner & Kumar, 2014). Contrary to many STEM activities, maker education is an
Preliminary version - EdMedia conference 2018 - Social innovations within makerspace settings for EEE
open educational approach, including arts or social sciences (e.g. ethics, legal rights, participation), which fosters and
allows creativity and the development of own solutions.
A makerspace learning setting will typically (though not exclusively) focus on digital fabrication, where
children are allowed to choose tools as well as other resources. Adults are tutors; children will co-design with peers as        
well as enjoy intergenerational and interdisciplinary work. Methodically, the makerspace learning setting and its
approach is an open educational approach based on open workshops, integrating peer tutoring and peer learning,
where participating adults are involved as tutors and not teachers (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Principles of a typical DOIT learning space: a makerspace
3.2 Early entrepreneurial education focusing on social innovation and
doing good
Innovations that meet social need and solve societal problems are called social innovations. Social innovations are
regarded as new ideas (products, services and models) that simultaneously meet social needs (more effectively than
alternatives) and create new social relationships or collaborations. They are innovations that are not only good for     
society but also enhance society’s capacity to act (Hubert et al., 2010).
A hallmark of social innovations is the need to get them accepted by the impacted social groups, which need
to participate to overcome a specific social challenge (Hochgerner, 2012). Mulgan highlights newly arising
cooperation and forms of collaboration, which create “compelling new social relationships between previously
separate individuals and groups” (Mulgan, 2006, p. 5, cited in Anderson et al., 2014, p. 22).
Closely related to social innovation is the concept of digital social innovation (DSI). Such digital social        
innovation is defined as “a type of collaborative innovation in which innovators, users and communities co-create
knowledge and solutions for a wide range of social needs exploiting the network effect of the Internet” (Digital Social
Innovation, 2014, EU project homepage). DOIT focuses on digital social innovation (Bria, 2015), because it will
perfectly match maker education with traditional educators and motivate children for entrepreneurial activity, even at
a young age: digital social innovation directly addresses children's social environment and challenges they understand
and encounter.
Preliminary version - EdMedia conference 2018 - Social innovations within makerspace settings for EEE
Social entrepreneurship supports social progress: “Social entrepreneurship is as vital to the progress of    
societies as entrepreneurship is to the progress of economies” (Martin & Osberg, 2007, see also Bornstein & Davis,
2010). Social innovators are not as social entrepreneur businessmen. In order to achieve their goals, social   
innovators use community building, piloting, trying to find supporters, and lobbying at the government.
3.3 Experiences with social innovation in makerspaces and children
DOIT aims to foster social innovation attitudes, skills and experiences by using the digital tools and methods of
makerspaces. Social Innovation experienced within makerspaces will foster more than an interest in entrepreneurship;
such experiences can motivate and provide the basis for it. According to Dali (2015), early entrepreneurship education
conveyed by the principles and spatial learning setting of makerspaces will help to improve attitude, knowledge and
skills around digital literacy, sustainability, democracy and human rights, equality, health and welfare, as well as
Despite the evidence that makerspaces are a helpful, engaging setting to initiate and foster innovation and
entrepreneurship, there is little supporting material available for either children or facilitators that explicitly develops
aspects of entrepreneurship education within this new setting.
4. The DOIT project
DOIT’s 13 partners contribute to youth employment and to creating new jobs in the social economy by nurturing in        
young pupils seeds for active social innovation: entrepreneurial mind-sets, knowhow and skills. The project is funded
by the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 program. It started October 2017 and will run for 36 months (see, 10/2017-09/2020, funding number H2020 -770063). The project consortium comprises
experienced actors across the social innovation value chain with links to related European initiatives fostering young
entrepreneurship education.
As introduced in chapter 2, DOIT provides a new approach for entrepreneurship education building upon
social innovation in makerspace settings: DOIT’s learning approach focuses on a combination of social innovation
education in makerspaces for young entrepreneurs and development of entrepreneurship education knowhow for
facilitators, teachers and other educators building upon co-design approach (see Figure 2). DOIT took social
innovation as the focus of all activities, as it is easier to find authentic challenges and as this is core to the        
understanding of what entrepreneurship education should be about in Europe to develop values. Additionally, DOIT    
sees the maker movement and educational technologies as a fitting hands-on approach as learning setting and space
for the development of solutions for social challenges. DOIT plans to develop its specific approaches and activities
with co-design of partners and stakeholders, including children. Last but not least, DOIT tries to avoid isolated actions
and therefore will try to reach schools and stakeholders at a broad reach as well.
