%4/<+89/:?5,58:.+845='%4/<+89/:?5,58:.+845='
%#).52'8&5819%#).52'8&5819
8'*;':+"+9+'8).!'6+89 #:;*+4:&581
2+3+4:'8?9).5522/(8'8?685-8'3/4:+-8':/54=/:.'8:2/:+8')?2+3+4:'8?9).5522/(8'8?685-8'3/4:+-8':/54=/:.'8:2/:+8')?
'4*#$:.85;-.3'1+896')+9'4*#$:.85;-.3'1+896')+9
8/9:/'2*=/4
%4/<+89/:?5,58:.+845='
+:;9145=.5='))+99:5:./9*5);3+4:(+4+B:9?5;
56?8/-.:A8/9:/'2*=/4
5225=:./9'4*'**/:/54'2=5819':.::699).52'8=5819;4/+*;-86
!'8:5,:.+8:*;)':/545335492+3+4:'8?*;)':/54533549/(8'8?'4*4,583':/54
#)/+4)+533549'4*:.+#)/+4)+'4*':.+3':/)9*;)':/54533549
"+)533+4*+*/:':/54"+)533+4*+*/:':/54
'2*=/48/9:/2+3+4:'8?9).5522/(8'8?685-8'3/4:+-8':/54=/:.'8:2/:+8')?'4*#$:.85;-.
3'1+896')+9
8'*;':+"+9+'8).!'6+89
.::699).52'8=5819;4/+*;-86
$./9 6+4))+998'*;':+"+9+'8).!'6+8/9(85;-.::5?5;,58,8++'4*56+4'))+99(?:.+#:;*+4:&581':%
#).52'8&5819:.'9(++4'))+6:+*,58/4)2;9/54/48'*;':+"+9+'8).!'6+89(?'4';:.58/@+*'*3/4/9:8':585,
%#).52'8&581958358+/4,583':/5462+'9+)54:'):9).52'8=5819;4/+*;
,,+49/<+':+8/'29#:':+3+4:':+8/'2925)':+*/4%#).52'8&5819)53+,853'(85'*8'4-+5,95;8)+9'4*
:/3+6+8/5*9#53+5,:.+9+3':+8/'293'?)54:'/45,,+49/<+9:+8+5:?6+9/*+'9</9;'29582'4-;'-+
2+3+4:'8?9).5522/(8'8?685-8'3/4:+-8':/54=/:.'8:2/:+8')?'4*#$2+3+4:'8?9).5522/(8'8?685-8'3/4:+-8':/54=/:.'8:2/:+8')?'4*#$
:.85;-.3'1+896')+9:.85;-.3'1+896')+9
/4***/:/54'2"+2':+*"+9+'8)./4%#).52'8&5819/4***/:/54'2"+2':+*"+9+'8)./4%#).52'8&5819
$5B4*8+2':+*8+9+'8)./4%#).52'8&5819-5:5:.+)522+):/545,#).552/(8'8?#:;*/+98'*;':+
"+9+'8).!'6+89=8/::+4(?9:;*+4:9/4:.+/</9/545,#).552/(8'8?#:;*/+9+6'8:3+4:5,;88/);2;3
'4*49:8;):/54522+-+5,*;)':/54'::.+%4/<+89/:?5,58:.+845='
(9:8'):(9:8'):
5:+$./99:;*?8+,+89:5:.8++)58+9+'8).+89=.5+').)522+):+**':'/4:.+/88+96+):/<+9).5529'4*
)522'(58':+*/48+</+=/4-:.':*':'(;:+').9+6'8':+2?';:.58+*'6'6+8;9/4-:.':*':':.+)5
8+9+'8).+89'8+#'8'!C;-.';6:'4*/9'$+-+29
$.+6;8659+5,:./93/>+*3+:.5*9)'9+9:;*?='9:5B4*5;:.5=3'1+896')+;9+3/-.:/4C;+4)+'4
/47;/8?('9+*,5);9/49:;*+4:2+'84/4-:.85;-.:.+;9+5,*+9/-4:./41/4-$.+8+9+'8).+89=+8+
/4:+8+9:+*/4.5=3'1+896')+99;6658::.+':/54'2#).552/(8'8?#:'4*'8*9'4*25)'29).552*/9:8/):
-5'29$./99:;*?/4<+9:/-':+*2/:+8')?)8/:/)'2:./41/4-'4*/47;/8?('9+*685)+99+9:.':3/-.:0;9:/,?
.'</4-'3'1+896')+/4'4+2+3+4:'8?9).5522/(8'8?
':''4'2?@+*,853:+').+82/(8'8/'48+C+):/549)522'(58':/4-:+').+87;+9:/544'/8+9'4*9:;*+4:
'8:/,'):+<'2;':/548+9;2:+*/4:.+/*+4:/B)':/545,9/>-+4+8'2:.+3+9$.+:+').+82/(8'8/'4*+9)8/6:/549
'4*8+C+):/549/4*/)':+*:.':3'1+896')+9685</*+*9;6658:,58*/9:8/):/4/:/':/<+9'9=+22'9:.+4++*,58
358+9:;*+4:8+C+):/54:/3+))58*/4-:5:.+)522'(58':/4-:+').+899:;*+4:99.5=+*6+8954'2
);8/59/:?+4-'-+*/4/47;/8?,58/4*/</*;'2-85=:.'4*=+8+2/1+2?:5+4-'-+/4358+*/<+89+8+'*/4-*;+
:5:.+/83'1+896')+6850+):9#:;*+4:'8:/,'):*':'9.5=+*:.':'3'058/:?5,9:;*+4:93+'4=.5
6'8:/)/6':+*/4:.+3'1+896')+6850+):93+:9:'4*'8*9,853###'4*##:.':=+8+
'**8+99+*/4:.+9:;*?
$./956+4'))+99-8'*;':+8+9+'8).6'6+8/9'<'/2'(2+':%#).52'8&5819.::699).52'8=5819;4/+*;-86
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LIBRARY PROGRAM INTEGRATION WITH ART,
LITERACY, AND STEAM THROUGH MAKERSPACES
A Graduate Research Paper
Submitted to the
Division of School Library Studies
Department of Curriculum and Instruction
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWA
by
Kristi Baldwin
August 2020
This Research Paper by: Kristi Baldwin
Titled: Elementary School Library Program Integration with Art, Literacy, and STEAM
through Makerspaces
has been approved as meeting the research requirement for the
Degree of Master of Arts.
under the supervision of
First Reader: Karla Krueger, EdD
Second Reader: Joan Bessman Taylor, PhD.
Curriculum and Instruction Department Head: Robin Dada, PhD
Paper approved on _________________
First Reader Signature:__________________________________________
ABSTRACT
Note: This study refers to three co-researchers who each collected data in their
respective schools and collaborated in reviewing that data, but each separately authored
a paper using that data; the co-researchers are Sara Pflughaupt and Lisa Tegels.
The purpose of this mixed methods case study was to find out how makerspace use
might influence an inquiry-based focus in student learning through the use of design
thinking. The researchers were interested in how makerspaces support the National
School Library Standards and local school district goals. This study investigated literacy,
critical thinking, and inquiry-based processes that might justify having a makerspace in
an elementary school library.
Data analyzed from teacher librarian reflections, collaborating teacher
questionnaires, and student artifact evaluation resulted in the identification of six general
themes. The teacher librarian descriptions and reflections indicated that makerspaces
provided support for district initiatives as well as the need for more student reflection
time. According to the collaborating teachers, students showed personal curiosity,
engaged in inquiry for individual growth, and were likely to engage in more diverse
reading due to their makerspace projects. Student artifact data showed that a majority of
students (mean=61%) who participated in the makerspace projects met standards from
AASL, CCSS ELA, and NGSS that were addressed in the study.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
Justification of Problem
Student Inquiry and Collaboration 2
Design Thinking 4
Makerspace Implementation 4
Rationale 8
Uncertainties and Deficiencies on this Topic from Past Research 8
Summary of Problem Statement 8
Purpose 9
Research Questions 9
Assumptions and Limitations 9
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 10
Student Inquiry 10
Design Thinking 13
Makerspace Implementation 15
Summary 18
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 20
Research Design 20
Participants 22
Procedures 25
Data Sources 25
Data Analysis 26
Limitations 34
CHAPTER 4. FINDINGS 35
Participant Observation and Reflection 35
Collaborating Teacher Questionnaires 37
Evaluation of Student Artifacts 39
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 49
Conclusions 49
Recommendations 53
REFERENCES 55
APPENDIX A: STUDENT ARTIFACT RUBRIC 56
APPENDIX B: PARENTAL NOTIFICATION LETTER 61
APPENDIX C: COLLABORATING TEACHER QUESTIONS 62
APPENDIX D: TEMPLATE FOR OBSERVATIONS - REFLECTIONS
ON STUDENT WORK 63
APPENDIX E: AASL, CCSS, AND NGSS STANDARDS ADDRESSED
IN STUDY 64
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1 Design Thinking Process Stages 21
2 Percentage of Students Who Met the Standard 43
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1 Reflection/observation for Art Student 2 29
2 Reflection/observation for Art Student 11 31
3 Levels of standards met in each rubric category 45
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In April 2009 President Barack Obama announced his Race to the Top initiative
providing federal funding to K-12 schools providing support for the development of “new
and creative ways to engage young people in science and engineering” with the intent of
inspiring young people in the United States “to create and build and invent -- to be
makers of things, not just consumers of things” (Remarks by the President,
2009, para.
69). The Race to the Top funding sparked schools across the United States to begin
looking for ways to emphasize science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM), and the word makerspace
became part of the national educational vocabulary in
the United States.
A makerspace is quite literally that, a space for making, but it has been more
specifically defined by Blakemore (2018) as an “intellectual playground” to inspire
deeper learning through questioning (p. 67). Makerspaces in general tend to be informal
learning spaces (Walan, 2019) whereas traditional learning in schools has been more
formally structured. This juxtaposition leads to questions about how a makerspace should
be implemented. Hira and Hynes (2018) point out that while school makerspace activities
are typically designed and implemented by teachers, makerspaces themselves tend to be
hosted by teacher librarians. Thus, it is imperative that classroom teachers and teacher
librarians work together to ensure effective makerspace integration. To support these
collaborations, the role and structure of a makerspace in a school library as a means for
supporting district and building initiatives needs to be better determined and defined.
2
Justification of Problem
In 2016, the American Association of School Libraries (AASL) issued a position
statement in which they affirm that, “school librarians are instructors as well as
collaborators with fellow educators in the pursuit of student learning in school libraries,
classrooms, learning commons, makerspaces, labs, and virtual learning spaces” (p. 1).
