Content uploaded by Sandra Schön
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sandra Schön on Jan 17, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Preliminary version - EduRobotics 2018
HOW TO SUPPORT GIRLS’
PARTICIPATION AT PROJECTS IN
MAKERSPACE SETTINGS. OVERVIEW ON
CURRENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Preliminary version, published here:
Schön S., Rosenova M., Ebner M., Grandl M. (2020). How to Support Girls’ Participation at Projects in Makerspace
Settings. Overview on Current Recommendations. In: Moro M., Alimisis D., Iocchi L. (eds) Educational Robotics in
the Context of the Maker Movement. Edurobotics 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 946,
pp. 193-196, Springer, Cham, retrieval via https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-18141-3_15
1
Preliminary version - EduRobotics 2018 - How to Support Girls’ Participation at Projects in Makerspace Settings
„DOIT – Entrepreneurial skills for young social innovators in an open digital world"
A HORIZON 2020 INNOVATION ACTION
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 pfade.org - 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)
Webpage: http://DOIT-Europe.net
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.
e-mail: info@DOIT-Europe.net
Disclaimer: This document’s contents are not intended to replace consultation of anyapplicable 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.
2
Preliminary version - EduRobotics 2018 - How to Support Girls’ Participation at Projects in Makerspace Settings
Description of the Publication
Overview
Details
Description
Preliminary version, published here:
Schön S., Rosenova M., Ebner M., Grandl M. (2020). How to Support Girls’ Participation
at Projects in Makerspace Settings. Overview on Current Recommendations. In: Moro M.,
Alimisis D., Iocchi L. (eds) Educational Robotics in the Context of the Maker Movement.
Edurobotics 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 946, pp.
193-196, Springer, Cham, retrieval via
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-18141-3_15
License
CC BY 4.0, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Attribution
CC BY 4.0 DOIT, http://DOIT-Europe.net, H2020-770063
Publication Date
2020-01-13
3
Preliminary version - EduRobotics 2018 - How to Support Girls’ Participation at Projects in Makerspace Settings
Social innovations within makerspace settings for
early entrepreneurial education - The DOIT project
Sandra Schön1, Margarethe Rosenova1, Martin Ebner2 and Maria Grandl2
1 Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft,
Jakob Haringer Strasse 5/III, 5020 Salzburg, Austria
2 Graz University of Technology, Münzgrabenstr. 35a, 8010 Graz, Austria
Abstract
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.
1. Introduction
Several biases challenge the work with girls, e.g.: teachers have perceptions that boys are more interested in
technology [1] or that makerspaces are not safe for girls [2]. Catalanian boys from 11 to 13 reach higher self-efficacy
for doing tasks with computers than girls [3]. Already in the age of kindergarten children, they begin to decide “which
technology and engineering activities and materials are better suited to boys or girls” [4]. These biases - and other
framework conditions - result in the fact, that girls are typically underrepresented in activities from the field of
educational robotics, makerspaces and coding and that women are underrepresented amongst engineers, scientists, IT
experts and related domain. There are a wide variety of approaches to influence this and to gain higher share of
females, this is amongst others one of the sustainable development goals of the UNESCO [5]. For the authors and
their work fields its important to reach girls within their maker activities: 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 consideration that social innovations in makerspace settings allow authentic learning
experiences fostering future entrepreneurial spirit and ambition to co-create a (better) world (see
http://DOIT-Europe.net). Graz University of Technology (TU Graz) as well takes socio-political aims seriously and
therefore highlights and facilitates diversity (cf. Office for Gender Equality and Equal Opportunity at TU Graz).
2. Research issue
For our future activities we looked for relevant literature that give us advice on how we can reach (more) girls within
our activities within makerspaces as they are currently underrepresented. This includes answers on the following
sub-questions: What do others do to reach girls? What do they recommend? Therefore we collected existing
4
Preliminary version - EduRobotics 2018 - How to Support Girls’ Participation at Projects in Makerspace Settings
experiences from projects and research (including literature on girls and maker education, girls in makerspaces, girls
and robotics from the last five years in the ERIC database; 2013-2018).