Preliminary version - EdMedia conference 2018 - Social innovations within makerspace settings for EEE
Figure 2: Five dimensions of DOIT’s learning approach
The DOIT approach does not attempt to change or replace existing entrepreneurship education methods
such as entrepreneurial games or young enterprise companies (school-based trial companies managed by students).    
Different learning offers allow choice and can complement each other.
The following figure (Figure 3) illustrates how DOIT aims to support the entrepreneurial and social
innovation journey of children.
Figure 3: DOIT supports the entrepreneurial and social innovation journey of children: supporting early
entrepreneurship from ideas to sharing experiences
The following illustration gives an overview of DOIT’s objectives, key processes and results (Figure 4). The overall
objectives of DOIT – Entrepreneurial Skills for Young Social Innovators in an Open Digital World are:
Providing an environment based on the DOIT approach that empowers young people (6–16 years
old), educators, makerspaces and social businesses to promote digital social entrepreneurship and    
Preliminary version - EdMedia conference 2018 - Social innovations within makerspace settings for EEE
Fostering entrepreneurial mindsets, attitudes and skills of children and young people through    
digital fabrication and maker movement knowhow with the DOIT toolboxes and platform,
Bridging current gaps between makerspaces, schools, teacher training, entrepreneurship
education and networks of social entrepreneurs through stakeholder mobilization and cooperation
in the DOIT roll-out activities,
Contribution, in the medium to long term, to the creation of digital social innovation culture, higher       
youth employment, new markets and new jobs in the long term.
DOIT will therefore create, validate and spread a new approach to generating entrepreneurial and digital
innovation knowhow and skills, especially targeted to create new employment and businesses in the social economy.    
The DOIT approach aims to empower primary- and secondary-school pupils (6–16 years old), together with educators
and other facilitators, to apply open innovation methodsand digital maker and collaboration tools to tackle societal
problems. DOIT toolboxes and a collaboration platform will allow them to develop entrepreneurial knowhow and
experience being a digital social innovator, in both child-friendly local makerspaces and the DOIT web-based
collaboration environment.
The DOIT children’s social innovation and entrepreneurship program is piloted and evaluated across 10    
European countries (AT, BE, DE, DK, ES, FI, HR, NL, RS and SI). DOIT will provide materials (as open educational
resources) and opportunities and aim to build a network of organizations to foster entrepreneurial thinking at an early
age, social innovation, intergenerational, and multidisciplinary work. Moreover, the project will run roll-out activities to
disseminate the DOIT approach and mobilize stakeholder engagement for adopting and scaling its application in the
participating countries and across Europe.
Figure 4: DOIT overview.
Preliminary version - EdMedia conference 2018 - Social innovations within makerspace settings for EEE
Among the different innovative elements of DOIT, openness is a principle that could be seen as DOIT’s key asset:
Open workshop environment (makerspace) - DOIT actions and events are always in an open workshop
environment with technologies such as computers, 3D printers, vinyl cutters as well as traditional tools and
materials. Open workshop environment means that users are allowed to work with a variety of tools and
materials and not limited to a (very) small set.
Open educational practices - DOIT builds upon learning settings that are designed to let children decide
about learning goals and ways to learn. Additionally, learning typically occurs by doing.
Open innovation and co-creative initiatives - DOIT fosters open innovation to tackle societal challenges
through its settings and design approach.
Open access - DOIT publications will be published with open access, preferentially in “gold” open access
Open educational resources (OER) - all DOIT materials are provided under an open license (CC BY 4.0). This
enables future adaptations, variations, translations and usage of the materials and supports their long-term
and widespread use (sustainability).