The AASL specifically includes “teach students how to be inquiring learners” and “guide
students and fellow educators through the intersection of formal and informal learning ”in
their definition of the role of the school librarian (p.1). This expectation for teacher
librarians to mix structured with unstructured learning sets the stage for discovering how
makerspaces might impact student inquiry, student literacy skills, and student use of
design thinking processes.
Libraries originally developed as a “hub for knowledge creation, processing,
dissemination, and storage (Aiyeblehin, et al., 2018, p. 1). They exist to serve their
community by providing resources that individuals might not otherwise be able to access.
Aiyeblehin, et al., (2018) say the purpose of a school library is to promote literacy, today
defined by some as transliteracy, or “the ability to read, write, and interact across a range
of platforms and tools” and to support curriculum (p. 2). When schools are promoting
science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics (STEAM) content and literacy
with design thinking processes, they often turn to makerspaces.
While makerspace implementation is popular today, school libraries do need to
budget their limited human and fiscal resources in an efficient manner to provide those
strategies and programs with the greatest leverage for positive influence on student
3
achievement. For the purpose of this research, student achievement is defined as a
student's ability to demonstrate literacy strategies and apply a design thinking model to a
task. As the role of makerspaces in elementary schools is still being defined, Garrison,
FitzGerald, and Sheerman (2018) state that determining the influence of a makerspace on
inquiry and design thinking would provide important knowledge for those looking to
implement or update makerspaces in their libraries.
Thus, teacher librarians, especially those in elementary school libraries where
foundational skills are being developed for later student success in a question-based
collaborative learning environment at the secondary level would greatly benefit from an
awareness of how to promote and support student inquiry with the implementation of
learning environments such as makerspaces.
This case study focused specifically on the connection between makerspaces and
the achievement of the AASL (2018) shared foundation of Explore (p. 104) through the
use of a design thinking process in collaboration with classroom projects focused on art,
literacy, and STEAM. Design thinking mimics the guided inquiry process described by
Kuhlthau (2012) but without the critical element of facilitation which is needed at
different levels during the inquiry process (p. 36). The influence of makerspaces on the
use of design thinking processes by elementary school students is informed by scholarly
research in the following three areas: student inquiry and collaboration, design thinking,
and makerspace implementation.
4
Student Inquiry
The American Association of School Libraries updated their National School
Library Standards in 2018 to include inquiry which can also be found in the standards for
learners developed by the International Society for Technology Education (AASL, 2018,
p. 54; ISTE, 2016) which encourages students to be empowered learners. An empowered
learner is one who can follow the process of guided inquiry as described by Kuhlthau
(2012) where students are able to identify their own questions to drive their investigation
of a topic. According to Lateef & Adeyi (2019), the processes inherent for information
literacy need to be taught early for students to internalize them and put them into practice
later as a part of lifelong learning in a world where information is continually changing
(p. 3).
Garrison, Fitzgerald, and Sheerman (2018) reference a similar theory from
Kuhlthau, Maniotes, and Caspari that increased practice with guided inquiry might cause
students to internalize the inquiry process. They also noted that students identified the
important parts of guided inquiry as, “its independent nature, structure and pace, and
focus on choice” (p. 15). The ability to apply skills effectively in unique situations is a
key tenet of demonstrating student understanding according to Wiggins and McTighe
(2005). Student engagement in an inquiry process was found by Sheridan, et al., (2014) to
be common in makerspaces.
Design Thinking
Blakemore (2018) explains that students often struggle with being able to define a
problem that needs solving. She refers to this as “problem scoping” which is integral to
5
the opening stages of inquiry (p. 68). Kuhlthau (2012) explains that students need time to
explore before they are ready to identify a focus. She says that too frequently students
jump into finding answers before they have effectively defined their question(s) or they
are assigned an inauthentic question for which they simply go through the motions of
providing research to address.
Chon and Sim (2019) show that design thinking promotes an emphasis on process
by following an inquiry learning cycle, regardless of the labels given to each learning
phase, which might vary among models. Design thinking is often part of STEAM topics.
Schools have been emphasizing STEAM education in recent years to promote
scientific advancement and better career options for students upon graduation. In a
review of educational research, McKinnon (2019) found it to be critical that, “K–12
education achieve effectiveness in building early conceptual knowledge in STEM
disciplines and stimulating interest in STEM careers” (p. 6). In other words, the
groundwork for the procedural thinking required for STEAM learning needs to be laid in
elementary school to promote increased student success in this inquiry-based learning in
the upper grades, post-secondary education, and post-baccalaureate STEM careers.
Makerspace Implementation
Maker education in its current form might only have gained popularity in the
mid-to-late 2000s, but the philosophies driving the implementation of makerspaces have
been en vogue since the era of public education in the United States began. Weiner, Land,
& Jordan (2018) point out that makerspace theory has its roots in the works of such
educational giants as Montessori, Dewey, Vygotsky, Piaget, and Papert (para. 10).
6
According to Fontichiaro (2019), those who are charged with makerspace
implementation need to pay attention to their scope and sequence and build on these
educational psychology foundations to ensure that students who are using the
makerspaces are building new skills, rather than simply recycling the same skills in a
different contextual package.
Similarly, Lock, da Rosa dos Santos, Hollohan, and Becker (2018) emphasize that
schools need to focus beyond the creation of a makerspace and give attention to how to
incorporate makerspaces in such a way that they foster deep learning. As Hira and Hynes
(2018) caution, “As makerspaces become more common, there is a responsibility to
ensure that students in a Makerspace are engaging in the pursuit of knowledge and
development of self rather than engaging in a focus on economic benefits to the resource
providers” (p. 2-3).
Makerspaces have been hailed as an ideal system for collaboration between
classroom teachers and teacher librarians. In the words of one teacher quoted by
Stornaiolo (2018), “The Lit Lab [makerspace], to me, has very much been a part of the
design-thinking process in starting with the idea and having students come. Educators
collaborate and now students are collaborating...Our school is in a design process." (p.
365). In the case of this school, the makerspace came about through a need for promoting
literacy while keeping with their making practice.
As such, sometimes schools are intentional in their creation of makerspaces to
support district initiatives. Unfortunately a lack of research can lead to makerspace
implementation that is ineffective or misaligned with its intended purpose. Makerspaces
7
can be too narrowly defined to meet the STEM prerogative in schools causing the space
to lose its “community of practice” benefits. Phillips and Lee (2019) note that what and
how people learn in a library makerspace may look different from the kind of traditional
learning environment often observed in the dominant formal education system (i.e., direct
instruction, specified curriculum, standards, and assessments), which can make
incorporating the esprit de corps of the makerspace into the school library even more of a
challenge.
Another concern regarding the makerspace movement is that it is propagating
white privilege by casting various arts into traditional American white middle class
practices. Vossoughi, Hooper, & Escuede (2016) suggest that by focusing on the
makerspace as a way for white males to reconnect with the nostalgic past of shop class
and home economics, makerspaces can continue to disadvantage those for whom making
is a means of survival, not something fun to do in their spare time (p. 208). It is important
when creating a makerspace in a school library setting to encourage increased equity.
Access to a library makerspace can support all students in developing academic tenacity
or “grit” to be successful in school (Carello, 2017). Koh et al. (2019) indicate in their
case studies that library makerspaces in particular promote knowledge creation, access,
learning, and equity and diversity. As outlined in a review of literature by Vossoughi,
Hooper, & Escuede (2016, p. 310), more research studies document the movement of
makerspace implementation into education arenas that include democratizing access for
all, inquiry for all, and expanded access to STEM fields stating,
“There is also a growing number of makers, educators, and researchers who
self-identify with the movement and leverage the resources opened up by the first
group to advance various educational agendas, such as engaging young people in
8
personally compelling, creative investigations of the material and social worlds
(Brahms, 2014; Martinez & Stager, 2013); democratizing access to the tools,
skills, and discourses of power previously available only to experts (Blikstein,
2013; Halverson & Sheridan, 2014); and expanding participation in STEM fields
through interest-driven, multidisciplinary learning environments (Martin, 2015).”
Rationale
There exists a need for research focused on makerspace implementation in the
elementary setting. According to Vongkulluksn et al. (2018), most studies that investigate
design thinking in makerspaces have been focused on the middle or secondary level. In
addition, schools need to know how to effectively implement a makerspace in a manner
that truly disrupts traditional instruction to encourage students to adopt an inquiry-based
focus in their learning, as modeled through a design thinking process.
Uncertainty and Deficiencies on this Topic from Past Research
A study by Shekleton (2015) depicted the need for understanding student use of
inquiry learning in a 1:1 learning environment. In order to further understand students’
use of inquiry learning in different environments, this study is following Shekleton’s
suggestion for future research to understand “what student achievement would look like
when inquiry research is strictly content related” (p. 40). As such, this study gives
attention to student use of inquiry and design thinking in a makerspace environment to
promote art, literacy, and STEAM instruction.
Summary of Problem Statement
Although makerspaces are popular, more research is needed to inform teacher
librarians how to structure them in the school library learning environment to promote
student inquiry as evidenced through the use of a design thinking process.
9
Purpose
The purpose of this mixed methods case study is to describe how the use of
design thinking in a makerspace might influence student inquiry to promote the AASL
standards.
Research Questions
1. How might makerspaces promote AASL standards through inquiry and design
thinking?
2. To what extent does participation in a makerspace support district and building
goals related to literacy and critical thinking?
Assumptions and Limitations
This study assumes that a makerspace is available in the elementary school setting
and that a design thinking process is being included through both direct and indirect
instruction as part of the makerspace experience. The scope of this study is limited to
three elementary school projects conducted in a single semester.
10
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this study is to describe how the use of design thinking in a school
makerspace might influence students’ use of inquiry and collaboration. Makerspaces are
inherently social and collaborative places where inquiry takes place. However, the
inclusion of a focus on using design thinking to engage in inquiry is not inherently part of
a makerspace. Prior research related to this topic has focused on the need to teach student
inquiry and collaboration as necessary 21st century skills and how the implementation of
makerspaces with an emphasis on design thinking as a process to explicate those skills
might best facilitate the internalization of inquiry.
Student Inquiry
Garrison et al. (2018) stated that inquiry learning is a timely topic given the need
for 21st century skills and as such their study replicated earlier research they had done to
explore student perceptions and interpretations of guided inquiry (GI) and address a gap
in the empirical research available on GI. Their research question attempted to discover
how students use guided inquiry while engaged in research projects, including the level to
which they perceive its helpfulness. Guided inquiry and the information search process
are commonly accepted as having value in the teaching of an inquiry process, and they
share three main characteristics: an independent, or self-guided, nature; a set structure
and pace; and a student-driven choice of topic, or emphasis on the “third space” where
student interests and content area demands overlap. After looking at the process journals,
surveys, focus group interviews, and student products from twenty-one Year 9 students in
11
an Australian K-12 school, the researchers found through the use of Likert scales, SLIM
coding, and coding based on the work of Patton and Vaughn that student work showed
growth in their depth of understanding of the selected content and having a set thought
structure, or thinking process, helped students to complete their projects. A
recommendation from the researchers was to pay careful attention to the design of the
process journal, or thinking process, as it influenced all of the remaining components in
the project.