3. Recommendations from literature and projects
3.1 Approach and overview
For the condensed recommendations we used recommendations building upon research (e.g. [7]) as well as the
experiences collected in the Gender Action Guidelines” of the EU project Phalabs 4.0[8]. Figure 1 gives an overview
about stages within the project / activity development that need a special awareness concerning gender.
Figure 1. Overview: Guidelines to reach girls in makerspace settings
3.2 The guidelines
The following is a condensed description with further references to the sources.
Gender-sensitive announcement of the activity. Girls tend to get (more) motivated if a title of the event or activity
includes not only what something is, e.g. “Robotics with kids” but to get a sense of value of the activity, e.g. “Robotics
for gardeners” or “Robotics within the book sector”. It is recommended to highlight the value of the activity already in
the title, e.g. the impact to the world [8]. When marketing a measure, it is also helpful to ensure that it is not
advertised to (future) engineers, scientists, and mathematicians. There is evidence to suggest that such professional
identities are less common among girls [9], especially, if they are from minorities, and can therefore be less
appealing. Gender-sensitive language and gender-sensitive illustration are known as important to girls [8] which
includes e.g. that girls are shown as active participants in the marketing materials.
Set girls’ quota and low thresholds. If it is planned that children have to be registered for an event, the proportion of
girls may be smaller - at least the participation of boys in technology-related offers is rather supported by (grand)
parents, as experience at the Maker Days has shown [11]. On the other hand, an enrolment procedure and
confirmation of enrolment also allows a quota to be set for girls. Macdonald [8] gives the advice toalways insiston
the 50:50 schools, if mixed school are partnering (p. 8).
Female tutors and role models. A same-sex role model seems to a strong supporter to help girls to get in touch with
technology. The "Maker Days for Kids" was for example a creative digital workshop that was open for four days in April
2015 for children aged 10 to 14 where 44 percent of the participants were girls (no registration, no selection, no fees,
N=69) [11] [12]. All participants could decide what to do in the open makerspace, including to participate at short
workshops, e.g. in the devlab area where one female tutor and three males tutors were active. Girls chose more
5
Preliminary version - EduRobotics 2018 - How to Support Girls’ Participation at Projects in Makerspace Settings
workshops offered by female tutors than boys (31 vs. 24 %, 189 workshop participations in devlab, p. 98) [12]. Role
models are great, especially if they can as well tell stories how they failed or other personal stories [8].
Collaborative prompts and assignments. Girls prefer activities that are collaborative. Collaborative assignments lead
to a higher future interest in STEM-related fields [7, p. 124). Females will prefer activities that are collaborative, that
means that they have a positive outcome for all that are involved - and are not a competition [8]. Practical examples
are available [11].
Gender mainstreaming in project activities. Practically, teachers or tutors can contribute to gender disparities in
makerspace settings as well [1]. Active gender mainstreaming in maker activities could therefore include gender
mainstreaming along the whole activity: “If supervising a school group, ensure you spend as much time talking to the
females as talking to the males. Males often demand more of the teacher's attention (often by doing silly things) while
females get on with the task in hand. Females then perceive that they are of less value in STEM as teachers didn’ttalk
to them very much or ask how they were getting on.” [8] Gender mainstreaming in project activities includes e.g.
considerations such as give girls the same attention as boys, girls should be similarly participating e.g. at
presentations of group work. It should be noted here that such a conscious - but not compulsive - proposal does not
necessarily meet with public approval [13].
4. Discussion and open issues
There is still need to consolidate, reflect and share experiences and results on how to deal with girls’ participation.
This analysis e.g. ignored diverse backgrounds of culture and educational systems of studies and literature.
Within our own projects we aim to get deeper insights how e.g. design decisions and the availability of female role
models will influence girls’ participation and will establish fitting research. In DOIT, therefore an evaluation of
activities with about 1.000 children in 10 regions all over Europe is planned and available in future. As well we will
promote the girls’ issues in maker education [15].
