Content uploaded by Martin Ebner
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Martin Ebner on Dec 28, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Learning Design for Children and Youth in
Makerspaces: Methodical-Didactical Variations of
Maker Education Activities Concerning Learner’s
Interest, Learning with Others and Task Description
Martin Ebner1,*, Sandra Schön2, Kristin Narr3, Maria Grandl1, Elaine Khoo4
1, Graz University of Technology, Graz
2Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia
3 BIMS e.V., Bad Reichenhall/Leipzig, Germany
4 University of Waikato, New Zealand
*Corresponding author. Email: martin.ebner@tugraz.at
ABSTRACT
For some years now, “maker education” has been conquering the world, and with extensive literature describing projects
and activities as well as their characteristics and effects. Many authors have described principles of maker education
such as working on a product and do-it-yourself activities. However, the literature on how to develop and design a maker
activity with children is still limited. This would be of interest to and inform the systematic training of teachers and
maker educators. In this paper we propose an overview of the methodological-didactical variations in maker education
base on the systematic analysis of the original principles of adults learning in makerspaces to extrapolate the principles
for working with children in maker education. Therefore, this paper offers a collection of methodological-didactical
variations concerning three aspects, namely (a) the inclusion of the learner's own interests, (b) learning from and with
others, and (c) the kinds of task available at hand. In this way it is intended to offer practitioners support for the design
and development of their own maker education programs.
Keywords: maker education, makerspace, didactics, learning design
1. INTRODUCTION
Maker education is a special application of digital
technologies in schools today. Maker education is
understood to be a learning or teaching setting in which
characteristics of “making” and the “maker movement”
are implemented. “Making” emphasizes the doing of
things by oneself using manual and digital creative
designs. It typically involves digital technologies such as
3D printers, computers, and cutting plotters.
In this article, we first describe the principles of
maker education. Then we focus on the support needed
for designing maker education for children and youth in
formal as well informal contexts. Building upon the need
for clearer guidelines for the design of maker education,
we will analyze the work and learning of adults in
makerspace to offer an overview of the methodological-
didactical variations in maker education. Based on this
overview, we will present a collection of activities and
examples revolving around three identified
characteristics for children learning in makerspaces: (a)
consideration of individual interests, (b) implementing
learning from and with others, and (c) variants of the task
description.
2. PRINCIPLES AND BACKGROUND OF
MAKER EDUCATION
Maker education is based on the idea of the creative,
do-it-yourself activity in a workshop space with digital
tools available for children and youth to use. Some
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 612
International Seminar on Language, Education, and Culture (ISoLEC 2021)
Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Atlantis Press SARL.
This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license -http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. 198
general characteristics of maker education are as follows
[1] Maker education, in comparison with traditional
learning and teaching in schools involves children
working on making/creating products, i.e. real-aim and
digital products, objects, machines, apps, games or
videos. Children learn and work in an open workshop
structure, i.e. resources and (digital) tools are freely
available and shared. The development of many maker
projects involves interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary
work to redefine the traditional idea of learning “school
subjects” in siloes. When implementing maker projects,
the focus on a product is important, but so is the process
work on the product and the possibility of failure. We
perceive failure as an important aspect and a possibility
to expand one's own experience and knowledge. In maker
education, adults act less of authoritarian teachers and
more as co-designers and facilitators of children’s
learning. In many projects - this might apply more to
Europe than to the USA – the maker activities tend to
address sustainability issues or social participation, e.g.
repair cafés in schools [2].
Publications on maker education make references to
Seymour Papert and his “Theory of Constructionism” as
the key figure in propagating maker education. This
theory describes, less in a theoretical than in a practical
sense, the construction or “digital do-it-yourself” as
essential for learning [3] Different reforms in
pedagogical approaches have emphasized the importance
of objects for learning and of active designing and
constructing, for example, Maria Montessori with her
(albeit prefabricated) learning objects or Celestin Freinet
with the school newspaper, which is printed by hand by
his students. For the openness of the approach, the
interdisciplinarity and the choice in the design of the
products and the (learning) activities, students can
achieve different learning goals and develop
competencies from opportunites offered through maker
education. Maker education is linked to the expectation
that it is possible to develop personal and social skills
such as self-organization, problem-solving, teamwork,
project management, responsibility or stamina [4].