5. The DOIT actions
DOIT’s approach will be developed for so-called “DOIT actions” (see Schön et al., 2017): These are a multi-day-event
or a series of regular, but shorter events for children within a makerspace setting. Every DOIT action starts with a    
co-design workshop where (potential) participants (children as well as facilitators) co-design the future DOIT action,
for example deciding on potential partners, involving stakeholders, more refined topics (for example an event focusing
on “quality and accessibility of local playgrounds”) or the decision to pitch specific ideas after a first workshop. Each
DOIT action relates closely to the field of social innovation and to the field of maker education. Each pilot partner
engages its target group with a socially relevant and relatable topic (see UN’s Millennium Goals (UN, 2016a) and
Sustainable Development Goals (UN, 2016b), the EU Sustainable Development Strategy adopted in 2001, see
Eurostat, 2015), and uses making as a means to discuss and research this topic, come up with alternatives,
collaborate with people and to be creative in thinking about possible solutions. DOIT actions lead to several ideas and
prototypes (DOIT projects) for social innovation within the addressed topics.
Adults, who are not normally or regularly included in the children’s maker activities, will now become
involved within the open setting. Besides teachers, educators and adult makers in the makerspace, we will also invite
adults from traditional businesses, social and service economies, and volunteering schemes to support and collaborate      
with the children on their ideas, products and social businesses. Adults are systematically involved in DOIT as
co-workers and/or tutors, so children and adults work collaboratively.
The following two stories[2] of DOIT actions help to illustrate how the pilot partners can develop their
activities within this framework, and how the DOIT approach and materials will be implemented.
(a) DOIT action “Be fit” and the new piano stairways in the main station: A makerspace in a small town calls    
for participants for a “Be fit!” action, where children and entrepreneurs are asked to develop ideas about how the
fitness of all living in the city can be supported. The group of 80 children and 30 adults decides to develop a prototype
of a staircase with a piano-like function and motivates people to use the stairs and not the lifts or escalators. In a joint
workshop they develop a plan for realizing the prototype. Some weeks later the mayor of the town officially opens the
piano stairway in the central train station that was sponsored by the local rotary club.
Preliminary version - EdMedia conference 2018 - Social innovations within makerspace settings for EEE
(b) DOIT action “Clean our area” and the interactive rubbish bin: 50 school children living in a rural area
want to develop solutions to support recycling activities in their area. After a joint workshop where they interview
local residents to find possible solutions, they create different innovations with the mobile makerspace tools that are
placed in their schools. Together with local craftsmen and entrepreneurs, they develop more than 80 ideas, discuss
them and then start to develop and prototype. Ten project ideas are further developed into prototypes during half-day
events. In a public presentation of the prototypes, three ideas are selected and business plans are developed on how
the prototypes could be turned into social enterprises. One prototype is launched and receives international attention:
the interactive rubbish bin that always says “thank you, my hero” when rubbish is dropped in at the swimming lake.
Each of the 10 regional pilots and one online pilot will focus on a specific target group, so that it is possible
to cover special settings and special target groups. However, all pilots will try to include all target groups to a greater
or lesser extent, and some children can be considered to be part of several target groups. The target groups are:
younger children (6–10 years); older children (11–16 years); children within and outside of school settings; children     
with less privileged backgrounds; children with disabilities; girls; children in rural areas; and advanced young makers
and social entrepreneurs. Especially the age range will lead to some differences in addressing and working with
6. Outlook: Influencing early entrepreneurship
education on the European (educational) policy level
The recent Eurydice study on entrepreneurship education at school in Europe (2016) reports that in “almost half of the      
European education systems, teacher training institutions have the autonomy to decide whether to include
entrepreneurship education in their programs, and if they decide to do so, they are free to determine how it should be
delivered. Furthermore, the integration of entrepreneurship education into initial teacher training curricula is not
subject to regulation in over one-third of the countries/regions”. Further, “more than half of the examined countries
have very few and almost no teaching guidelines for entrepreneurship education. If there is one, they are more usually
used at general upper secondary level and in school-based IVET than at lower levels of education” (cf. 2016, p. 93-94;
p. 14). These findings support our notion that DOIT’s materials and results can have an impact on future European
early entrepreneurship education.
Anderson, C. (2012). Makers: The New Industrial Revolution. Crown Business.
Anderson T., Andrew Curtis A. & Wittig C. (2014). Definition and Theory in Social Innovation. Report Master of Arts in
Social Innovation. Danube University.
