Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

If you build it, will they come? Student preferences for Makerspace environments in higher education

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Maker Movement inspires people to express their creativity by making things in a self-directed and, often, collaborative learning endeavor. The excitement of the movement has spurred the development of various types of Makerspaces across the United States and the World to further enable people to make and innovate. The education community has recognized the potential for Makerspaces as learning environments that can foster interdisciplinary collaboration and self-directed learning. As such, there is much excitement to create Makerspaces within K-12 schools, libraries, colleges and universities. However, contrary to the formal design process used to build many school facilities, successful grass-roots makerspaces are most often created when those with like-minded interests come together and adapt the building around them to fit their needs. The research in this paper focuses on the design of such spaces by applying the environmental preferences predictors psychology construct. The study surveyed 276 students from art and design, engineering, and liberal arts majors to better understand their preferences as related to images of eight different Makerspaces. The results are broken down by the four predictors of preference, major, and gender. The results highlight differences among the images along with design considerations for creating spaces that welcome a broader audience.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baichtal, J. (2014). Maker pro: Essays on making a living as a maker. San Francisco, CA: Maker Media Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baltimore Fab Lab. (2016). Retrieved November 5, 2016, from http://technical.ly/baltimore/2013/05/03/baltimore-fab-lab-ccbc/.

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barcelona Fab Lab. (2016a). Retrieved November 8, 2016, from http://www.fablabbcn.org/2014/11/fab10-documentary-premiere/.

  • Barcelona Fab Lab. (2016b). Retrieved November 10, 2016, from http://www.dyvikdesign.com/site/research/fablab/arriving-at-fablab-barcelona.html.

  • Barrett, T., Pizzico, M., Levy, B. D., Nagel, R. L., Linsey, J. S., Talley, K. G., Forest, C. R., & Newstetter, W. C. (2015). A review of university maker spaces. In Proceedings of annual conference of American Society of Engineering Education. Seattle, WA.

  • Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (2008). Preference construction and preference stability: Putting the pillow to rest. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18(3), 170–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, C. B., Cennamo, K., Douglas, S., Vernon, M., McGrath, M., & Reimer, Y. (2013). A theoretical framework for the studio as a learning environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 329–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chachra, D. (2015). Why I am not a maker. Retrieved November 15, 2016, from http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/why-i-am-not-a-maker/384767/.

  • Crowther, P. (2013). Understanding the signature pedagogy of the design studio and the opportunities for its technological enhancement. Journal of Learning Design, 6(3), 18–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, L. L. (1992). Placemaking by design: Fitting a large new building into a historic district. Environment and Behavior, 24(3), 326–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doorley, S., & Witthoft, S. (2012). Make space: How to set the stage for creative collaboration. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, D. (2013). The maker mindset. In M. Honey & D. E Kanter (Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 7–11). New York, NY: Routledge.

  • Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espey, M. (2008). Does space matter? Classroom design and team-based learning. Review of Agricultural Economics, 30(4), 764–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fab Foundation. (2016a). Retrieved November 9, 2016, from www.fabfoundation.org/index.php/about-fab-foundation/index.html.

  • Fab Foundation. (2016b). Retrieved November 9, 2016, from www.fabfoundation.org/index.php/ideal-lab-layout/index.html.

  • Feldman, J. M., & Lynch, J. G. (1988). Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3), 421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodsell, C. T. (2003). The concept of public space and its democratic manifestations. The American Review of Public Administration, 33(4), 361–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadim, H. A. & Esche, S. K. (2002). Enhancing the engineering curriculum through project-based learning. In Frontiers in education, 2002. FIE 2002. 32nd Annual. IEEE.

  • Hatch, M. (2013). The maker movement manifesto: rules for innovation in the new world of crafters, hackers, and tinkerers. New York: McGraw Hill Professional.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzog, T. R., Gray, L. E., Dunville, A. M., Hicks, A. M., & Gilson, E. A. (2011). Preference and tranquility for houses of worship. Environment and Behavior, 45(4), 504–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herzog, T. R., Gray, L. E., Dunville, A. M., Hicks, A. M., & Gilson, E. A. (2013). Preference and tranquility for houses of worship. Environment and Behavior, 45(4), 504–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herzog, T. R., & Shier, R. L. (2000). Complexity, age, and building preference. Environment and Behavior, 32(4), 557–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hlubinka, M., Dougherty, D., Thomas, P., Chang, S., Hoefer, S., Alexander, I., et al. (2013). Makerspace playbook: School edition. San Francisco, CA: Maker Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt Library Makerspace. (2016). Retrieved November 8, 2016, from http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/spaces/Makerspace.

