This article presents findings from an ethnographic evaluation of an informal STEM education program that was informed by the maker movement and intended to foster the inclusion of students that have been marginalised historically from STEM fields, particularly individuals from low-income families and communities of colour. The purpose is to describe students’ roles and the conditions that supported them in promoting inclusion in the 12-session program that occurred from the years 2021–2024 at four sites and included five cohorts of mostly children from ages 11–13. Based on a qualitative, thematic analysis of field notes from participant-observation, informal interviews with program participants and staff, photos, and videos, three student roles emerged, including reinforcer, demonstrator, and witness. Additionally, three structural conditions of open participation, iteration, and parallel engagement were found to facilitate these roles. This project builds on the emerging, specialised body of literature on making and tinkering in informal education by recognising how students play a part in creating inclusive makerspaces and by identifying the conditions that make their contributions possible.
AhmedS (2012) On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Durham: Duke University Press.
2.
AndrewsMEBoklageA (2023) Supporting inclusivity in STEM makerspaces through critical theory: a systematic review. Journal of Engineering Education113(4): 787–817. DOI: 10.1002/jee.20546.
BartonACTanE (2018) STEM-Rich Maker Learning: Designing for Equity with Youth of Color. New York: Teachers College Press.
5.
BartonACTanEGreenbergD (2017) The makerspace movement: sites of possibilities for equitable opportunities to engage underrepresented youth in STEM. Teachers College Record119(6): 1–44.
BirtLScottSCaversD, et al. (2016) Member checking: a tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation?Qualitative Health Research26(13): 1802–1811.
8.
BoudreauJAnisH (2022) Understanding feelings of inclusion in making and engineering. In: Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA), Toronto, Ontario, 18–22 June, 2022, pp. 1–14.
9.
BrewerJ (2000) Ethnography. United Kingdom: McGraw-Hill Companies, Incorporated.
10.
Calabrese BartonATanE (2019) Designing for rightful presence in STEM: the role of making present practices. The Journal of the Learning Sciences28(4-5): 616–658.
CharmazK (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
13.
CreswellJW (2013) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Los Angeles: Sage Publications, Inc.
14.
DawsonEBistaRColborneA, et al. (2024) Inclusion for STEM, the institution, or minoritized youth? Exploring how educators navigate the discourses that shape social justice in informal science learning practices. Science Education108: 792–819.
FeinsteinNWMeshoulamD (2014) Science for what public? Addressing equity in American science museums and science centers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching51(3): 368–394.
17.
FeredayJMuir-CochraneE (2006) Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods5(1): 80–92.
18.
FreireP (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc.
19.
HabigBGuptaPLevineB, et al. (2020) An informal science education program’s impact on STEM major and STEM career outcomes. Research in Science Education50(3): 1051–1074.
20.
HalversonERSheridanK (2014) The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review84(4): 495–504.
21.
KingNSPringleRM (2019) Black girls speak STEM: counterstories of informal and formal learning experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching56(5): 539–569.
22.
MaiorcaCRobertsTJacksonC, et al. (2021) Informal learning environments and impact on interest in STEM careers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education19: 45–64.
23.
MartinezSLStagerG (2013) Invent to Learn: Making, Tinkering, and Engineering in the Classroom. Torrance: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.
24.
PepplerKABenderS (2013) Maker movement spreads innovation one project at a time. Phi Delta Kappan95(3): 22–27.
25.
RileyDMMcNairLDMastersS (2017) An ethnography of maker and hacker spaces achieving diverse participation. In: 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Columbus, Ohio, 24–28 June, 2017.
26.
RyooJJBulalacaoNKekelisL, et al. (2015, September) Tinkering with “failure”: equity, learning, and the iterative design process. In: FabLearn 2015 Conference at Stanford University. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.
27.
StakeR (1975) Evaluating the Arts in Education: A Responsive Approach. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.
28.
TanEBartonACSchenkelK (2018) Methods and strategies: equity and the maker movement. Science and Children55(7): 76–81.
29.
Torres RiveraC (2019) Coding qualitative data. In: GattaATyner-MullingsARCoughlanR (eds). Ethnography Made Easy. New York, NY: Open Educational Resource.
30.
VossoughiSBevanB (2014) Making and tinkering: a review of the literature. National Research Council Committee on Out of School Time STEM67: 1–55.
31.
VossoughiSEscudéMKongF, et al. (2013, October) Tinkering, learning & equity in the after-school setting. In: Annual FabLearn Conference. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.
32.
VossoughiSHooperPKEscudéM (2016) Making through the lens of culture and power: toward transformative visions for educational equity. Harvard Educational Review86(2): 206–232.
33.
WohlwendKEPepplerKAKeuneA, et al. (2017) Making sense and nonsense: comparing mediated discourse and agential realist approaches to materiality in a preschool makerspace. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy17(3): 444–462.
34.
YiFBaumannM (2018) Guiding principles for designing an accessible, inclusive, and diverse library makerspace. In: International Symposium on Academic Makerspaces, Stanford, CA, 3–5 August, 2018.