Shekleton (2015) also indicated the importance of inquiry learning with a quote
from the 2007 AASL standards that “inquiry provides a framework for learning” (p. 2).
Her research focused on the need for better understanding of student participation in
inquiry while in a 1:1 learning environment (eg. each student has their own computer).
While the inquiry approach has been tied to best practices in 1:1 learning environment,
Shekleton examined how collaborative instruction and student achievement affected
inquiry learning with a 1:1 ratio of devices to students. This examination followed a
qualitative case study design with a population of 27 fifth-grade students, the district
technology teacher, a teacher librarian, and the three classroom teachers for the
participating students. The researcher gathered data from two groups, students and
teachers. Data from both groups was gathered through observations and focus groups.
Student data collection also included the analysis of student products while lesson plan
documentation was collected from teachers. The analysis of both data sets was completed
by reviewing for themes. The researcher found that students reported easier collaboration
due to availability of email and that students felt successful when they were able to
12
“choose their own research topic and form a question to drive the inquiry process”
(Shekleton, 2015, p. 37). The study also found that once a topic has been identified, they
need support and guidance in the selection of materials to support their inquiry and in the
use of technology to share their learning.
Berrier and Stenstrom (2016) focused specifically on the need for collaboration in
small group work, which is consistently expressed as a necessary 21st century skill, yet
does not appear to have an impact on advancing student learning outcomes. The authors
suggest that this lack of impact is due to a lack of generalizable steps, or a specified
process, for students to follow when working in groups, so they set out to define these
steps. They examined attempts to better direct students through tasks to improve their
group work experience and achievement of student learning outcomes through the
administration of a survey via Qualtrics to 75 college students in the School of
Information at San Jose State University. One might think these students in particular
would be accustomed to and adept at working in groups to collaborate on their student
learning outcomes; however, the study found through a descriptive analysis that 45% of
students lacked confidence in their capacity to work in groups and 40% did not think that
the group work helped to improve the quality of the student learning. Thus, there is
clearly a need for more direct instruction for student collaboration processes to positively
influence student perceptions of group work.
These studies show the importance of student inquiry and awareness of
procedural steps for students to follow. Inquiry has been shown to encourage student
growth and increase motivation, but structure and support from teachers is still necessary.
13
Students have a clearly established need to be able to develop and pursue inquiry and to
be able to collaborate with others in the pursuit of a goal, but are equally clearly lacking
in having developed these skills in the upper grades. Having more direct instruction in
collaboration would clarify the expectations and provide a better understanding of the
structure needed to benefit more from constructionist and social learning.
Design Thinking
The recognition of high quality science education as critical to the environment
and the economy coupled with sets of academic standards (AASL, ISTE, NGSS) which
all require some level of inquiry learning led Olsen and Rule (2017) to look for research
on elementary student use of high quality inquiry learning. They found little, so decided
to do their own study to compare student learning, motivation, understanding, and
creativity during an inquiry-based lesson set on models in two sixth-grade science
classes. Their 38 students, 54% of whom qualified for free and reduced lunch,
participated in the lessons, took pre- and post-tests, and responded to six repeated
measures surveys designed to gauge student perceptions of enjoyment, motivation,
learning, and creativity (for the lesson and for the student). Paired t-tests and Cohen’s d
effects resulted in significant indications that all effects favored the more
student-centered lessons. However, survey responses also indicated that as
student-centeredness increased, it did reach a tipping point beyond which the positive
perception declined, likely due to lack of direction and structure from the teacher.
Overall, Olsen and Rule found higher levels of retention and enjoyment for
student-centered lessons.
14
After conducting a literature review focused on how design thinking
methodologies are being translated into education, Chon and Sim (2019) conducted a
qualitative case study with a pilot group of undergraduate students at the School of
Design Communication at LASALLE College of the Arts in Singapore to test design
thinking as a clear structure for students to meet the challenges of collaboration. Students
were taught a five-step process for design thinking, during which time they also kept
journals and responded to a questionnaire with six open-ended questions. After
evaluating the journals and questionnaire feedback from 67 students, the researchers
found that design thinking indeed provided students with a relevant framework to
reference in their collaboration, but that more testing in other disciplines should be done.
Van Gompel (2019) focused her research on finding connections between design
thinking and 21st century skills such as collaboration, communication, critical thinking,
and creativity. She recognized the limited availability of research and resources for
promoting student inquiry and felt that design thinking could provide a flexible
instructional strategy to better cultivate student abilities in these highly desirable 21st
century skills. Her study attempted to explore the process and outcomes of using a design
thinking process by answering the question, “How does design thinking foster 21st
century skills?” (p. 58). This qualitative case study analyzed interviews, observations,
field notes, and artifacts from the researcher’s interaction with 25 students in third-grade
in a school in California. Data analysis consisted of using HyperRESEARCH to look for
patterns. The study found that the highest improvement in students’ 21st century skills
came in collaboration, with creativity being the next highest impact level. Students found
15
the design thinking process to be engaging, and it allowed them to participate in inquiry,
information analysis, and product iteration successfully. Further research on design
thinking integrated into the curriculum was recommended (p. 152).
These studies emphasize the need for design thinking to be taught as a process
that students can then replicate for themselves. Students need both direct instruction and
ongoing support to be successful. Design thinking encourages iteration and engagement
with an emphasis on process.
Makerspace Implementation
Sheridan, et al. (2014) set out to discover how makerspaces function as learning
environments because the explosion of makerspaces was well underway but little was
still known about their content and processes. In their comparative case study of three
makerspaces, their research questions investigated participation in makerspaces, use of
resources in makerspaces, and arrangements for each space that connect with learning,
teaching, or collaborating. To answer these questions, the researchers used purposive
sampling to choose three different sites which self-identify as makerspaces but cater to
different audiences in different spaces - one was a member-based space for adults, one
was a museum-based space for family groups, and one was a community-based space for
a neighborhood with limited economic resources. Data was analyzed using a priori
concepts drawn from constructionism, communities of practice, and emergent topics in
an ongoing process from September 2012 to August 2013 involving 150 hours of field
observations, interviews, and artifact reviews. The study found the following
16
commonalities across each makerspace: a multidisciplinary approach, a flexible
environment, and an emphasis on the process of making.
Beaumont and Martin (2019) studied 38 students in grades 4 and 5 using an
experimental design that utilized student reflection, student work analysis, pre-student
self-assessments, and post-student self-assessments. Their literature review suggested that
due to a culture of consumerism, children were suffering from a lack of perseverance,
risk taking, and sense of agency that could be mediated through the implementation of
makerspaces to help them see that they are “capable of shaping” the world around them
(p. 4). However, more documentation on the benefits of makerspaces is needed; thus,
their experimental study focused on the effective implementation of makerspaces with an
emphasis on thinking routines with the question, “What effect, if any, does implementing
thinking routines and maker-centered learning environments have on student agency?”
(p. 13). In their review of the literature, the researchers found that constructivist theory
supports children’s development of agency by “identifying a problem and seeking to
solve it through creation, collaboration, and reflection” (p. 7). Furthermore, an emphasis
on teaching thinking routines may expedite participants’ abilities to create their own
opportunities for reshaping their experiences, thus developing their sense of agency in
any environment. After analyzing the reflections, work, and a pre- and post-self
assessment from 38 gifted and talented students in grades 4 and 5, the researchers noted
that the ambiguity involved in the makerspace implementation process poses a risk to the
possible benefits. Thus, having a specified use of thinking routines in a makerspace
17
implementation would theoretically increase the benefits to agency, risk taking, and
perseverance in students.
While Taylor, Moore, Visser, & Drouillard (2018) focused specifically on the
incorporation of computational thinking, an analogy can easily be drawn to the need for
libraries to focus on teaching student inquiry through the use of makerspaces due to its
similar emphasis on process. Taylor, et al. identified computational thinking (CT) as an
essential skill that should be taught in libraries because libraries provide a natural space
for developing lifelong learning skills. Computational thinking is defined by Braun &
Visser (2017) as the abilities to “ask and answer questions using procedural thinking,”
“define, model, and solve complex and ill-defined problems,” and “create personal
meaning by processing information and creating connections to transform data into
understanding” (p. 8). These abilities directly align with the makerspace characteristic of
having an emphasis on process and with the inquiry learning expectation for students to
generate their own questions and answers.
However, librarians tend to lack confidence in their ability to incorporate CT in
their lessons in the same way they may not feel confident in their implementation of a
makerspace. Taylor, et al. wondered how CT could be incorporated into the curriculum
for future librarians, how doing so might change the course objectives, and how state
standards and accreditation requirements impact their ability to include CT in library
science coursework. After a directed content analysis of artifacts collected from six
professors teaching library science courses in five different states, the researchers found
that collaboration among professors helped them to identify ways to incorporate CT, that
18
CT fit with existing library science areas of focus, and that it can indeed be incorporated
into library science coursework, albeit sometimes through a creative interpretation of the
required standards. For example, one course titled “Electronic Resources for Youth”
focused on coding and programming while another course titled “STEM and Youth
Learning in the Library” focused more on state and national STEM standards. Both of
these topics connect to computational thinking, but with slightly different contexts and
perspectives (p. 16-17).
These studies show that makerspaces include multidisciplinary approaches,
flexible environments, and an emphasis on process. While makerspaces vary in their
specific goals, these areas of commonality may positively influence the use of inquiry
and collaboration among students. However, ambiguity in the process poses a risk to the
benefits of a makerspace. Thus, it is critical to provide students with a framework and
mindset for inquiry learning, similar to those shown to be successful when teaching
computational thinking.
Summary
A review of the literature provides an impetus to collect more information
showing the value of makerspaces in supporting student learning, specifically as related
to student inquiry, makerspace implementation, and design thinking.
Student inquiry appears to be a critical tool that must be taught for engaging
students and promoting understanding of content. An emphasis on process can be seen
throughout the research. Taylor, Moore, Visser, and Drouillard (2018) emphasized
19
specifically that student inquiry and design thinking in a makerspace can promote
computational thinking, a key skill for STEAM, due to its emphasis on process.
