MAKING+

LEARNING

in Museums and Libraries

A PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE AND FRAMEWORK
1: INTRODUCTION

Framework Development

A Note on Language

2: PURPOSE 

Case Study:

Betty Brinn Children’s Museum

Case Study:

UNC Chapel Hill Kenan Library 

Case Study:

Lawrence Hall of Science

Partner Perspective: 

Andrea Saenz, Chicago Public Library

3: PEOPLE 

Case Study:

Westport Public Library

Case Study:

Science Museum of Minnesota

Case Study:

Arkansas & Oklahoma Networks

Partner Perspective: 

Adam Rogers, North Carolina State 

University

4: PIECES & PARTS

Case Study:

New York Hall of Science

Case Study:

Cleveland Public Library

Case Study:

Chattanooga Public Library

Partner Perspective:

Karen Wilkinson and Mike Petrich, 

Exploratorium

5: LEARNING 

Models of Learning

Partner Perspective: 

Lisa Regalla and Stephanie Chang, Maker Ed 

6. CONCLUSION

Credits and References

MAKING+LEARNING

is a cooperative 

agreement between the 

CHILDREN’S MUSEUM 

OF PITTSBURGH and

the INSTITUTE OF 

MUSEUM AND LIBRARY 

SERVICES. This project 

was led by PETER 

WARDRIP and LISA 

BRAHMS from CMP and 

CHRISTOPHER REICH

and TIM CARRIGAN

from IMLS. The project 

is supported by 

thought partners MIKE 

PETRICH and KAREN 

WILKINSON from the 

Exploratorium, ANDREA 

SAENZ from the 

Chicago Public Library, 

ADAM ROGERS from

North Carolina State 

University Libraries and

LISA REGALLA from 

the Maker Education 

Initiative. Learn more at 

makingandlearning.org
Many libraries and museums have 

made a commitment to 

support the establishment of maker programs 

or makerspaces. Despite the recent growth of 

these investments, the field knows surprisingly 

little about how to support learning within these 

spaces. 

This report introduces a framework to support 

learning in library and museum makerspaces. The 

framework demonstrates how we can create the 

conditions for ambitious learning experiences to 

unfold within the making experience. 

The project has been carried out through a 

cooperative agreement between the Institute 

of Museum and Library Services and Children’s 

Museum of Pittsburgh. Several thought partners 

have also been critical to this work and have 

provided expert support: Exploratorium, Chicago 

Public Library, North Carolina State University 

Libraries and Maker Education Initiative. 

After conducting more than 50 interviews and site 

visits to library and museum makerspaces across 

the country, as well as convening a national group 

of library and museum professionals, the project 

leaders identified three key elements that create 

the conditions to support learning in makerspaces.

Element 1: Purpose 

Libraries and museums implement making 

programs for myriad reasons. Why and how do 

making experiences, activities and/or spaces align 

with and further the goals of a making program 

and connect to the organization’s overall mission?

Element 2: People 

People play an important role for learning through 

making in museums and libraries. Educators, 

librarians, volunteers and guest makers are used 

in a variety of ways based on a program’s goals. 

Constraints such as funding and capacity to 

manage staff are also a factor. What role do people 

play in managing, monitoring and facilitating 

learning in a makerspace or program?

Element 3: Pieces And Parts 

Making is a “hands-on” approach to learning and 

the tools and materials selected should dovetail 

with the program’s goals and the capacity of the 

staff. What tools, materials and architecture are 

central to supporting learning through making in a 

program and space? 

Our Ambitious Goal: Make Every Makerspace 

Better. 

Ultimately, this framework can help guide 

museum and library professionals who are new to 

makerspaces or who are just beginning to develop 

a space. It can help seasoned veterans evaluate 

their current maker work, too. 

