Discussion on Research questions This file contains text that might be useful for the final report. The material addressed would fit into Section 4 of the extended outline (discussion/summary) 1

This study investigates how universities in the network are leveraging their making spaces to facilitate an entrepreneurial mindset and encouraging the three C’s: curiosity, connections, and creating value. It seeks evidence for a linkage between the maker movement and entrepreneurial minded learning, and looks for opportunities to build tools to enhance that linkage. Research questions from the proposal are addressed in this section, and answers consider the interactions between making spaces, the entrepreneurial mindset, and the academic curriculum.

Questions From Proposal: What do students gain through making experiences? What do students accomplish in making spaces? Are there specific themes/use cases?

Making spaces support hands-on projects required for class assignments and allows for the incorporation of more making/EML activities in the curriculum.

Many diverse activities occur in university making spaces, but most are used by students to complete hands-on projects required by their curriculum. The value of hands-on projects in fostering student motivation

and engagement is well documented in the literature [xx, xx2].

One benefit of makerspaces is that by their very existence they reduce barriers to the use of student projects in classes. Even before the development of 3-D printing and the maker movement, hands-on projects completed in machine shops have always been part of the curriculum, but because of safety concerns and the potential of equipment damage students must undergo significant training before using the equipment. For a faculty member considering a hands-on project, requiring all students in a large class to get machine shop certification may not be a feasible option on many campuses. On the

1 From the 6/28/2019 Outline: “Discussion/Summary on Research questions -Recap Research questions from the proposal; if evidence shows it describe the extent of the maker movement, the fact that the KEEN philosophy is already making an impact, and that the KEEN philosophy can lead to even greater payoff on university makerspace investments. “2Insert general references about the value of hands on projects here. If the literature review is a separate section, you can briefly summarize the highlights here… or have the literature review include a subsections that link to these themes.)

document.docx

other hand basic 3D printers are readily accessible, while laser cutters work quickly- both of which can make a curriculum project even feasible for a large class.

A small experiment was conducted at Florida Tech that illustrates how makerspaces can facilitate hands on projects in classes that may previously been considered inhospitable to making. A small EML-themed team project encouraging makerspace usage3 was introduced in the one-credit “Introduction to Aerospace Engineering” class, and a follow-on survey was given to seek student perspectives on the assignment and hands-on projects in general. Survey results confirmed that students consider hands on learning important to engineering education and respond favorably to even small open-ended team projects that include an element of making. This project was first incorporated in 2018, and will be repeated in 2019.4

As noted in the surveys and site visits of partner schools, participation in the KEEN network has led to significant improvements in the quality and quantity of EML content in class assignments completed in the maker spaces.5 …...[ edit so this statement is supportable, then insert support here].

Exlemplar examples we learned about from our site visits could fit here, possibly with little vignettes like the one in the KEEN Annual Brochure as shown at right. The people we spotlight would have an active role in helping us write/edit the text. We would have one spotlight from each school we choose to partner with.

We may also add a spotlight on a school we visited and were impressed by, but did not get selected- something of a payoff/good will gesture for hosting us.

3 See KEEN card: “Teams Teaching Statics; Statics Photo Safari: Small Steps Towards EML” https://engineeringunleashed.com/cards/cardview.aspx?CardGuid=31ae7ce0-62d7-43d3-a83b-b97d4f3670fe I will file a separate card for the Teams teaching Aerospace version of the exercise.

4 IRB was filed in 2018, so those survey results from last year are usable; Maker element /connection was not as strong in 2018 as it will be in 2019. 5 After reviewing available evidence, edit this sentence so it can be supported, then follow with details. Possibly use the growth of KEEN cards as one metric for the assertion. Also anecdotal evidence from the visits?

document.docx

Questions from Proposal: What direct vs. indirect learning occurs in making spaces? Is there latent value gained from using maker spaces (compared to not using it)?

Making spaces can provide a creative environment for students of different backgrounds to develop connections through unstructured activities. These spaces support co-curricular learningMakerspaces can play an important role in university ecosystem as an engine for making connections between diverse groups. Those who study good ideas note that creativity flourishes in environments that encourage mixing of diverse fields.6 In his book, Where good ideas come from: a natural history of innovation, Steven Johnson noted that creativity is helped by collisions “when different fields of expertise converge in some physical or intellectual space”7, and provides the example of such as in the eighteenth century English coffeehouses of the Enlightenment8. If done properly, makerspaces can provide a creative environment that fosters connections in the university setting.

This mission to foster connections means that the best makerspaces are more than a room with machines for fabrication- ideally at least part of the space should have an open floor plan with spaces for meeting and collaboration. The spaces should be visually interesting and be set up in a way that students of all types feel comfortable hanging out, doing homework, and meeting with others. As noted by Bucknell in their workshop, “A successful makerspace need not be large or have a lot of equipment”… but it must consider the psychology of the students using the space.

Seeing making spaces as a welcoming space for students to make connections not only supports KEEN’s EML goals, but it also addresses traditional university concerns associated with recruitment, retention and persistence in engineering.

[Note: One spotlight might include university of Denver reallocating space in their new engineering building originally planned for faculty offices to be the innovation floor- a large open. The EM-focused dean came from Stanford and understood the importance of these shared spaces because of his experience with the Stanford D school.]

6 The term “third place” was coined to describe a connective environment distinct from the home or the office/classroom; it was attributed to the sociologist Ray Oldenberg in the book by Steven Johnson, Where Good Ideas come from: a natural history of innovation.(page 162). There are plenty of other ways to convey the thought here.7 Page 163.8

document.docx

Figure 1page 27 of Bucknell workship slides

Questions from Proposal: Are there opportunities for making to enhance students 3Cs? Are those opportunities realized? Could those 3Cs opportunities in making experiences be reframed to promote EM?

Describe specific opportunities to use makerspaces as an entrepreneurial engine and make the specific linkage between EML and the spaces. Describe the Denver EM clubs, the business opportunities, etc.

See bucknell workshop slides starting on page 35 for their views on several relevant topics shown here:

document.docx