When students learn to ask and answer their own questions through the cultivation
of a specific design thinking model or structure, particularly one that emphasizes a
culture of iteration, the benefits of a makerspace are amplified (Garrison, FitzGerald, &
Sheerman, 2018; Shekleton, 2015; Van Gompel, 2019). However, ambiguity in the
thinking process being taught poses a risk to these benefits (Beaumont and Martin, 2019);
thus, it is critical to support student use of an inquiry or design thinking model through
direct instruction with ongoing facilitation (Berrier and Stenstrom, 2016)
Makerspaces can provide the environment for student inquiry and design thinking
as they tend to include flexible multidisciplinary learning with an emphasis on the
process of making (Sheridan, et al., 2014; Chon and Sim, 2019). When students are given
opportunities to complete student-centered lessons with necessary support from the
teacher, retention and enjoyment increased (Olsen and Rule, 2017).
This study serves to expand the research on makerspace implementation to help
fill the gap for teacher librarians concerning the benefits of makerspaces, whether they
truly promote inquiry and design thinking, and how they might support district or
building initiatives in an elementary school setting.
20
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
The need for creative thinkers who can problem-solve continues to grow. Students
need to know how to identify problems, generate creative solutions, and communicate
those ideas to others effectively. Acquiring these process skills in elementary school
better prepares students for the various environments they will later experience in
post-elementary school academics and in career settings. Makerspaces provide a safe
environment in which students can practice their inquiry, design thinking, and literacy
skills. The purpose of this mixed methods case study is to describe how makerspace
projects can support the achievement of AASL standards through the use of design
thinking and inquiry learning.
Research Design
This mixed methods study examined student work in grades 4 and 5 after students
had participated in various makerspace projects: a novel engineering project, a
station-based STEAM experience, and an interactive art project. The interactive art
project specifically focused on the use of the engineering design thinking framework
labeled ask, imagine, plan, create, and improve referenced by Novak (2019) and
developed by the Engineering is Elementary program as a simplified approach better
suited for young learners. A proposed alignment of the information search process (ISP)
with the stages of guided inquiry design (GID) and traditional stages of design thinking
with simplified terms for elementary students is shown in Table 1, with the first three
columns taken from Garrison, Fitzgerald, and Sheerman (2018, p. 4). This alignment
21
indicates the extent to which these various design thinking models all promote the same
elements of process.
Table 1
Design Thinking Process Stages
What students are doing
Stages of
ISP
Stages of
GID
Traditional
stages of
design
thinking
Design
process
terms used in
study
Initiating the project
Initiation
Open
Empathize
Ask
Selecting a topic
Selection
Immerse
Define
Imagine
Exploring information
Exploration
Explore
Formulating a focus
Formulation
Identify
Ideate
Plan
Collecting information on
focus and seeking meaning
Collection
Gather
Preparing to present
Presentation
Create and
Share
Prototype
Create
Assessing the process
Assessment
Evaluate
Test
Improve
An emphasis on process can be found in the AASL standards, as well as in the
2010 Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts for Literacy in Reading
Literature (CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL) and the 2013 Next Generation Science Standards
(NGSS). This common promotion of teaching process over product was included in the
design of the rubric used to analyze student work as shown in Appendix A.
A mixed methods case study design with qualitative elements is appropriate for
studying the influence of the makerspace participation on the achievement of AASL,
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL, and NGSS standards and on the support of school goals because
22
it meets the criteria set forth by Wildemuth (2017) when considering a case study: the
phenomenon is being studied in its natural environment with a focus on contemporary
events and actions that can be directly observed while maintaining an emphasis on “how”
and “why” these relationships are developed (p. 52).
Participants
The students in this study attended elementary school in one of three different
districts housed in mid-sized Midwestern cities where the researchers were employed as
teacher librarians at the time. For the purpose of comparison, the 40 participating students
were assigned to subgroups labeled art, literacy, or STEAM based on the makerspace
project in which they participated.
The art group had nine fifth-grade and five fourth-grade students for a group total
of 14 participants in the art group. In the literacy group, there were 12 participants who
were all in fourth grade. The STEAM group consisted of three students in grade five and
eleven students in grade four. These 14 students provided 21 data samples. All together,
there were 12 students in grade five and 28 students in grade four who served as
participants for the research. These students were selected for inclusion in the study based
on their completion of a makerspace project in their respective elementary school during
library media time prior to the closing of schools in spring 2020 due to the COVID 19
pandemic.
Students in the art project K-5 elementary school had not really used the
makerspace or engaged in design thinking since the beginning of the 2019-20 school
year. In past years, at least some students from each grade level participated in various
23
teacher-directed activities using the makerspace. In first grade, students created a marble
run from recycled materials. In second grade, they built a cardboard arcade and made
circuit cards (greeting cards with LED light bulbs). Third-grade students created simple
machines to create a chain reaction (aka Rube Goldberg structures). In fourth grade
students created circuits with Little Bits, Makey Makey, or Snap Circuits. Fifth-grade
students were then given the opportunity to choose an activity using TinkerCAD,
engineering, cardboard construction, animation, movie production, gaming, or public
service announcements.
These projects were completed in the library makerspace under the direction of
the teacher librarian at the time who was not the researcher. Some projects were
completed in collaboration with classroom teachers while others were small group
activities that did not ensure whole classes participation. No records are available
regarding individual student participation in these various experiences. In addition, there
is not a systemic, building-wide plan or expectation in place for how and when students
will use the available makerspace resources.
In the early part of 2020, students from the art group participated in a
teacher-directed interactive art activity that referenced the engineering design process. In
this collaborative project, students were given direct instruction by the art teacher and the
technology teacher librarian during art and media class respectively. Students then chose
their own specific subject matter to use in creating their project which was an interactive
artwork where they used graphite pencils, Scratch coding, and Makey Makey circuit
24
boards to create a piece of art that would make sound when touched. Some direct
instruction about the design process was included in the project implementation.
For the literacy group, students in fourth grade were engaged in a novel
engineering project in the fall of 2019 as a collaboration between the classroom teachers
and the teacher librarian. Students read the book The Tiger Rising
in which one of the
characters utilizes the metaphor of putting their feelings into a suitcase. After reading and
discussing the novel in their classrooms, students went to the makerspace to create their
own suitcases and share their feelings as a group. This provided a social and emotional
learning experience in addition to a making experience related to the literature, thus
providing a specific literacy connection with the process of making.
The STEAM group engaged in a series of eight makerspace stations over the
course of a semester in 2019 where the students chose three stations to complete and then
shared a short reflection about each station as an exit slip for the class period. The
stations offered a variety of different making opportunities such as using an Osmo,
building with LEGO, using Sphero to program an Ollie, creating a marble run, designing
with Perler beads, and coding with an Edison robot. Participation in these activities
emphasized a growth mindset.
All of the data collected were a normal part of the activities in students’ library
media classes. Because students do not receive a grade in media center, there is no
obligation for them to complete any of the activities beyond the expectation that they
participate in media center class. To this effect and to fulfill the guidance of the
University of Northern Iowa Institutional Research Board (IRB), the researchers used
25
parental notification to describe that the project was a part of normal classroom activities.
The Letter of Parent Notification that met the criteria specified by the IRB is in Appendix
B.
Procedures
Data for this research study was collected by each teacher librarian in their own
building. Teacher librarians wrote descriptions of their lesson implementation, collected
and categorized student artifacts, then shared those artifacts for evaluation by the other
two researchers using a standards-aligned rubric. A questionnaire was used to collect
reflective feedback from the collaborating teachers from each project group as shared in
Appendix C.
Students in the art group had daily access to Chromebooks and regularly used
G-suite resources to interact with online resources. Students in the STEAM group also
used Google docs to record their exit ticket reflections. Digital technology was not a part
of the literacy group project so computer use was not relevant to the project. Students in
the art and literacy groups have media class every four days whereas the STEAM
students are on a six day cycle.
Data Sources
Data for this mixed methods case study was gathered through artifacts from
students, lesson descriptions and reflections from the teacher librarians, and responses to
a questionnaire from collaborating teachers.
Student artifact data included images of student work with observation notes from
each researcher (see Appendix D) about the students’ use of design thinking and
26
engagement in process strategies. Artifacts were collected from students who had
completed makerspace projects earlier in the year. Since not all students in the population
completed these projects, the sample represented those submissions that would have a
tendency to score higher in regular scoring or grading.
The researchers assessed completed student projects using a rubric focused on the
design process, critical thinking, the use of constraints and criteria, and literacy as related
to problem solving (see Appendix A). This rubric featured descriptions adapted from
Montgomery and Madden (2019) who emphasized the integration of the engineering
design process with literacy development. All of the language was adjusted to fit a
third-person point of view. In addition, the critical thinking descriptors were adjusted to
remove the element of argumentation since this was not addressed in any of the
makerspace projects. The constraints wording was also adjusted for individual student
work rather than group processes. Other categories from the original Madden and
Montgomery (2019) rubric were not used because they focused on areas such as group
collaboration that could not be evaluated with the available data.
Lesson descriptions and reflections were provided by each researcher who served
as a participant observer for their group. Finally, a short questionnaire was sent to the
collaborating teachers (classroom or other non-library teachers) whose students had
participated in the projects. The questionnaire can be found in Appendix C.
Data Analysis
Data was analyzed by each researcher individually with weekly group meetings to
discuss the process and results. Each project had a slightly different focus (design
27
thinking, growth mindset, novel engineering) but they all related to the AASL standards
as well as the NGSS and CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL standards. The specific standards from
each organization that were focused on for this study can be found in Appendix E. Their
varying implementations provided a more well-rounded sampling of student artifacts.
The qualitative analysis of content followed the procedures defined in Wildemuth
(2017) in the review of three data sets: teacher librarian lesson descriptions, student
artifacts and rubric scores from three makerspace projects, and collaborating teacher
questionnaire responses.
Step 1: Prepare the Data
To prepare the lesson description data, the teacher librarians wrote out their lesson
plans, including a short reflection for the lesson implementation, and shared these
descriptions, along with instructional materials used in the lesson, with the other
researchers.
Responses gathered from the collaborating teachers were prepared by compiling
them into a single document organized by question. This allowed the researchers to more
easily observe patterns in the data from the three different sources.
Preparation of the student artifacts began with a standard template (Appendix D)
for the teacher librarians to use in describing the student work and noting student
comments related to inquiry and collaboration. The template was created based on
themes that existed in the rubric as related to the engineering design process with an
emphasis on problem solving. Those themes were design process, critical
thinking/creativity, and constraints/criteria. Information was also included at the
28
beginning of the template documents regarding the basic expectations for the project so
that the researchers could reference that without having to always refer back to the full
lesson plan descriptions from the teacher librarians. Structuring the data using this
template helped to provide the teacher librarians with a uniform set of questions to
answer and to later develop a coding scheme for analyzing the data. Images of student
work from their makerspace projects with direct quotes from students as transcribed by
the researchers were included when available as shown in Figure 1.
Step 2: Define the Unit of Analysis
In defining the unit of analysis for the three data sources, the researchers looked
to their questions, which focused on the use of the design process, the promotion of
AASL standards, and the support of local school initiatives, also referred to as district or
building goals. While the researchers began their analysis with these themes in mind,
they were also cognizant of recognizing patterns which grew out of the data.