Making is also used to arouse interest in computer
science issues among children, especially girls [5] Others
use maker education to promote media literacy, in which
children learn how to use and design digital tools The
Europe-wide DOIT initiative, for example, fostered early
social innovation capacities as well as entrepreneurial
education for children and youths [6].
There exists many manuals and prescribed examples
for successful maker education activities. Interestingly
enough, and this is a particular challenge for the training
of future maker education trainers (maker educators),
very few are related to supporting teachers and maker
educators to design and develop their own maker
education programs.
Exemplarily, we refer to Martinez and Stager (2013),
who offered four possibilities for using materials for
making in educational settings: “1. Specific concept. Use
the materials to teach a specific concept, such as gears,
friction, or multiplication of fractions. 2. Thematic
project. Visit a local factory, amusement park, airport,
construction site, etc. and construct a model of it. Design
a set for our medieval carnival. 3. Curricular theme.
Identify a problem in Sub-Saharan Africa and build a
machine to solve this problem. 4. Freestyle. The materials
become part of your toolbox and may be used when you
see it. This choice of media or medium requires student
to develop technological fluency” (p. 65).
We see such concrete descriptions of different maker
education design possibilities as very helpful for maker
educators. The next section scopes the literature on
existing forms of maker education in relation to the kinds
of learning they aim to promote in order to identify the
gaps in maker education design.
3. BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH DESIGN
The original model of maker education involves
adults working on maker projects and (informal) learning
in makerspaces. From a normative point of view, maker
education aims to educate future makers to be creative
and responsible designers of a potentially better world.
Makerspaces also provide a model with regard to the
method of engaging children to learn: Methodologically
and didactically, children should also learn in a
makerspace as adults do. However, children are not
necessarily well prepared to develop their own creative
and independent projects, seek support or work together
with others.
In the “Maker Manifesto” there are several statements
that specifically refer to learning [7]. According to this,
the following aspects are particularly important for the
maker movement in relation to learning:
Self-organized learning - Determination of own
learning goals and methods, also learning with the
help of instructions and tutorials, especially from the
Internet,
Learning from peers - learning in cooperation and
exchange with other makers
Active sharing of learning experiences and projects
with others, also on the Internet or on maker faires,
Interest-driven work, also in creative, i.e. novel
solutions and products and/or artistic
implementations.
The willingness and attitude to always want to
continue learning.
We analyzed the characteristics of adult learning in
makerspaces and derived from this how maker education
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 612
199
has to be designed if it is to prepare children
systematically for work and learning in makerspaces (see
Table 1).
Table 1. Characteristics of makerspaces for adults and makerspaces for children within maker education
(cf. Schön & Ebner, 2020).
Makerspace for adults
Makerspace for children in maker
education
Characteristic of
makerspace
The makerspace is an open workspace
for adults with informal learning
opportunities and some formal offers
The makerspace is an educational offer,
integrated into formal (school) and informal
education (youth work).
Purpose of the
Makerspace
Supports users of the Makerspace
Offers users systematic training in the
processes of using various tools
Fosters personal and social skills of children
as makers,
Teaches the use of tools and methods
Considers and promotes interests (STEAM)
Tools
Involves various tools such as 3D
printers, laser cutters, digital sewing and
embroidery machines, woodworking
Involves mainly simple tools, computers,
educational tools and special kits
Characteristics of
learning
Learning is based …
- on voluntariness and interest
- cooperation and peers
- predominantly self-organized and self-
directed
- on diverse projects that can be small,
e.g. for repairs and can extend to new
industrial development
- on usage of Internet instructions and
community
- on informal learning as well as on trial
and error
Learning design should …
- take into account the interests of children and
self-organisation of learning
- promote and foster learning with and from
others
- work with a variety of challenges from
small-scale to goals for a better world
- foster creative developments including the
possibility of failure as well as trial and error
We use this comparison in Table 1 to elaborate on how
we can design maker education for children and also for
the further education of maker teachers and educators.
Building upon these experiences, we see a need for a
systematic collection of methodological-didactical
variants to address the following three questions:
How can interests of children be taken into account
in maker education?
How can we to promote and foster learning with and
from others in maker education?
How can we implement a variety of tasks from those
that are instruction-based to those that promote
innovations?
We know that these questions are also of a fundamental
pedagogical-didactic nature. And there are basically
many learning approaches and concepts that take these
demands into account. This includes, for example, the
project method by Kilpatrick to contemporary project-
based learning [8]. However, references to such
approaches are often not sufficient, especially for people
who do not have an explicit pedagogical background or
expertise, to develop a concrete maker education activity.