Bacigalupo, Margherita; Kampylis, Panagiotis ; Punie, Yves & Van den Brande, Godelieve (2016). EntreComp: The
Entrepreneurship Competence Framework. European Commission. URL: (2017-12-03)
Preliminary version - EdMedia conference 2018 - Social innovations within makerspace settings for EEE
Bornstein, David & Davis, Susan (2010). Social Entrepreneurship: What Everyone Needs to Know? Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bria F. (2015). Growing a digital social innovation ecosystem for Europe. DSI Final Report. European Commission (ed),
Dali, Birita (2015). The making of future entrepreneurs. The relationship between Fablabs and entrepreneurial
intentions of students in upper secondary school, Thesis at the Haskoli Islands
Digital Social Innovation Homepage (2014). (2016-03-12)
European Commission (2016). European 2020 strategy, URL: (2016-12-13)
European Commission’s Thematic Working Group on Entrepreneurship Education (2014). Thematic Working Group on
Entrepreneurship Education. Final Report. URL:
Eurostat (2015). Sustainable development in the European Union. URL:
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2017. Entrepreneurship Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Flash Eurobarometer 354 (2012). URL (2017-12-12)
Hochgerner, Josef (2009). Innovation processes in the dynamics of social change.In: Jiri Loudin / Klaus Schuch (ed.),
Innovation Cultures. Challenge and Learning Strategy. Prague: Filosofia; pp. 17-45
Haynes, Gail (2013). The Lemonade Stand Millionaire: A Parents' Guide to Encouraging the Entrepreneurial Spirit in
Your Kids. Morgan James Pub.
Hochgerner, Josef. 2012. “New Combinations of Social Practices in the Knowledge Society.” In Challenge Social
Innovation, 87–104. Springer.
Honey, M. & Kanter, D.E. (2013). Design, Make, Play: Growing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators. New York:
Hubert, A. et al. (2010). Empowering people, driving change: Social innovation in the European Union, BEPA (Bureau of
European Policy Advisers) (Ed.), Brussels, URL:
James, Jack & Coffey, Kevin (2012). How to Let Your Parents Raise a Millionaire: A Kid-To-Kid View on How to Make
Money, Make a Difference and Have Fun Doing Both! Morgan James Pub.
Kraemer, Romy (2016). Critical Competences for Social Impact Leader. In: Standford Social Innovation Review.
Published at Nov. 23, 2016, URL: 
Preliminary version - EdMedia conference 2018 - Social innovations within makerspace settings for EEE
Kulikowich, Jonna M., & Young, Micheal. (2001). Locating an Ecological Psychology Methodology for Situated Action.
In: Journal of the Learning Sciences 10:165.
Lackéus, M., Lundqvist, M. & Williams Middleton, K. (2013). How can Entrepreneurship Bridge Between Traditional
and Progressive Education? ECSB Entrepreneurship Education Conference. Aarhus, Denmark, 29-31 May 2013.
Lackéus, Martin (2015). Entrepreneurship in education. What, Why, When, How. OECD/EC. URL: (2017-12-03)
Lenz, B. (2015). Failure Is Essential to Learning. In: Edutopia, April 8, 2015, URL: (2016-12-03)
Martin, R.L. and Osberg, S., 2007. Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition. In: Stanford social innovation
review, 5(2), pp. 28-39.
Martinez, Sylvia Libow & Stager, Gary S. (2013). Invent To Learn: Making, Tinkering, and Engineering the Classroom.
Torrance: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.
Mulgan, G. (2006). Social Innovation: what is it, why it matters, how it can be accelerated. Oxford: Skoll Center for
Social Entrepreneur
Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J. and Mulgan, G. (2010). The Open Book of Social Innovation. London:. The Young
Foundation / NESTA. URL: 
Nidumolu, R. Prahalad, C.K. & Rangaswami, M.R. (2009). Why Sustainability Is Now the Key Driver of Innovation.
Harvard Business Review, September 2009 Issue, URL: (2016-01-13)
OECD (2012). Gender Equality in Education, Employment and Entrepreneurship. Final Report to the MCM. URL: (2016-12-03)
Papert, S. & Harel I. (1991) Preface, Situating Constructionism, in Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism,
Research reports and essays, 1985-1990 (p. 1), Norwood NJ.
Pinchot, G. (1984). Who is the Intrapreneur? In: Intrapreneuring: Why You Don't Have to Leave the Corporation to
Become an Entrepreneur. New York: Harper & Row. pp. 28-48.
Resnick, Mitchel & Eric Rosenbaum, Eric (2013). Designing for Tinkerability. Design, Make, Play: Growing the next    
Generation of STEM Innovators, 163–81.