Step 3: Develop Categories and Coding Scheme
In this way the categories for analysis grew both inductively and deductively from
the data. According to Wildemuth (2017, p. 321), “inductive analysis is particularly
appropriate for studies that intend to develop theory, rather than those that intend to
describe a particular phenomenon.” The researchers in this study did not develop a
coding manual as is recommended when multiple coders are involved; however, they did
meet weekly to discuss questions about the coding and scoring processes once the
analysis was underway.
29
Figure 1
Reflection/observation for art student 2
Step 4: Test the Coding Scheme
The next step in the process as described by Wildemuth (2017) was to test the
coding scheme on a sample of text. In this case, the teacher librarian lesson descriptions
and collaborating teacher questionnaire responses were fairly straightforward so most of
30
the next few steps in the content analysis process were focused on the scoring of the
student artifacts.
To apply the rubric to a sampling of student artifacts, the teacher librarians first
each scored the artifacts from their own group. While the researchers did not set forth a
specific coding structure, they did rely on the themes identified in the rubric when
looking for patterns in the data.
During this testing of the coding scheme, or rubric scoring in this case, the
researchers found that not every artifact included a specific student description. The
researchers made an adjustment to the rubric based on the lack of direct student
descriptions for their samples. When scoring, the researchers focused on the images
provided of the artifacts when direct student quotes were unavailable or on the
description from the teacher librarian if images were unavailable as shown in Figure 2.
Whether to include the more literacy-specific characteristics from the rubric was
another point of discussion for the researchers since two of the projects did not
specifically connect to literature or reading. In the end, the researchers decided to include
some literacy skills to better illustrate the connection between makerspace projects and
reading as well as to make possible better comparisons among projects that did or did not
specifically align to literacy standards. As such, the rubric was expanded to include more
literacy skills based on the CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL standards with process descriptions
aligned from the NGSS standards.
31
Figure 2
Reflection/observation for art student 11
Step 5: Apply the Coding Scheme
Once a finalized version of the rubric and student artifacts was agreed upon, the
researchers continued to score the remaining student data from the other two researchers.
32
Scores of 3 (high), 2 (mid), or 1 (low) were assigned independently from one another and
the researchers compared scores only after all scoring was completed.
While scoring, pictures and descriptions were used together when possible to give the
most well-rounded representation of the student project, with emphasis given to textual
descriptions in most categories with one exception. The art group teacher librarian noted
that when scoring the Literacy 3 category, they relied more on the image for the art
students, the image and the literacy description together for the literacy students, and
more on the student quotes for the STEAM students.
Step 6: Assess Coding Consistency
Coding consistency seemed evident for the researchers when looking at the
deductive categories of design process, critical thinking/creativity, and
constraints/criteria, but there was greater variation in the inductive categories developed
by each researcher due to the perspectives from which each teacher librarian was
approaching the data. For example, the literacy group teacher librarian found patterns
emerging from the data focused more on literacy while the STEAM group teacher
librarian tended to recognize more growth mindset and engineering-related themes.
The greatest amount of discussion for coding consistency took place for the
student artifacts and rubric scores. When the individual scoring was completed, scores
were combined into a joint spreadsheet for comparison of inter-rater reliability, and the
researchers analyzed the variance or similarity of their scores by highlighting instances
with more than a one point difference for the same item. Researchers discussed these
discrepancies to determine any error in understanding the student work sample and to
33
question whether the criterion was applied consistently. If consistency was found, then
the varied scores were kept.
Most often a discrepancy derived from a lower score assigned by the researcher
who taught the students and felt the students did not meet the expected criteria, whereas
another researcher relying solely on the artifact evidence granted a higher score. Also,as
noted by Wildemuth (2017), “human coders are subject to fatigue and are likely to make
more mistakes as the coding proceeds.” (p. 322) so it is possible that coding fatigue may
have influenced some of the discrepancies. The researchers found only a few instances,
though, where scoring seemed inconsistent so they made adjustments to those scores
during a joint review session to better reflect their verbally agreed upon perspective.
Step 7: Draw Conclusions from the Coded Data
As the researchers completed their analysis of the three data sets, they continued
to meet weekly to discuss their findings and share the various themes that they were
finding in the data or to confer about possible connections in the patterns found.
Step 8: Report Your Findings
Finally, each researcher wrote a thesis to share their version of the study
progression and the patterns, themes, and categories found in the analysis process. This
was a most interesting part of the research process, as despite sharing the same data, each
researcher drew their own independent conclusions with reference to their unique context
and interests as described in step 6 of the content analysis process.
34
Limitations
This study was limited by the use of existing student project data as school
closures due to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) prevented the collection of new data
as was originally intended for this study. Likewise, the sampling of student projects for
inclusion in the study was limited to those items available to the researchers at the time of
the school closures.
The art data available could also be categorized as higher scoring work than
would have been collected if the full sample had been available since it was limited to
those students who had not only completed their projects but were also in attendance at a
specific “learning celebration” and had their project photographed during that event.
The literacy data provides a good representation of the range of student work that
was completed, but the 12 samples that are used in this study were selected because they
were photographed and because the researcher could remember the most about these
specific projects.
It is also important to note that this researcher holds a positive bias for the use of
design thinking based instruction.
35
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
This descriptive case study used a mixed methods analysis method to review three
makerspace projects for their promotion of student inquiry and design thinking to support
AASL standards and local school initiatives.
Data for this study was collected from three datasets labeled as art, literacy, and
STEAM. There were 14 students in the art group, 12 students in the literacy group , and
the STEAM group consisted of 14 students who provided 21 data samples. Data about all
three sets was collected through participant observation and reflection, collaborating
teacher questionnaires, and evaluation of student artifacts.
Participant Observation and Reflection
Each of the teacher librarians, who were also the researchers for this study, wrote
a description and reflection of the lesson or unit utilized in their makerspace for the
projects included in the study. It was helpful for the research partners to be able to better
understand how the lesson was structured and what the original goals were since the
student artifacts were collected from previously available data, not from specially
designed projects intended for research. Three themes emerged from this descriptive data:
support for district initiatives, student reflection on their learning, and collaboration with
classroom or other teachers.
Support for District Initiatives
The first commonality noted in the descriptions is that these projects were
designed to meet or support the needs of content area instruction, not specifically to
36
promote “Makerspace” or “library” skills. For example, the literacy project amplified
classroom learning that was designed from a mentor text as part of the Lucy Calkins
Reading Units of Study literacy program in the district. The art project included some
computer science related coding curriculum, but the main focus was on the creation of an
interactive piece of art through design thinking to promote visual art standards and a
district equity goal. The STEAM project emerged from a district Makerspace focus as a
follow on from a partnership with a regional science museum with an emphasis on
developing a growth mindset in learners.
Student Reflections on Their Learning
The reflective data from the teacher librarians emphasized the importance of
including time for students to reflect on their own learning as part of their projects. The
STEAM teacher librarian “started having students fill out exit slips at the end of each
class period, telling me...something they learned and something they wanted to learn
more about.” This provided valuable feedback for the station effectiveness, but also gave
the teacher librarian a better awareness of the level of student understanding related to the
concepts being reinforced. As the teacher librarian stated, “this reflection time helps them
[the students] take their learning to a deeper level and can contribute to students
developing a growth mindset.”
As the literacy teacher librarian said, “this activity helped to make this abstract
idea from the text more concrete,” a feeling that was echoed in the art project where the
teacher librarian found that when students had to create notecards explaining their work,
the stage at which the students were in the creative process became much more evident.
37
The art project was also cut short due to school scheduling changes which prevented
students from completing the reflections they were originally supposed to have written,
and not having that data meant not knowing the extent to which student understanding
was achieved.
Collaboration with Classroom or Other Teachers
Every teacher librarian noted their collaborative role, including their
responsibility for initiating the collaboration. They reached out to the classroom or other
content area teachers and found ways to support the learning being done in the other
classrooms. Without the teacher librarians, these makerspace projects would likely not
have happened, and students would have had fewer opportunities to practice content area
skills. Students would have missed a chance to, as noted by one of the collaborating
teachers, “make personal connections to the characters in the book and deepen their
understanding of the themes, life lessons, and detailed explanations within the text.” As
discussed earlier, these collaborations served to provide even more support for local
school district initiatives that ranged from a STEAM focus to literacy to equity, whether
the makerspace project lasted for two class meetings or eight.
Collaborating Teacher Questionnaires
There were four themes identified by the researcher from the collaborating
teacher data: student engagement, personal curiosity and inquiry for individual growth,
diverse reading, and the importance of collaboration. Collaborating teachers are
referenced in this section by the group with which they worked (art, literacy, STEAM)
rather than their actual titles.
38
Student Engagement
Student engagement was noted by all three teachers as high. The art teacher rated
student engagement as “over 50%” and the literacy teacher noted, “Throughout this
whole process, students were actively engaged in the makerspace project.” The STEAM
teacher specifically recalled the “excited comments students make” prior to library media
class and the art teacher included that, “students showed pride and excitement to
demonstrate their projects.”
Personal Curiosity and Inquiry for Individual Growth
Teachers also noticed students showing personal curiosity as part of the
makerspace project experiences. The art teacher said, “Students connected their personal
interests shown through the subject matter/theme and sounds they chose.” The STEAM
teacher added, “Students were able to choose topics of interest during non-fiction units of
study that were often fueled by a connection to how things ‘go together’.” The literacy
teacher mentioned that students “showed curiosity about how the book related to them”
which helped the students reach a deeper level of understanding of the text. As an
extension of this personal curiosity, the literacy teacher also shared that “Students were
persistent in creating a suitcase that was unique to them…” and that “facilitation lead to
self direction and creative inquiry.”
Diverse Reading
Makerspace project participation also appeared to influence reading selection as
the STEAM teacher discussed how “Maker Space activities encourage more reading both
in fiction and non-fiction” and the art teacher shared that students were “likely
39
encouraged to search online for and read more about interactive art and artists who use
technology in their artwork.”
Importance of Collaboration
Probably the most notable theme, though, was that of the importance of the
collaboration between the teacher librarian and the collaborating teachers. Even though
no question was asked specific to collaboration, every one of the collaborating teachers
commented on it. The art teacher said, “The parallel teaching helped students reinforce
the learning since they were receiving twice a week (Media and Art).” The literacy
teacher stated, “I was so happy to have had the opportunity to collaborate/co-teach with
you. I was so impressed by your ideas, and how you could facilitate not only hands-on
activities, but meaningful content that connected to work we were doing in our reading
content area.” The STEAM teacher emphasized that these collaborations might not have
happened without the impetus of the teacher librarian, stating how the teacher librarian,
“shared ideas with the classroom teachers which helped us make the connections on our
digital libraries as well.”