Additionally, although project-based learning includes
aspects of peer learning it does not present explicitly
diverse possibilities to learn with others. Our participants
wanted collections of different approaches and strategies
that addressed precisely these learning challenges for
maker education. Of course, there are several handbooks
on maker education with examples of activities, but they
follow different structures in their presentation, e.g. very
often concerning tools and technologies or in terms of
time and number of children. Early examples of such
collections are published by Martinez and Stager (2013),
Maker Media (2013), and the New York Hall of Science
(2013).
Therefore, we will structure and describe the different
possibilities and variants that we have identified from
maker education projects based on our experiences in
order to be able to answer such inquiries in the future.
Our research design follows the analysis of project
descriptions and presentations with real life observations
of different maker education settings we have been
involved in. These were mainly, but not only the “Maker
Days for Kids” series, an open, temporarily makerspace
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 612
200
for children from 10 to 14 years, developed in 2015 and
re-organized and adapted three times since then in
Germany and Austria. Within the “Maker Days for Kids”
event, children can make anything by following their own
interests and at their own pace, in an open makerspace
setting with several working spaces, tools and (peer)
tutors, organized in diverse variants and focuses.
Additionally, we used project descriptions from our
handbook on maker education, experiences in project we
were involved such as the DOIT initiative or other
projects such as “Jugend hackt” [9] and WILMA [10] We
discussed a draft of our results with three maker
education experts in a focus group discussion in
December 2019 and revised it to the version presented
here.
4. VARIANTS OF ACTIVITIES IN MAKER
EDUCATION
Against the background of the understanding of
maker education as “learning in a makerspace”, we have
become acquainted with several implementations of
“maker education” from a methodological-didactic
perspective in different settings, inside and outside the
school and in an international context. From our
perspective, these methodological-didactical variants for
children learning in makerspaces can be overviewed and
traced back to three aspects, namely (a) the inclusion of
one's own interests, (b) learning from and with others,
and (c) the task at hand (see Figure 1).
Figure. 1: Overview of background and focus of our
analysis on methodological-didactical variants in
maker education
5. ACTIVITIES REGARDING THE LEARNERS'
INTERESTS
When adults create a product in makerspaces, they do
so out of their own interest rather than due t extrinsic
motivations such as income or recognition. People are
interested in makerspace; it moves them or appeals to
them. But, in school settings, the curriculum and
textbooks provide a framework for dealing with learning
topics. In schools there are comparatively few options for
choosing one's own focus or sequences in which a topic
is dealt with. In makerspaces, therefore, children and
adolescents should be given the opportunity to deal with
things that are close to their hearts, especially if they
strive to learn “as in a makerspace”.
Basically, it would be advantageous for children and
youth to learn voluntarily in makerspace settings. This
does not mean that the work in the makerspace setting
has to be free of rules, teachers and students can - as is
usual in a makerspace - also jointly determine agreements
on the process, participation and other rules (“code of
conduct”). In addition, there is a wide range of activities
in makerspaces that can support learner’s learning
interests.
5.1 “Free work” in makerspace
Using the makerspaces for the “free work” of
students, which builds upon their own interests and
needs, is offered at only a few schools so far. This does
not mean that there are no rules here, e.g. for the use of
tools and materials, such as introductions to protective
measures as a prerequisite for some tools or restrictions
in using materials (amount of filament per 3D print). An
example for free work is: “The school’s makerspace is
open for students every Tuesday from 14.00 to 16.30.
You can use the room for your school projects or private
ideas in consultation with the supervising person.” This
activity allows children and youth to pursue their own
interests and discover things in their own way. However,
the approach also carries the danger, especially for
beginners, that they do not know what they can do and
feel overwhelmed. This approach has the potential for
very special, creative processes, results and learning
experiences.
5.2 Selection of different introductory projects
and workshops
When students use a makerspace for the first time,
they do not yet know its possibilities and tools. Here it
makes sense to offer several projects and activities for
students to choose from. An example for this is in the
“Maker Days for Kids”, an open digital workshop, where
participants can freely choose between several
introductory, parallel workshops or work areas.With such
an activity, students gain access to a makerspace through
introductory workshops and activities that can further
interest them to participate Students can also get a taste
for other workshops and may find them interesting in line
with their own interests.