References
1. Legewie, J., & DiPrete, T. A. The High School Environment and the Gender Gap in Scienceand Engineering.In:
Sociology of Education, 87(4), 259–280
2. Wittemyer, R. et al. MakeHers: Engaging Girls and Women in Technology through Making, Creating, and
Inventing. Study by Intel Corporation (2014).
3. Cussó-Calabuig, R., Carrera Farran, X., Bosch-Capblanch, X. Are Boys and Girls Still Digitally Differentiated? The
Case of Catalonian Teenagers. In: Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, v16, pp. 411-435 (2017).
4. Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. Girls, boys, and bots: Gender differences in young children’s performance on robotics
and programming tasks. In: Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 15, pp. 145-165
(2016). URL: http://www.informingscience.org/Publications/3547 (2018-07-15).
5. UNESCO. STEM and Gender Advancement (SAGA) (project homepage) (2018). URL: https://en.unesco.org/saga
(2018-7-14).
6. Schön, S., Jagrikova, R. & Voigt, C. Social innovations within makerspace settings for early entrepreneurial
education - The DOIT project. In: Proceedings of the EdMedia conference, 25-29th June 2018, Amsterdam, pp.
1716-1725 (2018), URL: http://www.learntechlib.org/primary/j/EDMEDIA/v/2018/n/1/ (2018-07-15).
6
Preliminary version - EduRobotics 2018 - How to Support Girls’ Participation at Projects in Makerspace Settings
7. Hyun, T.. Middle School Girls: Perceptions and Experiences with Robotics. ProQuest LLC, Ed.D. Dissertation,
California State University, Fullerton (2014). URL: https://search.proquest.com/docview/1553689179 (2018-07-15)
8. Macdonald, A. Gender Action Guidelines. Inventory of considerations that must be taken into account during the
development of a workshop for Fab Labs. Phalabs 4.0 - PHotonics enhanced fAB LABS supporting the next revolution
in digitalization (2018). see: http://www.phablabs.eu/ (2018-07-15).
9. Tan, E.; Calabrese Barton, A.; Kang, H.; & O’Neill, T. Desiring a career in STEM-related fields: how middle school
girls articulate and negotiate identities-in-practice in science. In: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50, 10, pp.
1143-1179 (2013).
10. Kekelis, L.; Ryoo, J. & McLeod, E. Making and Mentors: What It Takes to Make Them Better Together. In:
Afterschool Matters, n.26, pp. 8-17 (2017).
11. Schön, S., Ebner, M., & Reip, I. Kreative digitale Arbeit mit Kindern in einer viertägigen offenen Werkstatt. In:
Medienimpulse, 2016 (1). URL: https://www.medienimpulse.at/articles/view/829 (2018-07-15).
12. Gappmaier, L.. MakerDays for Kids – Analyse und Konzepterstellung. Ebner, M & Schön, S. (Ed). iTUG Vol. 8. Book
On Demand. Norderstedt (2018). https://itug.eu (2018-07-23).
13. Kuhar, R.; Zobec, A. The anti-gender movement in Europe and the educational process in public schools. In: CEPS
Journal 7 (2017) 2, pp. 29-46.
14. Gomoll, A.; Hmelo-Silver, C., Šabanović, S. & Francisco, M.. Dragons, Ladybugs, and Softballs: Girls’ STEM
Engagement with Human-Centered Robotics. In: Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25, 6, pp. 899–914
(2016).
15. Schön,S.; Ebner,M. & Kumar, S.. The Maker Movement. Implications of new digital gadgets, fabrication tools and
spaces for creative learning and teaching. In: eLearning Papers, 39, pp. 14-25 (2014), URL:
http://www.openeducationeuropa.eu/en/article/Learning-in-cyber-physical-worlds_In-depth_39_2?paper=145315
(2018-07-15).
Acknowledgment
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 http://DOIT-Europe.net H2020-77006, Sandra Schön,
Christian Voigt and Radovana Jagrikova, full paper for edMedia conference 2018.
7