Evaluation of Student Artifacts
An evaluation of the 47 student projects from 40 students was conducted by the
three co-researchers for this study using a rubric designed to gauge whether, through their
participation in the makerspace projects, students were meeting the AASL standards as
shown in Appendix E. Multiple coders assigned ratings to student work according to six
categories: use of a design process, demonstration of critical thinking, adherence to
constraints and criteria, problem identification, problem solving, and process sharing.
40
These ratings, or scores, were then analyzed for the level of reliability among the
researcher scores, how well the student met the standards through the six categories, and
evidence of relationships between the criteria areas.
Inter-rater Reliability
The level of inter-rater reliability was 62% overall and a combination of means
showed score agreement for art at 8.75 out of 14, literacy at 8.30 out of 12, and STEAM
at 11.67 out of 21 projects. As was noted in Chapter 3, the raters tended to find that they
were more critical of the student work provided by their own group. Furthermore, the use
of a three- point scale did not allow for a great level of differentiation in scoring and there
was no training for the co-researchers in using the rubric prior to implementation. Thus,
there seemed to be overall a high level of agreement in the scoring outcomes.
Standards Assessed in the Rubric
The six categories for the rubric scoring were selected for their connection to the
AASL (2018) standards specifically relating to inquiry and engineering. These six
categories were chosen for their representation of selected standards from AASL, CCSS
ELA, and NGSS. The researchers suggest that meeting the rubric criteria thus is
equivalent to having met the standard(s) associated with that rubric criteria as further
explained in the following paragraphs.
The rubric can be further broken down into two main sections - the first section
has an emphasis on using a design thinking approach while the second section delves into
the problem solving process and connection to literacy as evidenced through reading
41
widely and deeply in multiple formats. The specific standards represented in each rubric
category are explained next and are listed in Appendix E.
Design Thinking
In the design thinking section, the first category is the design process which aligns
with AASL Explore standard A.3 in encouraging learners to engage in inquiry-based
processes for personal growth. The second category addresses two AASL Explore
standards to emphasize critical thinking: V.B.1 “Problem solving through cycles of
design, implementation, and reflection,” and V.C.1 “Expressing curiosity about a topic of
personal interest or curricular relevance.” Category three focused on AASL standard
V.D.1 to show if students are “iteratively responding to challenges” as they go through
the design process, specifically in relation to meeting the makerspace project criteria
while staying within the project constraints.
Problem Solving
The problem solving section of the rubric was commonly referred to by the
researchers as the “literacy” section due to its overt connection to AASL standard V.A.1
encouraging students to read “widely and deeply in multiple formats” while also “writing
and creating for a variety of purposes” (p. 104). In addition, the three categories in this
section show alignment with both the English language arts (CCSS ELA) and science
(NGSS) standards. These connections among the multiple standard groups reinforce the
idea that when makerspace projects meet the AASL standards, they also support other
content area standards, or local school district initiatives originating from the standards.
42
The first category in the problem solving section, category four, emphasized the
identification of the problem or conflict. For CCSS ELA RL.5.2, this meant the student
was able to identify conflict in a novel while for NGSS 3-PS2-4 it meant that students
were able to identify both the problem and an appropriate solution. Category five
followed the next step in problem solving - making a plan. For CCSS ELA RL.4.3 that
looked like students who can adopt a character’s situation and explain logical steps for
them to take while for NGSS 5-ESS3-1 it looked like students who could assess a
situation and logically solve the problem. Finally, the sixth and last category looked to
students’ abilities to explain and describe their work. For CCSS ELA RL.4.2 that meant
students could summarize the text including key details. For NGSS 3-LS3-2 and 3-LS4-2,
it meant students were able to describe their overall design process upon completion of
their project work. All of the standards represented in the rubric are listed in full in
Appendix E.
Student Artifacts
In general, the student artifacts demonstrated that a majority of students met each
of the standards for the six areas evaluated using the rubric. For the purpose of this study,
a standard was considered to be “met” if at least two of the three raters scored the artifact
at a level 3. Table 2 shows the results for the number of students who met the standard in
each category. See Appendix A for standards alignment for each rubric category.
The most frequently meeting standards were AASL V.A.1, ELA RL.4.3, and
NGSS 3-PS2-4 with 85% of students demonstrating their ability to define problems and
determine possible solutions. That percentage dropped slightly to 71% when it came to
43
synthesizing the necessary information to actually solve the problem. Within the project
groups, literacy students had the strongest showing with 92% meeting the standard, then
STEAM students at 86% and art students at 79%.
Students had a solid showing for exhibiting personal curiosity and inquiry for
personal growth as related to the AASL standard V.D.3 with an overall rate of 68% for
adhering to the project constraints and criteria. In the project area groups, STEAM
students ranked the highest with 93% meeting the standard, followed by literacy with
75%. Most of the art students did not meet this standard, with only 36% showing
proficiency.
Table 2
Number of Students Who Met the Standard
Art
Literacy
STEAM
ALL
Design Thinking Section
Design Process
4 (29%)
10 (83%)
9 (64%)
23 (59%)
Critical Thinking
7 (50%)
8 (67%)
10 (71%)
25 (63%)
Constraints and Criteria
5 (36%)
9 (75%)
13 (93%)
27 (68%)
Problem Solving Section
Literacy 1: Identifying Problem
11 (79%)
11 (92%)
12 (86%)
34 (85%)
Literacy 2: Problem Solving
6 (43%)
10 (83%)
12 (86%)
28 (71%)
Literacy 3: Summarizing / Sharing
4 (29%)
3 (25%)
2 (14%)
9 (23%)
44
The standards least met by students in the makerspace projects were CCSS ELA
RL.4.2, NGSS 3-LS3-2, and NGSS 3-LS4-2 for summarizing and/or sharing their
process. Only 23% of students met the standard overall, as shown in the project groups
with 29% of art students, 25% of literacy students, and 14% of STEAM students.
Evidence of relationships
Disaggregating the artifact scores as shown in Figure 3 further showed that
students in the STEAM based project really excelled in identifying the conflict or
problem, but struggled with summarizing and sharing their process. Art project students
seemed to follow more of a bell curve in their scores with a majority of students scoring
in the mid-level range for all six categories. Literacy project students performed very well
in both identifying the conflict or problem and engaging in the problem solving process,
but like the STEAM students had lower scores in the summarizing and sharing category.
In disaggregating the standards, students were categorized as high, medium, or low in
terms of the level to which they were able to meet the standard as demonstrated through
their makerspace project in this study. High scoring students had all level 3 scores.
Medium scoring students received at least one 3 but also one or more scores of 2. Low
scoring students received no 3 scores - only scores of 2 and 1. Most students received at
least one score of 2 with very few students receiving scores of only 1 from all three
evaluators. The fact that the student artifacts skew slightly higher is likely connected to
the sampling limitations.
45
Figure 3
Levels of standards met in each rubric category
A good example of a student who received the highest possible score in both
sections is Art Student 11 as shown in Figure 2. This student was able to stay within the
project constraints while going beyond the criteria to satisfy their own personal curiosity.
When the student wanted to do more than the teacher librarian was able to assist with
them doing, they did their own research and used, “different but effective codes and was
working on connecting them into an if/then statement which is more advanced than
anything we had worked on in class” as stated in the teacher librarian reflections.
Another student with perfect scores in the design thinking section was STEAM
Student 8, who also chose not to follow the directions to the letter but, “to create a design
of his own” according to the teacher librarian, who went on to share that this student
“also showed his creation process stages, so that the learning outcomes were evident.”
46
Literacy Student 8 had perfect scores in the design thinking categories and their work
echoed the art student’s persistence and determination. According to the teacher librarian,
“this student had a plan from the beginning” and worked with the available materials to
make their plan happen.
Literacy Student 10 had the highest score from that group in the problem solving
section, particularly in the summarizing and sharing category. The student stated in video
footage from the project, “Like The Tiger Rising
, we are writing down our feelings and
we are putting it in our box,” which shows the depth of critical thinking the student
reached in addition to their ability to explain what they did. STEAM Student 13 was
likewise able to summarize their process in stating, “I practiced subtraction when giving
the people change after they gave me extra money for the pizza.” This student had the
highest problem solving score for the STEAM group and the teacher librarian stated that
for this student there is also, “evidence that the student was using her critical thinking
skills in order to infer what toppings the customer preferred and to be able to make proper
change.”
On the opposite end of the spectrum, Art Student 2 scored the lowest in both the
design thinking and problem solving sections. This student followed directions well but
did not show any creativity in their design and incorrectly applied the coding aspect of
the project as can be seen in Figure 1. When faced with difficulty, the student persisted in
their original plan, but unlike the students who scored high due to their determination to
make their plan work, Art Student 2 was unable to find a solution to the challenge. So
47
while the student was able to complete the project, there was not evidence of advanced
critical thinking or problem solving skills in their work.
In a related scenario, Literacy Student 5 started with a design in mind and
“worked hard on each step until they felt that their project was complete.” However, the
student forgot part of the directions and had to implement a last minute fix to complete
the project. Another student with low design thinking scores, STEAM Student 5-2,
similarly followed the directions step by step but was unable to demonstrate his problem
solving skills. However, this student had two project submissions and scored slightly
higher in the completion of a separate makerspace project that better allowed for the
student to explain their process.
Students who scored low in the problem solving section included STEAM student
11 who despite being “quite resourceful in trying to problem solve” was unable to explain
her process, saying only that “I tried to solve the rubik’s cube, used string for string
tricks, and used the puzzibits,” and Literacy Student 4 who “struggled to connect with the
main character in The Tiger Rising and couldn’t think of anything to write down to put
inside their suitcase.” Later this student was able to get some ideas from classmates to
complete the project.
These student examples illustrated the complexity of thinking required of students
in three fairly standard makerspace projects. In each of the examples, students were asked
to be creative, to generate and follow a plan of action, and to be persistent in achieving
the goals of the project. In the more successful projects, based on the artifact rubric
scores, students used their creativity to seek out workable solutions, and either developed
48
plans that they were able to follow through to fruition or relied on their determination to
make the plan work in order to effect a positive outcome. Less successful students
showed a lack of creativity in that they were either unable to develop their own unique
plan or persisted in a plan that was not going to work and they were not able to make
effective adaptations.
49
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this mixed methods case study was to find out how makerspace
use might influence an inquiry-based focus in student learning through the use of design
thinking. The researchers were interested in how makerspaces support the National
School Library Standards and local school district goals which are often used to
determine student achievement and success. Finally, this study investigated literacy,
critical thinking, and inquiry-based processes that would encourage having a makerspace
in an elementary school library.