5.3 Choice of topics or problems
Which topic do we want to cover in our makerspace?
Is there a problem for which we want to find solutions in
our makerspace? At the beginning of the co-design
workshops of the European initiative “DOIT”, children
and youth commit themselves to concrete topics or
problems in a larger topic area, for example, the
sustainability goals of the United Nations (cf. UNICEF,
2017). This approach is suitable when interdisciplinary
skills such as teamwork or project management are
addressed, or when specific methods should be practiced,
e.g. programming an interactive story using the online
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 612
201
programming environment - Scratch. In the DOIT
project, children determine in advance in a co-design
workshop on topicd they would like to work on, e.g.
“Motivating people in the Tennengau to cycle” under the
topic “climate action” (cf. DOIT, 2020). Within such an
activity, students work on topics that are important to
them. They use methods and tools or procedures given to
them by the teacher, such as designing a 3D model,
design thinking, programming an app.
5.4 Choice of Methods and Tools
For specific topics in the curriculum, the work in a
makerspace can be pre-defined in terms of content. For
example, teachers may want students to work on building
styles over time, the periodic table, or Goethe's work.
Besides the discussion of content, however, a makerspace
opens up different procedures and tool uses. In the case
of architectural styles, for example, one group could
build prototypes out of cardboard, convert other
architectural styles into 3D modelling, and another group
could create an “interactive poster” (e.g. with a Makey
kit) about building styles. In this learning activity,
students get the assignment to work intensively on a
common topic, but have freedom in the choice of tools
and methods used. Students are introduced to specific,
but different tools and methods. So it is possible that
students develop unique products and solutions on the
same topics.
5.5 Choice of Pace and Learning Methods
There are only a few (homework) assignments and
project work where students can independently deal with
learning content in schools. Such tasks can be realized
and supported with the help of makerspaces in schools.
Within a learning activity with being the choice of pace
and learning method, students can work at their own
pace, as well as draw from tutorials when needed. This
could mean that students get the assignment to deal with
a new topic by a certain point in time and to implement
the solution (also) in a makerspace. For this to be
possible, students will need to get access to tools and
materials and instructions to help them create a product
on their own in a makerspace. Within this learning
activity, students must be clear about the task and
conditions. They also need self-organized learning
competencies, e.g. they need to have experience in
determining their learning pace and methods or receive
specific support in this respect.
5.6 Choice of Own Role in Project Work
In collaborative learning settings such as group work,
individual students design their roles or their contribution
to a joint project work in consultation with their
partner(s). Group work enables students to choose the
focus of their work - in cooperation with other group
members. Within this learning activity, students can work
in groups to explore their preferred topics or approaches.
There is a danger here in that students who often work in
such group work, take on the same tasks again and again
through routine therefore limiting themselves and their
potential learning.
5.7 Rarely: Instruction
Finally, teachers can also design learning experiences
in a makerspace in such a way that there are no options
for choice or co-determination by the students. This is
then - as in school lessons according to the curriculum -
sometimes necessary so that all students have the chance
to deal with a topic, tool or method to understand and use
it in principle. However, such a phase can only take up a
minor part of the work in a makerspace. If a learning offer
exists only through pre-defined learning settings without
the possibility of choice, we cannot assign it to maker
education. We mainly use this in maker education when,
for example, alternative methods and tools are introduced
and protective measures are necessary. For this, teachers
give tasks, e.g. instructions, and methods and arrange the
work without freedom of choice or focus. Within this
learning activity, all students have dealt with the same
topics and methods and thus theoretically have the same
opportunity to learn them. In such a setting, students can
get to know topics or methods that may not have
interested them, but which could arouse their interest.
6. ACTIVITIES REGARDING LEARNING WITH
OTHERS
Learning with and from others is a further perspective
on different makerspace activity formats. For adults in
makerspaces, it is normal that they learn with and from
each other. In working with children and youth, these
formats are often more unusual and require a new
understanding of the role of the adults involved. This
perspective shows that learning has a social agenda
designed for the mutual support and the contribution
from one's own strengths and interests.
