Understanding the Sociocultural Role of Makerspace Infrastructure When Developing Community-based Technology-rich Learning Programs

Paper Title

Understanding the Sociocultural Role of Makerspace Infrastructure When Developing Community-based Technology-rich Learning Programs

Publication Info

• Topic area: Equity-based technology-rich learning in community recreation centers.
• Keywords: Makerspaces, equity-based learning, community programs, sociotechnical infrastructure, participatory design, STEM education, urban recreation centers, digital technologies, informal learning, youth engagement.

Background and Problem

• Problem / challenge: Makerspaces and maker-based learning programs often fail to address equity and inclusivity, particularly for low-resourced and underserved communities. There is a lack of understanding of the infrastructure needed to develop and sustain equity-based, tech-rich learning programs in community recreation centers.
• Significance: Addressing these challenges can increase and diversify participation in STEM education, leveraging community recreation centers as accessible and localized spaces for youth engagement.
• Motivation and related work: Prior research highlights the potential of maker-based learning for STEM education but also reveals its exclusionary practices. Recreation centers, with their deep community ties, are promising sites for localized STEM learning, but their unique infrastructural challenges remain underexplored.

Solution

• Proposed approach: A three-year participatory design research (PDR) study to develop and implement equity-based tech-rich learning programs in community recreation centers in two US cities.
• Novelty:
  1. Development of an infrastructure map capturing the sociotechnical ecosystem of organizations and relationships surrounding rec centers.
  2. Analysis of how digital technologies function as sociocultural factors within these ecosystems.
  3. Iterative design and implementation of localized, equity-based maker programs tailored to community needs.
  4. Insights into administrative and educator strategies for navigating complex sociotechnical systems.
• Procedure and key techniques:
  • Conducted participatory design sessions, interviews, focus groups, and observations with 35 administrators and educators and 131 youth.
  • Iteratively developed and implemented a tech-rich curriculum across six program iterations in two cities.
  • Created a Lending Library model for equipment sharing and training in one city and leveraged university students as educators in the other.

Results

• Concrete findings:
  • The program expanded from 4 to 11 sites, serving 803 youth over six iterations.
  • Developed an infrastructure map highlighting urban context, city government, and recreation center-level considerations.
  • Identified sociocultural roles of technologies like 3D printers, drones, and sewable circuits in engaging youth.
• Advantage over baselines:
  • Equity-based approaches led to higher youth engagement and localized curriculum adaptation compared to vendor-led programs.
  • Programs tailored to community interests (e.g., sewable circuits) were more effective than generic STEM kits.
• Experiments / evaluation:
  • Data collected through 58 interviews, 8 focus groups, 7 participatory design sessions, and 83 observations.
  • Metrics included youth attendance, engagement, and feedback, as well as educator and administrator reflections.
• Limitations and future work:
  • Limited generalizability to other cities or contexts; further studies needed in diverse settings.
  • Need for long-term evaluation of youth learning outcomes and program sustainability.
  • Exploration of connections between rec centers and schools for better alignment of STEM learning.

Summary

This study investigated the infrastructure required to develop equity-based, tech-rich learning programs in community recreation centers. By conducting a three-year participatory design study in two US cities, the authors created an infrastructure map that captures the sociotechnical ecosystem of these programs. The findings highlight the importance of localized curriculum, community engagement, and sociocultural considerations in makerspace technology choices. The study provides actionable insights for designing sustainable and inclusive STEM learning programs in community spaces, with implications for broader HCI and educational initiatives.