Schön, Sandra; Ebner, Martin & Narr, Kristin (2016). Making-Aktivitäten mit Kindern und Jugendlichen. Handbuch zum    
kreativen digitalen Gestalten. Norderstedt: Book on Demand, URL: (2017-12-03)
Schön, Sandra; Ebner, Martin & Kumar, Swapna (2014). The Maker Movement. Implications of new digital gadgets,
fabrication tools and spaces for creative learning and teaching. In: eLearning Papers, 39, July 2014, pp.14-25, URL:
Preliminary version - EdMedia conference 2018 - Social innovations within makerspace settings for EEE
Schön, Sandra; Allaert, Isabel; Hornung-Prähauser, Veronika; Simulyte, Simona; Teplov, Roman & Wippoo, Meia
(2017). DOIT concept and the co-creation approach, deliverable 2.1 of the Horizon 2020 project DOIT, EC grant
agreement no 770063, Salzburg, Austria: Salzburg Research.
United Nations (2016a). Millenium Goals. URL: (2016-12-04)
United Nations (2016b). Sustainable Development Goals. URL: (2016-12-04)
Unterfrauner, Elisabeth & Voigt, Christian Voigt (2017). Makers’ Ambitions to Do Socially Valuable Things. In: The
Design Journal 20 (Sup1): 3317–25.
DOIT has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant
agreement No 770063. The content of this publication does not reflect the official opinion of the European Union.
Responsibility for the information and views expressed in the publication lies entirely with the authors.
The contribution is licensed as follows: CC BY 4.0 DOIT H2020-77006, Sandra Schön,
Christian Voigt and Radovana Jagrikova, full paper for edMedia conference 2018.
[1] Several Web pages use this quote and refer to Chris Anderson.
[2] Both ideas were already developed and prototyped by the Volkswagen Stiftung as well as others.
... Although there is a wide research direction on exploitation of Makerspaces in education, K12 (Schad and Jones, 2020), maker platforms (Lin et al., 2020), early entrepreneurial education (Schön et al., 2018), student views (DOĞAN et al., 2020), exploration of learning process (Lee and Kim, 2019), self-efficacy (Hilton et al., 2018a) and participation challenges (Josiam et al., 2019), there is not a recent review of the findings of research community in the field of Makerspaces specifically in higher education. ...
Purpose The purpose of this study is to chart the development of Makerspaces in higher education (MIHE), by building a map of existing research work in the field. Based on a corpus of 183 manuscripts, published between January 2014 and April 2021, it sets out to describe the range of topics covered under the umbrella of MIHE and provide a holistic view of the field. Design/methodology/approach The approach adopted in this research includes development of the 2014–2021 MIHE corpus; literature overview and initial coding scheme development; refinement of the initial coding scheme with the help of a focus group and construction of the MIHE map version 1.0; refinement of the MIHE map version 1.0 following a systematic approach of content analysis and development of the MIHE map version 2.0; evaluation of the proposed structure and inclusiveness of all categories in the MIHE map version 2.0 using card-sorting technique; and, finally, development of the MIHE map version 3.0. Findings The research trends in the categories of the MIHE map are discussed, as well as possible future directions in the field. Originality/value This paper provides a holistic view of the field of MIHE guiding both junior MIHE researchers to place themselves in the field, and policymakers and decision-makers who attempt to evaluate the current and future scholar activity in the field. Finally, it caters for more experienced researchers to focus on certain underinvestigated domains.
... As part of the Horizon 2020 project DOIT (Entrepreneurial skills for young social innovators in an open digital world) a feedback cube was developed. [8] The cube has five questions on it: "What do you like?", "What can be improved?", "What would you do differently?", ...
Full-text available
Makerspaces exist in different forms with different target groups and goals. Dedicated makerspaces are often organized as communities of practise. They provide space, devices, tools and materials for (digital) (re)production to support (social) innovation and to democratize STEAM education. The potential of makerspaces as authentic learning environments to teach 21st century skills is one reason why pop-up makerspaces are especially designed for children and teenagers, with a great focus on the tools and activities offered. The MAKER DAYS for kids are one example of a temporary makerspace for more than 100 participants with an open approach to encourage (especially female) participants to pursue a career in STEAM domains. Based on the gathered data of the last MAKER DAYS in 2018 and 2019 at Graz University of Technology, this publication focuses on the challenges in the design of maker activities in pop-up makerspaces and comments on the changes and improvements that were/are applied to the last/upcoming event.