6.1 Adults as Co-Designers
In makerspaces, there are usually users who have
more experience with some methods. Unlike in the
classroom and traditional teaching, teachers are much
less likely to be experts in everything, even though they
may be a step “ahead” of the beginners. In a makerspace,
teachers are less in demand as experts than as process
facilitators who intervene in critical situations, but
otherwise remain in the background. Entrepreneurs,
makers, parents, etc. can take part in makerspace
activities to accompany students during the
implementation. They are part of the development
process, e.g. by giving feedback on the current
implementation, also by providing an expert’s
perspective. Within this learning activity, adults -
especially if they are used to traditional teaching or as
parents - must be prepared well for their role, i.e. they
should see themselves as facilitators of learning. Some
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 612
202
important, but simple basic rules are: 1. never intervene
without being asked and touch projects or laptops and 2.
students’ ideas should be privileged and not their own.
6.2 Exchange of Experiences and Results in The
Process
Where are the others? What have they achieved so
far? How do they solve a problem? - Answers to such
questions, which enable learning from the experiences of
others, can be integrated in maker education. This can be
an intermediate presentation of previous work and
learning achievements, presentation of the biggest
failures and challenges and consequences or research on
the Internet on existing solutions and procedures. A
feedback cube with helpful questions such as “What do
you like?” or “What would you do different?” can be a
support for feedback rounds for younger children.
According to our experiences, the facilitators need to
encourage and share that ideas “of others” can and should
be used, and if, we should attribute them. To our
experiences, children appreciate if they can get feedback
from their peers or an external expert and not as usual,
their teacher.
6.3 Support of Peer Learning in Makerspace
Mutual learning from peers, typically from
classmates in school settings, can be implemented in a
makerspace using various methods. As an example, more
experienced students can support the introduction of
methods and tools. Students can also be (co-)designers of
manuals or workshops. This might serve as a snowball
activity for learning: A small group is introduced to a new
tool or technique and then independently guides others.
Within the “Maker Days for Kids”, peer tutors take part
in the tutor training and serve as tutors as participants’
older colleagues. This learning activity refers as well to
learning by teaching and allows advanced students to
further develop their learning.
6.4 Learning through Collaborative Work and Group
Work
By working on joint, i.e. collaboratively created,
works and group work, students can learn casually from
each other. An example is a small group which works
together to develop a prototype of a friendly garbage can
that will thank the users. Another example is small
groups of students who create interactive atomic models.
Within this learning activity, the members of a team
should be happy to work together, but this does not mean
that teachers cannot have a say in the composition of the
teams and groups. We recommend, if the children know
each other and are new to you get the teacher to group the
children (if accessible). The processes in the group have
an obvious effect on learning, and the tutors should
observe and monitor them including changing groups
around if needed to support the best learning outcomes
possible.
6.5 Development of Learning Resources by The
Students
Hatch's Maker Manifesto (2013) emphasizes that
makers also share their knowledge, learning and results
with others. This suggests that students should also be
involved in developing learning resources for making.
An example is that we ask students to improve and
publish an existing instruction for building a simple LED
pillar candle or that students design and create video
tutorials for using the tools in a makerspace. Within
maker education, learning resources should also be made
available online under open license. So, within this
learning design, in terms of content, the use and
significance of open licenses can also be discussed here.
6.6 Development of Learning Opportunities for Others
by The Children
Finally, learning opportunities in makerspaces can
also be offered to children to design the learning
experiences for others: These could be, for example,
workshop offers for (younger) classmates, but also for
interested adults. At the “Maker Days for Kids” in
Leipzig (2019), digital participants acted as tutors for the
last day and we invited parents and other adults to
participate in the open, workshop [11]. In another project
called “I'll show it to you” students showed peers and
their parents how to create learning videos on the tablet
[12]. Within this learning activity, when parents and
teachers become the participants, children can be inspired
to be the teachers allowing adults to gain additional
insights and perspectives regarding children. Some adults
may need (if they see themselves as experts) explicit
reminders not to dominate in the workshop.
7. VARIANTS OF TASK DESCRIPTIONS
A different, albeit related, perspective on
methodological-didactic formats in makerspaces with
students can arise from the tasks. Here, too, there is a
broad spectrum of tasks from those that have few or no
formal learning objectives and rules to those that are
instruction-based with little or no leeway in a (correct)
implementation.
7.1 Making without Specific Task Instructions
There are rarely makerspaces where students are not
given any tasks or objectives. However, phrases such as,
“Just try it out” or “Do what you want” can give students
the freedom to discover or pursue their own interests.