Data was collected from 40 students through 47 student artifacts with descriptions
and reflection from the teacher librarian participant observers and 3 questionnaires from
the collaborating classroom teachers. Student artifact data showed that a majority of
students (mean=61%) who participated in the makerspace projects met standards from
AASL, CCSS ELA, and NGSS that were addressed in the study. The teacher librarian
descriptions and reflections indicated that makerspaces provided support for district
initiatives as well as the need for more student reflection time. According to the
collaborating teachers, students showed personal curiosity, engaged in inquiry for
individual growth, and were likely to engage in more diverse reading due to their
makerspace projects.
Conclusions
This study afforded the researchers an opportunity to review existing makerspace
projects for the promotion of inquiry and design thinking within the context of existing
50
makerspace units and to analyze student work. This resulted in three conclusions. First,
students who engage in inquiry processes tend to have increased motivation and student
growth (Garrison, 2018; Shekleton, 2015). Students in this study reflected these higher
levels of engagement and inquiry in their collaborating teacher observations and artifact
rubric scores. This information suggests that students should be provided with more
opportunities to engage in inquiry and that makerspaces provide an environment that is
conducive to this kind of student-centered inquiry learning.
Second, Chon and Sim (2019) and Van Gompel (2019) found that having a
framework to support design thinking resulted in greater student success. This was
echoed in the findings of the current study through the student artifacts and teacher
librarian reflections. Students scored very well on the design process category, but did
not do as well in the sharing process. It was noted that the reflection and sharing part of
the project implementation was often missing or cut short due to a lack of time. Thus,
makerspace project designers would be remiss if they did not incorporate more reflection
time into their projects.
And third, makerspaces are clearly not just a fun new trend for school libraries.
They provide students with time to practice inquiry through design thinking processes,
and in doing so, they provide support for meeting not only school library standards, but
also a number of content area standards in English language arts and science. Schools
should consider how the inclusion of makerspaces that include specific instruction for
design thinking, that offer time for student-centered inquiry, that include reflection as part
of the makerspace project, and that encourage collaboration between teacher librarians
51
and other teachers would help to ensure that all students could meet their expected
standards.
Meeting these standards helps to promote district initiatives such as improving
student literacy and making schools more equitable learning environments by providing
all students with access to the time and resources to practice those skills that will help
them to be successful in meeting district goals like improving literacy and critical
thinking skills.
Research Question One - Inquiry and Design Thinking
Research question one asked how makerspaces might promote AASL standards
through inquiry and design thinking. Themes pertaining to this question that became
evident through the data analysis were student engagement and personal curiosity,
student reflection on their learning, and student planning and persistence. Student
engagement and personal curiosity are key to inquiry and the makerspace projects in this
study promoted both. According to the collaborating teachers, students showed personal
curiosity and engaged in inquiry for individual growth. This connection between personal
curiosity and content area goals has been promoted in the research as the “third space”
which supports student creativity (Kuhlthau, et al., 2015, p. 10; Shekleton, et al., 2015,
p.12).
The student artifact data showed that most students who participated in the
makerspace projects met the standards from AASL, CCSS, and NGSS addressed in the
study. Students who had more than one project completed were also more likely to have
met more of the standards providing an argument for the inclusion of multiple
52
makerspace projects, either over time or through a station approach. This willingness to
engage in product iteration (Van Gompel, 2019) helped students to be more successful in
meeting the standard.
Observations from the teacher librarian researchers also provide a rationale for
including more time for students to reflect on their learning. A lack of this provision in
the makerspace projects for this study resulted in much lower scores for students in the
area of summarizing or explaining their process work.
Finally, the data indicated that students were more likely to meet the standards
when they engaged in planning and were persistent in bringing their vision to completion,
a process termed academic tenacity by Carello (2017). Collaborating teachers pointed out
that students were highly motivated to participate in makerspace projects. This
motivation could also be responsible for the likelihood of students to do more research
and reading of diverse texts, which leads to the second research question.
Research Question Two - Literacy and Critical Thinking
Research question two asked to what extent participation in a makerspace might
support district and building goals related to literacy and critical thinking. Themes related
to this question included diverse reading by students, collaboration by teachers, and
creativity. The teacher librarian descriptions and reflections indicated that makerspaces
did indeed provide support for district initiatives, including promoting literacy skills
through the reading of diverse texts for a variety of purposes, as noted in the National
School Library Standards (AASL, 2018). This may have been made possible by the
53
students’ overwhelming ability to identify the problem they wanted or needed to address
which was shown by Beaumont et al. (2017) to be a critical factor.
The importance and benefits of collaboration were noted by both the teacher
librarians and the collaborating teachers. The collaborating teachers also spoke to a high
level of student engagement with the makerspace projects. Finally, they noted that
students were likely to engage in more diverse reading due to their makerspace projects.
Creativity was not a topic of direct interest at the outset of the study; however, the
ability of students to be critical thinkers could often be connected to their ability to
consider information outside of that which was provided by the instructors.
Recommendations
This study was based on existing student data selected for its availability after
COVID-19 forced the early closure of schools and prevented the collection of original
data as intended for study. A replication of the study using the original plan to provide
students with a choice inquiry-based makerspace project would provide even more data
to support the level to which makerspaces might be valuable components of elementary
school libraries. Using a rubric specifically designed for each of the student projects to be
assessed would also provide better validity in knowing that meeting the rubric
expectations directly aligns with the specific school library or content area standard as
related to local school district initiatives. The researchers also recognized the extent to
which promoting literacy and promoting problem solving appeared to be interwoven
through the AASL, CCSS, and NGSS standards. This relationship would be worthy of
additional study.
54
In addition, the study indicates that having more dedicated and intentional
collaboration with classroom teachers could have an increased impact on the achievement
of content areas standards and district initiatives. While collaboration was not a focus for
the study, the data collected showed the impactfulness of having these additional learning
opportunities for both students and teachers. Likewise, creativity and persistence were
themes that arose from the data for which having more research regarding the impact of
makerspaces on those traits in students could be very beneficial.
Finally, further research could help to better define the impact of students
working together in groups, as was the initial intent of this study, compared with students
working individually, which was the case for most of the makerspace projects featured in
this research. If collaboration showed that much benefit for the adults, it would be helpful
to know how much more impactful the makerspace environment could be with student
collaboration included as part of the design.
55
REFERENCES
American Association of School Librarians. (2016, September 7). Instructional role of
the school librarian.
http://www.ala.org/aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/content/aaslissues/positionstatemen
ts/AASL_Position_Statement_Instructional_Role_SL_2016-06-25.pdf
Aiyeblehin, J. A., Onyam, I. D., & Akpom, C. C. (2018). Creating makerspaces in
Nigerian public libraries as a strategy for attaining national integration and
development. International Journal of Knowledge Content Development &
Technology
, 8
(4), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.5865/IJKCT.2018.8.4.019
Beaumont, C., & Martin, K. (2019). The effect of thinking routines on 4th and 5th-grade
students’ sense of agency.
[Unpublished master’s thesis]. St. Catherine
University. https://sophia.stkate.edu/maed/319
Blakemore, M. (2018). Problem scoping design thinking & close reading makerspaces in
the school library. Knowledge Quest
, 46
(4), 66-69.
Braun, L., & Visser, M. (2017). Ready to code: Connecting youth to CS opportunity
through libraries.
American Library Association Office for Information
Technology Policy.
http://www.ala.org/advocacy/sites/ala.org.advocacy/files/content/pp/Ready_To_C
ode_Report_FINAL.pdf
Carello, A. (2017). The impact of school library design on the development of multiple
literacy skills in early childhood students
(Publication No. 10265345) [Doctoral
dissertation, University of Pennsylvania]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.
https://search-proquest-com.proxy.lib.uni.edu/docview/1911980251?accountid=1
4691
Chon, H., & Sim, J. (2019). From design thinking to design knowing: An educational
perspective. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 18
(2), 187-200.
Fontichiaro, K. (2019). What I’ve learned from 7 years of the maker movement in
schools and libraries. Teacher Librarian, 46
(4), 51-53, 63.
Garrison, K. L., FitzGerald, L., & Sheerman, A. (2018). “Just let me go at it”: Exploring
students’ use and perceptions of guided inquiry. School Library Research
, 21
,
1-37.
Hira, A., & Hynes, M. M. (2018). People, means, and activities: A conceptual framework
for realizing the educational potential of makerspaces. Education Research
International
, 2018
, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6923617
56
International Society for Technology in Education. (n.d.) ISTE Standards for Students.
ISTE.org (n.d.). Retrieved November 16, 2019, from
https://www.iste.org/standards/for-students
Koh, K., Abbas, J., & Willett, R. (2019). Makerspaces in libraries: Social roles and
community engagement. In V. Lee & A. Phillips (Eds.), Reconceptualizing
libraries: Perspectives from the information and learning sciences
(Chapter 2)
[eBook Edition]. Routledge.
https://www.routledge.com/Reconceptualizing-Libraries-Perspectives-from-the-In
formation-and-Learning/Lee-Phillips/p/book/9781315143422
Kuhlthau, C.C., Heinstrom, J. & Todd, R.J. (2008). The 'information search process'
revisited: Is the model still useful? Information Research
, 13
(4) paper 355.
http://InformationR.net/ir/13-4/paper355.html
Kuhlthau, C.C., Maniotes, L.K., & Caspari, A. K. (2012). Guided inquiry design: A
framework for inquiry in your school.
Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.
Lateef, E. B., & Adeyi, O. E. (2019). Information literacy and lifelong learning: The role
of school librarians
. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Ibadan, Oyo
State, Nigeria.
Lock, J., Santos, L. da R. dos, Hollohan, P., & Becker, S. (2018). It’s more than just
making: Insights into facilitating learning through making. Alberta Science
Education Journal, 45
(2),10–16.http://hdl.handle.net/1880/107761
McKinnon, F. R. (2019). The effects of STEM education on elementary student
achievement [ProQuest Information & Learning]. In Dissertation Abstracts
International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences (Vol. 80, Issue 6–A(E)).
Montgomery, S. & Madden, L. (2019) Novel engineering: Integrating literacy and
engineering design in a fifth grade classroom. Science Activities, 56
(1), 27-32.
Olsen, B.D. & Rule, A.C. (2017). Sixth graders investigate models and designs through
teacher-directed and student-centered inquiry lessons: effects on performance and
attitudes. Journal of STEM, Arts, Crafts, and Constructions, 2
(1), 95-114.
Phillips, A. L., & Lee, V. R. (2019). Whose responsibility is it? A statewide survey of
school librarians on responsibilities and resources for teaching digital citizenship.
School Library Research, 22
. http://www.ala.org/aasl/slr/volume22/phillips-lee
Remarks by the President at the National Academy of Sciences Annual Meeting
. (2009,
April 27). WhiteHouse.gov.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-national
-academy-sciences-annual-meeting
57
Shekleton, D. (2015). Student achievement in the area of inquiry learning with the
implementation of 1:1 iPads. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of
Northern Iowa. https://scholarworks.uni.edu/grp/108/
Sheridan, K., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T.