... The Horizon 2020 project DOIT -Entrepreneurial skills for young social innovators in an open digital world (2017-2020), co-financed by the European Union, builds upon the idea that social innovations within makerspace settings allow authentic and tangible learning experiences, that empower young people "to turn creative ideas into entrepreneurial action". [7] Working mainly in the field of didactics in computer science and technology enhanced learning, the authors think of the maker movement as a driving force for the "new industrial revolution", whereby all learners have the opportunity to engage in their personal way. [8] It is obvious: New digital technologies are no longer in the hands of computer scientists. ...
Full-text available
The maker movement has become a driving force for the new industrial revolution, whereby all learners should have the opportunity to engage. Makerspaces exist in different forms with different names and a variety of specializations. The MAKER DAYS for kids are a temporary open makerspace setting for children and teenagers with the goal to democratize STEAM education and social innovation and to empower young learners, especially girls, to shape their world. This publication presents the setup and results of a temporary makerspace at Graz University of Technology with more than 100 participants in four days in summer 2018 and discusses the role of new technologies as a trigger of making in education. Moreover, the MAKER DAYS implemented an innovative evaluation concept to document the participants’ activities in open and unstructured learning environments.
Full-text available
Several biases and thresholds challenge the reach of girls in technology-related activities. For this contribution we collected and structured existing research and good practices on how to reach girls within projects in the field educational robotics, makerspaces, coding and STEM in general. The contribution presents general guidelines for future activities with a potential higher rate of participating girls in makerspace settings.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Der vorliegende Beitrag skizziert die Landschaft der Schüler/innen-Labore und betrachtet Makerspaces als neue Variante davon. Der Beitrag versucht dabei, Makerspace systematisch einzuordnen. Dabei fällt auf, dass in Makerspaces ins-besondere die Interdisziplinarität eine wachsende Bedeutung erhält und dass der pädagogisch-didaktische Ansatz der Maker Education offener ist, als in her-kömmlichen Schüler/innen-Labor-Konzepten. Im Beitrag werden dazu auch Beispiele für Makerspaces als Schüler/innen-Labore genannt.
Full-text available
Die Autorinnen bauen die Brücke zwischen Making und Entrepreneurship Education nach europäischer Prägung, der es nicht darum geht, monetarisierbare Produkte zu schaffen, sondern zukünftige Weltgestalter*innen und Sozialinnovator*innen zu fördern. Es werden drei ausgewähl-te Making-Ansätze aus dem Horizon 2020 Projekt «DOIT – Entrepreneurial skills for young social innovators in an open digital world» vorgestellt. Dabei werden jeweils die Bezüge zur sozialen Innovation, zum Making und zur Integration der Projekte in den Schulkontext herausgearbeitet.
Full-text available
In diesem Heft habe wir ein sehr aktuelles und breit diskutiertes Thema uns vorgenommen – Lernräume mit einem speziellen Fokus auf die auch in Österreich anwachsenden Makerspaces. Aus der Pädagogik schon lange bekannt kommt dem Raum wo Lernen stattfindet eine durchaus bedeutende Rolle zu. „Der Raum als 3. Pädagoge“ ist so eine Aussage auf die man in diesem Zusammenhang trifft. Es ist aber natürlich auch einleuchtend, dass Lernen nur dort stattfinden kann wo man sich entsprechend wohl fühlt und durchführen kann was für das Lernergebnis notwendig ist. Umgekehrt gilt das selbstverständlich auch für den virtuellen Raum (Ebner, 2019). Je besser dieser das Lernen unterstützen kann, umso hilfreicher.
Full-text available
Neil Gershenfeld called the Maker movement the next digital revolution as it placed the means of fabrication on people's desks. This paper looks at makers' ambition to do socially valuable things and critically reflects on their potential impact, whether makers' societal impact can be recognised on micro-, meso-or macro-level. Paraphrasing Schumpeter, who explained innovation as a 'new combination of production factors', social innovation can be defined as a new combination of social practices. To add an empirical dimension, via qualitative research we have explored the expectations and values of makers. We chose to proceed from the concrete to the abstract by approaching 30 Makers with very specific issues they knew from their day-today work and asked them regarding their social ambitions in terms of inclusion, education and environmentalism. Eventually these questions led then to insights on the threads we outlined above.