Examples of implementation are, for example, the
“Maker Days for Kids” makerspace where participants
are free to choose how they spend their day and take up
whichever tasks they wish. Another simple but guided
task assignment is: “This is an Ozobot, we can program
it with the help of colors. Do you want to try it out?” or
“Here you have a lot of cardboard and hot glue - you can
build whatever you want with it!” Such learning activity
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 612
203
allows for free, playful learning exploration and design.
As anything is possible - even doing nothing could be a
result - there can but does not have to be concrete projects
and results.
7.2 Problem-Based Task
We outline a problem that offers a variety of
approaches and solutions. For example, the initiatives
“Jugend hackt” and “WILMA initially pose problems at
the beginning of the group work-based workshops that
deal with social problem solutions, e.g. climate change or
migration. Such a task offers various creative solutions.
Examples are: “There is always a lot of rubbish in the
schoolyard. Design a product that will help to solve this
problem.”, or “We want the citizens of our city to become
fitter. Which products can help?” or “We would like to
have a lot of income at our sales stand at the next summer
festival. What can we develop in our workshop and offer
for sale?” Such a learning activity is helpful to explore
and understand a problem and its background. Very
different and creative results can be expected, for
example, a garbage can that says ‘thank you’, and a
garbage collection robot or an alarm system for
depositing garbage. Within this learning design, a
prototype of a product that solves the problem is an
expected outcome.
7.3 Order-Oriented Task
In order-oriented task implementation, a relatively
concrete task is often provided. For example, a
waterproof protection for a smartphone is to be built from
the existing materials. With such tasks, it is possible to
explain why this solution is being sought. Examples of
such tasks are:
• Design a cookie cutter for the cookies at the school
bazaar as a 3D model
• Design a waterproof protective cover for your
mobile phone
• Model your dream house in [13]
• Design and program a game that encourages people
to brush their teeth
• Design your favorite t-shirt using a cutting plotter
[14]
• Build one vehicle that stops after exactly 2 meters
Compared with the learning activities described
before, there is a clear mandate which still allows for a
lot of freedom in implementation without a deeper
exploration of the background problem. Within this
learning design, creative solutions are possible and
desired, and a product that fulfils the task is expected.
7.4 Competitive Task
In makerspace settings with children there are
sometimes tasks that are implemented with a competitive
element, i.e., where the fastest, best, most creative, etc.
product or the most responsible student wins. Examples
include paper plane challenges or vehicle design
challenges. From our perspective, such competitive tasks
are questionable and should be avoided or only planned
and implemented carefully, as they appeal to and
motivate boys far more often than girls [15]. That such
tasks or even awards for individual groups were rather
detrimental to the entire process across the individual
groups also prompted the team responsible for
hackathons with teenagers to not do so There are,
however, settings in which situations similar to
competition arise where, for example, only a single
prototype can be further developed for a joint “big”
cause. A sensitive approach is necessary in such learning
designs so that individuals or groups do not feel like
losers in such selection decisions.
Examples for competitive tasks that can implemented
in makerspaces for children are:
• Who builds a vehicle that runs as long as possible?
• Who builds the most beautiful plane?
• Who programs the most popular game?
• Who builds the loudest robot?
Gender-sensitive tasks that have a competitive
characteristic but are still motivating for both genders
include those that have less emphasis on rankings of
outcomes and focus on a solution and requires group
cooperation. Examples for such tasks are:
• Who/which group build a vehicle that stop after
exactly 2.20 to 2.30 meters?
• Who/which group is able to build a plane with old
paper and cardboard that flies at least 10 meters?
• Who/which group can build packaging to carry eggs
made only from materials found in the forest, so that
the egg does not break in a one-meter fall?
Practically, such tasks are similar to the “order-
oriented task” described above. Within this learning
design, the conditions for the competition must be clearly
planned and made known. The results are oriented
towards a high degree of competition which also allow
for quite unique solutions.
7.5 Guidance-Based Task
In this learning design, all groups or individuals will
need to produce the same result and will receive the same
instructions. This also means that the scope for creative
solutions and approaches is very limited. Guidance-based
tasks are used in the making process mainly to (a)
systematically introduce new methods or (b) familiarize
students with the use of guidance to make this possible in
their own projects.
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 612
204
Examples are:
• Build an LED flashlight according to instructions
[16],
• Build a DIY projector using a smartphone (Schön,
Ebner & Narr, 2016) and
• Build a banana piano with the MakeyMakey kit
(Schön, Ebner & Narr, 2016)
Within such a task, the instruction is provided either
through written or orally according to a plan. Typically,
the results are very similar and a product, according to
the plan is a typical outcome.