(2014). Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces.
Harvard Educational Review
, 84
(4), 505–531.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.brr34733723j648u
Stornaiuolo, A., Nichols, T. P., & Vasudevan, V. (2018). Building spaces for literacy in
school: Mapping the emergence of a literacy makerspace. English Teaching:
Practice & Critique
, 17
(4), 357–370.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-03-2018-0033
Taylor, N.G., Moore, A., Visser, M. & Drouillard, C. (2018). Incorporating
computational thinking into library graduate course goals and objectives. School
Library Research, 21
.
Van Gompel, K. (2019). Cultivating 21st century skills: An exploratory case study of
design thinking as a pedagogical strategy for elementary classrooms
[Doctoral
dissertation, Pepperdine University].
http://search.proquest.com/pqdt/docview/2275957805/abstract/816F1694C439408
6PQ/3
Vongkulluksn, V. W., Matewos, A. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Marsh, J. A. (2018).
Motivational factors in makerspaces: a mixed methods study of elementary school
students' situational interest, self-efficacy, and achievement emotions.
International Journal of STEM Education, 5
(1), 43.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0129-0
Vossoughi, S., Hooper, P., Escuede, M. (2016). Making through the lens of culture and
power: Toward transformative visions for educational equity. Harvard
Educational Review, 86
(2), 206-232.
Walan, S. (2019). The dream performance – a case study of young girls’ development of
interest in STEM and 21st century skills, when activities in a makerspace were
combined with drama. Research in Science & Technological Education
, 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2019.1647157
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design
(2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wildemuth, B. M. (Ed.). (2017). Applications of social research methods to questions in
information and library science
(2nd ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries
Unlimited.
59
APPENDIX A
STUDENT ARTIFACT RUBRIC
Adapted from Montgomery and Madden (2019) and modified to include alignment with
AASL (2018), CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL (2010), and NGSS (2013) standards.
3
2
1
NA
Design
Process
AASL
V.A.3
The engineering design
process was used to guide
each step. Each step was
completed before moving
on to the next. This
included planning and
designing the product,
and adapting as
challenges were
encountered. The product
was tested and revised as
needed until successful.
An explanation was
provided as to why the
product may be different
from the original plan.
The engineering
design process was
used to guide each
step. Each step was
completed before
moving on to the
next. This included
planning and
designing the
product, and
adapting as
challenges were
encountered.
The engineering
design process
was not
followed.
No
Evidence
Availabl
e
Critical
Thinking
AASL
V.B.1
AASL
V.C.1
The student asked
relevant and thoughtful
questions to develop ideas
and applied them in many
ways. The student
constructed ideas by
consolidating
perspectives.
The student asked
relevant and
thoughtful
questions. The
student constructed
a single idea.
The student did
not ask relevant
and thoughtful
questions. The
student
essentially
recreated a
model/ followed
directions.
No
Evidence
Availabl
e
Constraints
and
Criteria
AASL
V.D.3
The student worked
within the constraints and
criteria and they
considered and adjusted
for the constraints and
criteria of the resources
available at school.
The student worked
within the
constraints and
criteria OR the
student considered
and adjusted for the
constraints and
criteria of the
resources available
at school.
The student did
not work within
the constraints
and criteria or
the constraints
and criteria of
the resources
available at
school.
No
Evidence
Availabl
e
60
Literacy 1
AASL
V.A.1
ELA RL.5.2
NGSS,
3-PS2-4
The student correctly
identified several
conflicts in my novel. The
student evaluated the
different conflicts and
thought about which one
my character would
benefit most from
solving. Student correctly
identified the problem
and was able to determine
an appropriate solution.
The student
correctly identified
several conflicts in
my novel. Student
correctly identified
the problem.
The student
could not
identify the
conflicts in my
novel. The
student was not
able to correctly
identify the
problem.
No
Evidence
Availabl
e
Literacy 2
AASL
V.A.1
ELA RL.4.3
NGSS
5-ESS3-1
The student explained
characteristics, mood, and
features of the setting and
characters. The student
thought from the
character’s point of view
and what would be a
logical step for him or her
within the time and place
of the book. The student
also thought about how
the setting affects the
character’s actions and
decisions. Student was
able to appropriately and
logically solve the
problem.
The student
explained
characteristics,
mood, and features
of the setting and
characters. Student
was able to identify
an appropriate and
logical solution.
The student
could not
explain
characteristics,
mood, and
features of the
setting and
characters.
Student could
not solve the
problem.
No
evidence
available
.
Literacy 3
AASL
V.A.1
ELA RL.4.2
NGSS
3-LS3-2,
3-LS4-2
The student accurately
summarized the text by
stating the main points
and a few key supporting
details that connect to the
theme and plot of the
story. The student
mentioned the main
characters, setting, and
conflict and solutions.
Student appropriately
described their design
process including
problem and solution.
The student
accurately
summarized the text
by stating the main
points and a few
key supporting
details that connect
to the theme and
plot of the story.
Student briefly
described their
design process but
did not include all
elements.
The student
retold the story
instead of
summarizing or
the student did
not state the
main points or
key details.
Student did not
describe their
design process
or solution.
No
Evidence
Availabl
e
61
APPENDIX B
PARENTAL NOTIFICATION LETTER
My name is Kris Baldwin. I am the Technology Teacher Librarian for _______
Elementary in the ____ Community School District. I am in the process of finishing my
master’s degree in School Library Studies at the University of Northern Iowa. One of my
degree requirements is to conduct a research study.
My goal in this research study is to determine to what extent participation in a
makerspace project impacts students’ use of a design thinking process. As a part of this
study, I will observe students involved in a genius hour project, where they develop a
proposal for a makerspace project and complete that project during media center time.
As the students work through this process they will complete a design thinking project
plan which will be used to guide their designs. Next, the students will work in the
makerspace to create a product. When the project is completed, students will present their
products to each other, and discuss if their creations were successful or needed more
work.
Using the students’ project plan, their rubric of self assessment, and my observations of
their work, I will conclude the unit with a focus group conversation for students to reflect
and comment on their experience. The focus group will be recorded and later transcribed.
These activities are a normal part of class and involve all students, however, providing
me with permission to use the data from my notes, observations, and assessment of
projects is voluntary. Risks are minimal, and there will be no compensation for students’
time.
My research will be submitted to the Department of Curriculum and Instruction as part of
the requirements for the degree of MA in School Library Studies. Results and findings
will be shared with other school librarians and may be published in a journal or presented
at conferences. If you have questions about this study, or if you would prefer that I not
include data from my notes and assessments of your child please contact me at
62
APPENDIX C
COLLABORATING TEACHER QUESTIONS
1. What observations can you share regarding student engagement throughout the
makerspace project? (AASL, 2018. Explore. V.A.3)
2. In what ways, if any, were students showing curiosity about a topic of personal
interest or using inquiry for personal growth as a result of participating in the
makerspace project? (AASL, 2018. Explore. V.A.3)
3. In what ways do you think students might have been encouraged to read widely
and deeply in multiple formats through their participation in the makerspace
project? (AASL, 2018. Explore. V.A.1)
63
APPENDIX D
TEMPLATE FOR OBSERVATIONS - REFLECTIONS ON STUDENT WORK
Completed by the teacher librarian for each student project in their designated group.
Reflection/Observation for:
What I observed and remember about this student’s process and product as related to
Design Process:
Was there evidence of the student utilizing the design process?
Did they complete each step before moving on to the next step?
(planning and designing, adapting as encountered challenges)
Was the product tested and revised to achieve success? Did the
student share information regarding the evolution of the product?
Critical Thinking/
Creativity:
In what ways did the student construct arguments by considering
multiple perspectives?
Did they ask relevant and thoughtful questions to develop ideas
and apply them in multiple ways?
Was it possible to see the student evaluate and combine ideas to
support decisions?
Constraints/
Criteria:
How well did the student work within the constraints and follow
the criteria for the project?
Did you notice any adjustments the student made due to the
available resources?
A final row for Literacy was added by the literacy teacher librarian after the rubric was
updated to include all six categories, but was not used by the art and STEAM teacher
librarians.
64
APPENDIX E
AASL, CCSS, AND NGSS STANDARDS ADDRESSED IN STUDY
Rubric alignments are noted in parentheses at the end of each standard.
National School Library Standards, Explore, AASL, 2018
Learners develop and satisfy personal curiosity by:
V.A.1 - Reading widely and deeply in multiple formats and writing and creating
for a variety of purposes. (Literacy 1, 2, and 3)
V.A.3 - Engaging in inquiry-based processes for personal growth. (Design
process)
Learners construct new knowledge by:
V.B.1 - Problem solving through cycles of design, implementation, and reflection.
(Critical thinking)
Learners engage with the learning community by:
V.C.1 - Expressing curiosity about a topic of personal interest or curricular
relevance. (Critical thinking)
Learners develop through experience and reflection by:
V.D.1 - Iteratively responding to challenges. (Constraints and Criteria)
English Language Arts for Literacy in Reading Literature, CCSS, 2010
4.2 - Determine a theme of a story, drama, or poem from details in the text; summarize
the text. (Literacy 3)
4.3- Describe in depth a character, setting, or event in a story or drama, drawing on
specific details in the text (e.g., a character’s thoughts, words, or actions). (Literacy 2)
5.2 - Determine a theme of a story, drama, or poem from details in the text, including
how characters in a story or drama respond to challenges or how the speaker in a poem
reflects upon a topic; summarize the text. (Literacy 1)
2013 Next Generation Science Standards, Appendix F - Science and Engineering
Practices in the NGSS
Developed by
National Research Council (NRC), the National Science Teachers
Association (NSTA), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Practice # 1 - Asking Questions and Defining Problems
Asking questions and defining problems in grades 3-5 builds on grades K-2 experiences
and progresses to specifying qualitative relationships.
65
3-PS2-4 Define a simple design problem that can be solved through the
development of a new or improved object or tool. (Literacy 1)
Practice # 6 - Constructing Explanations and Designing Solutions
Constructing explanations and designing solutions in 3-5 builds on K-2 experiences and
progresses to the use of evidence in constructing explanations that specify variables that
describe and predict phenomena and in designing multiple solutions to design problems.
3-LS3-2 and 3-LS4-2 Use evidence (e.g., observations, patterns) to support an
explanation. (Literacy 3)
Practice #8 - Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information
Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information in 3–5 builds on K–2 experiences
and progresses to evaluating the merit and accuracy of ideas and methods.
5-ESS3-1 Obtain and combine information from books and/or other reliable
media to explain phenomena or solutions to a design problem. (Literacy 2)