Technical Report
Full-text available
The development of the entrepreneurial capacity of European citizens and organisations is one of the key policy objectives for the EU and Member States. Ten years ago, the European Commission identified sense of initiative and entrepreneurship as one of the 8 key competences necessary for a knowledge-based society. The EntreComp framework presented in this report proposes a shared definition of entrepreneurship as a competence, with the aim to raise consensus among all stakeholders and to establish a bridge between the worlds of education and work. Developed through a mixed-methods approach, the EntreComp framework is set to become a reference de facto for any initiative aiming to foster entrepreneurial capacity of European citizens. It consists of 3 interrelated and interconnected competence areas: ‘Ideas and opportunities’, ‘Resources’ and ‘Into action’. Each of the areas is made up of 5 competences, which, together, constitute the building blocks of entrepreneurship as a competence. The framework develops the 15 competences along an 8-level progression model and proposes a comprehensive list of 442 learning outcomes. The framework can be used as a basis for the development of curricula and learning activities fostering entrepreneurship as a competence. Also, it can be used for the definition of parameters to assess learners’ and citizens’ entrepreneurial competences.
Technical Report
Full-text available
This report coordinated by Nesta and commissioned by the European Commission, DG CONNECT is the first systematic network analysis of the emerging digital social innovation (DSI) ecosystem in Europe. A growing movement of innovators in civil society, tech and social entrepreneurs are now developing inspiring digital solutions for a variety of social issues, in areas such as health, democracy, consumption, money and education. Digital technologies and the internet have transformed many areas of business – from Google and Amazon to Airbnb and Kickstarter. Huge sums of public money have supported digital innovation in business, as well as in fields ranging from the military to espionage. But there has been much less systematic support for innovations that use digital technology to address social challenges. Over the last 18 months Nesta, funded by the European Commission, has led a large research project into DSI. The project seeks to define and understand the potential of DSI, to map the digital social innovators, their projects and networks, and to develop recom­mendations for how policymakers, from the EU to city level, can make the most of DSI.
Full-text available
This paper introduces several diverse terms (from FabLabs to Hackerspaces) and gives insights into background, practice and existing experiences from Maker Movement in educational settings amongst all age groups. As a conclusion, the authors present reasons why practitioners and researcher should consider its educational potential. Besides its creative and technological impacts, learning by making is an important component of problem-solving and relating educational content to the real world. Besides this, digital tools for making are not expensive, for example apps for mobile devices or rents for 3D printer (compared with desktops in 1:1 settings). The Maker Movement is seen as an inspiring and creative way to deal with our world, it is aware of ecological challenges and of course, and it is able to develop technological interest and competences casually. Finally, the authors give recommendation for reading for all who got interested in making.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Questions we care about (Objectives). In this paper we argue that the “fault line” between traditional and progressive education starts in the domain of philosophy of science, passing through general educational philosophy and its century-long battle for control over instructional design practices, and ends up in the entrepreneurial education domain. This paper then asks the question: How can entrepreneurship contribute with cognitive tools that bridge between traditionalist and progressivist educational perspectives? Cognitive tools are defined by Egan (2008) as “the things people think with, not the things they think about”. Approach. First we outline theory within the domains of entrepreneurship and education. We describe entrepreneurship as a method, as well as some cognitive tools that mediate learning. We then outline five main dualisms that span the entire proposed “fault line”, and create a conceptual framework around these five dualisms. Finally we discuss two possible ways in which entrepreneurship can contribute with tools that bridge and balance these dualisms, and propose some implications for research and practice. Results. The analysis has yielded five dualisms that are described more in-depth. Attempting to bridge and balance between these dualisms we end up with five resulting questions: How can entrepreneurship contribute with cognitive tools that… 1. .…simplify a complex, multidisciplinary and holistic constructivist learning environment? 2. .…preserve the concrete and individual aspects in a social learning environment? 3. .…inject more content and linearity into an iterative learning process? 4. .…facilitate detached reflection in an emotional and action-oriented learning environment? 5. .…absorb more theoretical knowledge into an experiential learning environment? These five resulting questions are tested on two candidates for cognitive tools that can mediate learning; value creation and entrepreneurship as a method. Both of these candidates seem to be quite constructive means to balance between traditional and progressive education. Implications. For researchers this opens up for new opportunities to consider entrepreneurship theory and practice as pedagogical cognitive tools in general education. For practitioners this can serve as inspiration for trying out some of the vast array of tools, models and concepts from the entrepreneurship domain in general education. Further inquiry into the entrepreneurship domain can surface more cognitive tools of potential use. Value / originality. Research that leverages profoundly on theory from both entrepreneurship and education is scarce. This specific attempt has potential to lead to a flexible yet criteria based “third way” between the rigidity of traditional education and the vagueness of progressivism. It also holds potential to bridge the gap between advocated and applied pedagogy in the field of education, where desired pedagogical approaches often are not used in practice due to the higher cost of such approaches and their misalignment to the conventional educational systems and paradigms.