8. DISCUSSIONS AND OUTLOOK
While our selected activities are perhaps not new for
experienced developers of maker education, we see it as
helpful to create a clear picture of which activities need
to be supported and which diverse implementations are
available and the rationale for their implementation. We
recognize that we used similar or even same examples
across the different learning designs. However, our
presentation and conduct of two training programs for
future maker educators using this structure and examples
was well received and appreciated by the participants.
The variety of activities discussed provided participants
with insights into the different maker education structures
available and their possibilities for promoting a variety of
learning aims in additional too obvious issues such as
available maker tools and materials and core learning
goals, particularly in school settings.
We also see a need to develop a similar overview for
example on how to foster the idea of “failing forward”
(see Table 1). We have identified some ideas and
realizations, such as the “wall of failures” as a
conspicuous collection and emphasis that mistakes are
useful learning experiences. In our view, dealing with
mistakes is rarely explicitly addressed in maker education
through supporting activities. With such collections and
overviews, we want to enhance the materials to support
the design of maker education.
REFERENCES
[1] S.; Schön, M. Ebner, & K. Narr, (2016). Making-
Aktivitäten mit Kindern und Jugendlichen.
Handbuch zum kreativen digitalen Gestalten.
Norderstedt: Book on Demand.
http://www.bit.do/handbuch E.; B. Maurer & D.
Trüby (ed.):
[2] Hollauf, S Schön,. (2019). Gemeinsam die Welt
verbessern – soziale Innovationen und Maker
Education: Ausgewählte Projekte und Erfahrungen.
In: S. Ingold, In: M. Merdan, W. Lepuschitz, G.
Koppensteiner, R. Balogh & D. Obdržálek (ed.)
Robotics in Education. RiE 2019. Advances in
Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 1023.
Cham: Springer.
[3] S. Papert, & I. Harel, (1991). Preface, Situating
Constructionism, In: I. Harel & S. Papert (ed.):
Constructionism, Research reports and essays,
Norwood New Jersey: Ablex Publishing
Corporation.
[4] H Schelhowe,. (2013). Digital realities, physical
action and deep learning-FabLabs as educational
environments. In: FabLab: Of Machines, Makers
and Inventors (pp. 93–103).
https://doi.org/10.14361/transcript.978383942382
0.93
[5] M.; Grandl, M Ebner,.; & A Strasser. (2020). Setup
of a Temporary Makerspace for Children at
University: MAKER DAYS for Kids 2018. Hatch,
M. (2013). The Maker Movement Manifesto: Rules
for Innovation in the New World of Crafters,
Hackers, and Tinkerers. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.
[6] S.;. Schön, R. Jagrikova, & C. Voigt, (2018). Social
innovations within makerspace settings for early
entrepreneurial education – The DOIT project. In:
Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on
Educational Media and Technology, Amsterdam
(pp. 1716–1725).
[7] J.; Jammer, K. Narr, (2018). Das Maker-Buch für
Kita und Grundschule. Kinderleichte
Fotoanleitungen zum kreativen Basteln, Tüfteln
und Selbermachen. Berlin: Verlag Bananenblau.
[8] J. L. Pecore, (2015). From Kilpatrick’s project
method to project-based learning. International
Handbook of Progressive Education, 155–
171Lütolf, G.; Meister, K. (2016). Güggeltown –
Die Stadt aus dem 3D-Drucker. In: S. Schön, M.
Ebner & K. Narr (ed.): Handbuch zum kreativen
digitalen Gestalten. Norderstedt: Book on Demand,
166–172. http://ww.bit.do/handbuch
[9] M.; Reimer, D.; Seitz, P Glaser (2016). Handbuch
Jugend-Hackathons. Open Knowledge Foundation
und Mediale Pfade e.V. http://www.hand-
buch.jugendhackt.de/appendix/00
Hanbuch_Jugend-Hackathons.pdf Martinez, S. L.
& Stager, G.S. (2013). Invent to Learn. Making,
Tinkering, and Engineering in the Classroom.
Torrance Canada: Constructing Modern
Knowledge.
[10] T., Hammer, G., Hampson, M., Kindlhofer, R.,
Rüssmann, F. Bösch, & M. Marx, (2018). WILMA.