  • Ikemi, M. (2005). The effects of mystery on preference for residential facades. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(2), 167–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolution perspective. Environment and Behavior, 19(1), 3–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kent, R. L. (1989). The role of mystery in preferences for shopping malls. Landscape Journal, 8(1), 28–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, D. W., Carlson, L. E., & Sullivan, J. (2007). Improving engineering student retention through hands-on, team based, first-year design projects. In Proceedings of the international conference on research in engineering education. Honolulu, HI.

  • Maker Space. (2016). Retrieved November 3, 2016, from http://Makerspace.engr.utexas.edu.

  • Makerspace UNC Chapel Hill Libraries. (2016). Retrieved November 8, 2016, from http://library.unc.edu/Makerspace/.

  • Marra, R. M., Palmer, B., & Litzinger, T. A. (2000). The effects of a first-year engineering design course on student intellectual development as measured by the perry scheme. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(1), 39–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez, S., & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom. Torrance: Constructing modern knowledge press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCoy, J. M., & Evans, G. W. (2002). The potential role of the physical environment in fostering creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 14(3–4), 409–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milwaukee Makerspace. (2016). Retrieved November 8, 2016, from https://www.flickr.com/photos/raster/6777645024.

  • Morewood Makerspace—Housing Services (n.d.). Retrieved November 8, 2016, from https://www.cmu.edu/housing/residence-types/residence-halls/morewood-Makerspace.html.

  • MSI Fab Lab. (2016). Retrieved November 8, 2016, from http://blog.wolfjeschonnek.de/?p=10.

  • National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2013). Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2013. Retrieved November 15, 2016, from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/2013/pdf/nsf13304_digest.pdf.

  • NC State Architectural Studio. (2016). Retrieved November 8, 2016, from http://architecturegrads.blogspot.com/2012_10_01_archive.html.

  • Noisebridge Hackerspace. (2016). Retrieved November 8, 2016, from https://makerly.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/noisebridge-tinker-tailor-solder-hack/.

  • Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., Schkade, D. A., Schwarz, N., & Gregory, R. (1999). Measuring constructed preferences: Towards a building code. In B. Fischhoff & C. F. Manski (Eds.), Elicitation of preferences (pp. 243–275). Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Peppler, K., & Bender, S. (2013). Maker movement spreads innovation one project at a time. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(3), 22–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Playmaker School. (2016). Retrieved November 5, 2016, from http://www.playmaker.org/our-world/playmaker-space/.

  • Rands, M. L., & Gansemer-Topf, A. M. (2017). The room itself is active: How classroom design impacts student engagement. Journal of Learning Spaces, 6(1), 26–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, S. C. (1993a). Complexity and mystery as predictors of interior preferences. Journal of Interior Design, 19(1), 25–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, S. C. (1993b). Visual attributes related to preference in interior environments. Journal of Interior Design, 18(1–2), 7–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Self, J. A., & Baek, J. S. (2016). Interdisciplinarity in design education: Understanding the undergraduate student experience. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. doi:10.1007/s10798-016-9355-2.

  • Simonson, I. (2008). Regarding inherent preferences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18(3), 191–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1995). The construction of preference. American Psychologist, 50(5), 364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Startup Labs—The Polytechnic School. (2016). Retrieved November 11, 2016, from https://poly.engineering.asu.edu/research/startuplabs.

  • Van der Jagt, A. P., Craig, T., Anable, J., Brewer, M. J., & Pearson, D. G. (2014). Unearthing the picturesque: The validity of the preference matrix as a measure of landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 124, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zavotka, S. L. (1995). Characteristics that influence individuals’ preferences for levels of complexity in interior design furnishings. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 23(4), 393–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zube, E. H., Simcox, D. E., & Law, C. S. (1987). Perceptual landscape simulations: History and prospect. Landscape Journal, 6(1), 62–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Morgan M. Hynes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hynes, M.M., Hynes, W.J. If you build it, will they come? Student preferences for Makerspace environments in higher education. Int J Technol Des Educ 28, 867–883 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9412-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9412-5

Keywords

Navigation