Paraphrasing the famous quote from Schumpeter, who initially explained innovation as a ‘new combination of production factors’, social innovation can be defined as a new combination of social practices. In order to qualify as social innovations, such combinations or the creation and implementation of absolutely new practices must be intentional, aiming at solving a social issue, and produce effects in terms of novel social facts. Implementation and impact distinguish social innovations from social ideas. Social objectives and rationales, rather than economic ones, make them differentiable from business-driven innovations. However, social innovations take place in business as well as in the public sector and civil society. From a particular sociological point of view, social innovations are becoming of increasing relevance not only because of the frequently mentioned so-called ‘Grand Challenges’ the knowledge society faces in the twenty-first century. On the one hand, re-integration of the most effective economy ever is on the agenda in society, aiming at the ‘management of abundance’. On the other, even the nexus between man-made social systems and human nature may need re-configuration.
In development circles, there is now widespread consensus that social entrepreneurs represent a far better mechanism to respond to needs than we have ever had before--a decentralized and emergent force that remains our best hope for solutions that can keep pace with our problems and create a more peaceful world. David Bornstein’s previous book on social entrepreneurship, How to Change the World, was hailed by Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times as “a bible in the field” and published in more than twenty countries. Now, Bornstein shifts the focus from the profiles of successful social innovators in that book--and teams with Susan Davis, a founding board member of the Grameen Foundation--to offer the first general overview of social entrepreneurship. In a Q & A format allowing readers to go directly to the information they need, the authors map out social entrepreneurship in its broadest terms as well as in its particulars. Bornstein and Davis explain what social entrepreneurs are, how their organizations function, and what challenges they face. The book will give readers an understanding of what differentiates social entrepreneurship from standard business ventures and how it differs from traditional grant-based non-profit work. Unlike the typical top-down, model-based approach to solving problems employed by the World Bank and other large institutions, social entrepreneurs work through a process of iterative learning--learning by doing--working with communities to find unique, local solutions to unique, local problems. Most importantly, the book shows readers exactly how they can get involved. Anyone inspired by Barack Obama’s call to service and who wants to learn more about the essential features and enormous promise of this new method of social change, Social Entrepreneurship is the ideal first place to look.
"Wired" magazine editor and bestselling author Anderson takes readers to the front lines of a new industrial revolution as today's entrepreneurs, using open source design and 3-D printing, bring manufacturing to the desktop.
When companies pursue sustainability, it's usually to demonstrate that they are socially responsible. They expect that the endeavor will add to their costs, deliver no immediate financial benefits, and quite possibly erode their competitiveness. Meanwhile, policy makers and activists argue that it will take tougher regulations and educated, organized consumers to force businesses to adopt sustainable practices. But, say the authors, the quest for sustainability can unearth a mother lode of organizational and technological innovations that yield both top-line and bottom-line returns. That quest has already begun to transform the competitive landscape, as companies redesign products, technologies, processes, and business models. By equating sustainability with innovation today, enterprises can lay the groundwork that will put them in the lead when the recession ends. Nidumolu, Prahalad, and Rangaswami have found that companies on the journey to sustainability go through five distinct stages of change: (1) viewing compliance as opportunity; (2) making value chains sustainable; (3) designing sustainable products and services; (4) developing new business models; and (5) creating next-practice platforms. The authors outline the challenges that each stage entails and the capabilities needed to tackle them.