Principles For The Equitable Design Of Digitally-Distributed, Studio-Based Stem Learning Environments

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) learning environments are at the heart of the NSF’s Dear Colleague Letter, which the above is an excerpt from, and the proposal for this workshop was a response to. Studio-based learning environments are a major component in STEM learning, such as machine shops and laboratories. School, library, and academic makerspaces comprise a growing segment of studio-based learning environments. Makerspaces tend to be more accessible and inclusive, and represent a broader diversity of users than the more traditional studio-based learning environments tucked away inside disciplinary silos like machine shops, painting studios, biology laboratories, and such. 

To our great surprise, the University of Arizona’s proposal mentions our IMLS grant-funded Maker Competencies and the Undergraduate Curriculum work by name. We are humbled (and gratified!) that our program has gained recognition by UA researchers and that they invited us to share our experiences at this once-in-a-lifetime synthesis & design workshop. 

Three of our grant team attended the three-day workshop: Tara Radniecki (University of Nevada, Reno), and Morgan Chiversand I (both at University of Texas at Arlington). In total, over 60 people from universities, libraries, museums, public schools, community non-profits and research centers came together to brainstorm and write funding recommendations to the National Science Foundation surrounding these five main strands:

1. Design: what combination of factors help to foster inclusivity and encourage engagement among all individuals? How do these spaces invite multiple perspectives and full participation?
2. The learning experience: How can learning be documented, what data can be collected to examine learning interactions, and how can data analysis enhance the design of SBL learning spaces and interactions? How can documenting learning be linked to outcomes and impact for all learners?
3. Integrating/innovating/implementing the use of new technologies: How can infrastructures that surround the choice of technologies be woven together to enhance learning? How can online and face-to-face networks broaden the choice and use of new technologies in makerspaces and studio-based learning strategies? How might we extend implications to diverse settings, such as the workforce?
4. Interpersonal interactions: How can the short- and long-term impacts of participation in SBL be examined, tracked, and measured? Beyond anecdotes and individual reflections, what data are needed to explore interpersonal interactions and participatory structures that lead to identity development and/or a STEM career path trajectory? How can we explore the impact of peer to peer learning, empowerment and experts, mentoring and apprenticeship that encourage identity development and STEM career-path trajectory?
5. The intersection of people, environment/space, and technologies at multiple levels: How can we collect and analyze data that speaks to multiple systemic inputs that lie at the intersection of people, learning spaces, and technologies? What markers indicate progress? What factors in the environments/space and with technologies encourage full inclusion? What factors inhibit full inclusion?

A review, synthesis and summarization of documentation and artifacts captured at the workshop produced the following list of eleven themes:

1. Developing tools to assist districts and schools in starting up equitable, inclusive and sustainable makerspaces for underserved student populations in high poverty, low income, or rural school districts, with special attention to space, funding and staffing.
2. Measuring outcomes, particularly in reference to state standards
3. Improving makerspace facilitator competencies through professional development & certification, including establishing accreditation standards and common language; Education and accrediting body for those working in education-based makerspaces
4. Assessment of learning/measuring the learning that takes place in makerspaces
5. Adaptive curricula supporting diverse range of prior knowledge
6. Repository of curricula and assessment materials
7. Strengthening agency/autonomy of the individual while fostering STEM/maker identity; mentorship/apprenticeships
8. Data management and security in relation to LMS and other systems imbedded into maker education
9. Inclusivity and equity in blended/hybrid collaborative learning contexts (face-to-face and digital learning spaces)
10. Network/coalition of multi-institutional maker initiatives
11. Agile/iterative/short-term/active research funding goals that allow for experimentation and pivot with diverse community stakeholders/co-PIs outside of academia/corporate sectors.

While eleven does seem like a lot, we were careful to capture as many voices as possible and to narrow these down any further would lose some of the nuance and specificity that emerged from analysis of the materials, ultimately “erasing” some of those voices.

I am currently serving on the advisory board for the Biosphere 2 workshop and am helping write a literature review for a white paper in preparation for an August summit. Leaders from each of the nine workshops will meet in Washington, D. C. to compare and further synthesize their findings. This culminating event will distill outcomes from each of the workshops into a coherent recommendation to the NSF for future funding goals. It will be interesting to see how our recommendations compare to findings at other workshops. Will there be a lot of overlap in themes? Or what if every workshop arrives with eleven completely unique themes? If and when I find out, I’ll let you know!

Please also check out this STEM for All video that focuses on our time together at the STEM Equity @B2 project https://stemforall2019.videohall.com/p/1561. Please share the video link widely in your social media with #stemvideohall.