Wir lernen durch machen. Ein Handbuch für eine
Erfinderwerkstatt mit Kindern. URL: https://w-
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 612
205
ort.at/cms/wp-
content/uploads/2018/07/WILMA_Handbuch_201
8.pdf Maker Media (2013). The Makerspace
Playbook. School Edition. URL:
http://makerspace.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/02/MakerspacePlaybook-
Feb2013.pdf (2011-07-31)
[11] K. Narr & Bunke- H. Emden, (2020). „Kommt, ich
zeige euch, wie das geht.“ Der „Elterntag“ bei den
„Maker Days for Kids Leipzig“. In: F. von Gross &
R. Röllecke (ed.), Familienkultur smart und digital.
Ergebnisse, Konzepte und Strategien der
Medienpädagogik, Schriftenreihe Dieter Baacke
Preis, Band 15, kopaed (pp. 69–74). München.
[12] S. Schön, (2012). Ankündigung und
Projektbeschreibung: Ich zeig es Dir – HOCH 2 –
Kinder produzieren Lernvideos mit Tablet-PCs. In:
Medienimpulse, Ausgabe 4/2012, URL:
http://www.medienimpulse.at/articles/view/467Ne
w York Hall of Science (2013). A blueprint: Maker
programs for youth. URL:
http://dmp.nysci.org/system/files/filedepot/1/NYS
CI_MAKER_BLUEPRINT.pdf (2021-07-31)
[13] . I Reip. (2016). Bananenklavier und Co. mit
MaKey MaKey. In: S. Schön, M. Ebner & K. Narr
(ed.). Handbuch zum kreativen digitalen Gestalten.
Norderstedt: Book on Demand, 219–224.
http://ww.bit.do/handbuch
[14] H. Pohla, (2016). Lieblings-T-Shirts professionell
mit Schneideplotter & Co. gestalten. In: S. Schön,
M. Ebner & K. Narr (ed.): Handbuch zum kreativen
digitalen Gestalten. Norderstedt: Book on Demand,
239–243. http://ww.bit.do/handbuch
[15] S Schön,. & M. Ebner, (2020). Ziele von
Makerspaces. Didaktische Perspektiven. In: V.
Pepler, T. Seidl & R. Stang (ed.), Lernwelt
Makerspace, Grundlagen, Konzepte und
Perspektiven, DeGruyter
[16] S.; Schön, H Boy; G.; Brombach M.; Ebner, J.;
Kleeberger, , K.; E.; NarrRösch, B.; Schreiber,
Zorn, I. (2016). Making-Aktivitäten mit Kindern
und Jugendlichen. In:
[17] S. Schön, & M. Ebner, (2019). Making – eine
Bewegung mit Potenzial. merz medien + erziehung.
Zeitschrift für Medienpädagogik, 63 (4), 9–16.
https://www.merz-zeitschrift.de/
[18] S Schön,; M. Ebner, & S. Kumar, (2014). The Maker
Movement. Implications of new digital gadgets,
fabrication tools and spaces for creative learning and
teaching. In: eLearning Papers, eLearning Papers
Special edition 2014 “Transforming Education
through Innovation and Technology”, September
2014, pp. 86–100. URL:
http://openeducationeuropa.eu/sites/default/files/EL
earning_2014_interactivo_2609.pdf
[19] S Schön,.; M.; Ebner, , I. Reip (2016). Kreative
digitale Arbeit mit Kindern in einer viertägigen
offenen Werkstatt. Medienimpulse 2016: 1,
https://journals.univie.ac.at/index.php/mp/article/vi
ew/mi829
[20] S., Schön M. Ebner & M. Grandl (2020). Designing
a Makerspace for Children – Let’s Do It. In: M.
Moro, D. 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. 3–15), Cham: Springer
[21] S., Schön M., Rosenova M., Ebner M. Grandl
(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. Springer, Cham
[22] M. Wunderlich, (2016). Ein Makerspace an einer
Schule. In: S. Schön, M. Ebner & K. Narr (ed.):
Making-Aktivitäten mit Kindern und Jugendlichen.
Handbuch zum kreativen digitalen Gestalten.
Norderstedt: Book on Demand, 47–53.
http://www.bit.do/handbuch
[23] UNICEF (2017). Building the Future. Children and
the Sustainable Development Goals in Rich
Countries.
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 612
206