Executive Summary

The framework can help guide museum and library 

professionals who are new to makerspaces in 

the development of a space, and help seasoned 

veterans reflect on their maker work thus far.
4 MAKING+LEARNING IN MUSEUM AND LIBRARY MAKERSPACES 

Tulsa Children’s Museum
CHILDREN’S MUSEUM OF PITTSBURGH | INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES 5

INTRODUCTION

Many libraries and museums have recently invested 

resources to implement maker programs or 

makerspaces. This project defines “making” 

as building or adapting objects using real 

tools and real materials and engaging 

learners in the process of using these tools 

and materials.

While these programs and spaces serve a 

variety of goals, they overwhelmingly serve 

as sites of ambitious learning. As the maker 

movement grows by leaps and bounds, the 

field itself knows relatively little about how 

to support learning within these spaces. 

This report introduces a framework to 

support learning in library and museum 

makerspaces. There are three elements 

to the framework: purpose; people; and 

pieces and parts. Through a description of 

the framework, as well as case studies on 

how making and makerspaces are being 

implemented around the country, this 

document aims to share ways that we can 

nurture and grow conditions for learning 

within making experiences.

Why a Framework?

A framework is, in many ways, simply a 

metaphor. It focuses our attention on 

important elements of a setting, activity or 

idea. In this case, the focus is on supporting 

learning through making. Building a 

framework serves several goals:

Design: The framework provides design 

considerations for practitioners who 

seek to develop a new maker program 

or makerspace. Each of the framework’s 

three broad categories provides 

guideposts that can steer the intentional 

design of the program or space for an 

organization’s audience. 

Reflection & Professional 

Development: The framework’s three 

categories serve as reflective points 

for practitioners currently engaged in 

this work. In this way, the elements of 

the framework serve as points to elicit 

formative feedback, and to create points 

for conversation amongst stakeholders.

Evaluation: The framework can offer a 

structure for considering the evaluation 

of maker programs and makerspaces. 

The framework’s three categories may 

steer the development of summative 

measures to evaluate a program or 

space’s impact. 

The goal of Making+Learning is to build the 

capacity of libraries and museums to create 

and sustain effective makerspaces and 

related programs for learning.

SECTION ONE
6 MAKING+LEARNING IN MUSEUM AND LIBRARY MAKERSPACES 

INTRODUCTION

The elements of the framework are intended to 

guide practitioners’ planning and implementation 

of maker-based learning experiences. The 

framework is not intended to prescribe how 

to develop and implement those learning 

experiences. From visiting makerspaces and 

exploring maker programs across the country, we 

know that there are many different ways to offer 

productive maker-based learning experiences. 

Instead of prescribing a fixed methodology, 

the goal of the framework is to encourage 

critical discussions and encourage practitioners 

to consider critical aspects of design for their 

individual maker experiences. 

In the spirit of making, this framework is meant to 

be flexible and adaptable. It is designed to support 

the local concerns, priorities and conditions of any 

museum or library. 

Purpose. What’s Yours? 

Libraries and museums implement makerspaces 

and maker programs for many different reasons. 

Similarly, libraries and museums can choose from 

an array of innovative approaches when designing 

learning experiences. Why and how do making 

experiences, activities or the space align with and 

further the goals of a making program? How do 

they connect to the organization’s overall mission? 

Ask yourself:

• What are the goals of your program and 

makerspace? 

• How do you define and measure success?

• In what ways does the program or space align 

with your organization’s mission? 

• What audience does your program or space 

serve?

• Who are the stakeholders of your program or 

space?

• What are the underlying values of your 

program or space?

People Matter Most

Makerspaces and maker programs often 

garner attention for their expensive tools or 

unusual materials. But what is the real secret 

of makerspace success? People. People create 

the conditions for learning through making in 

museums and libraries. Museum educators, 

librarians, volunteers, and guest makers are used in 

a variety of ways based on a program’s goals and 

constraints such as funding and staff management. 

What roles do people play in the management, 

monitoring and facilitation of learning in a 

makerspace or program?

Ask yourself:

• What roles do people play in supporting your 

program or space?

• What staffing structure exists or needs to be 

developed to support your program or space?

• What is your approach to facilitating making 

learning experiences? Why?

• Can you assess your staff’s capacity to support 

making?

• What strategies can you employ to ensure that 

your staff’s capacity develops over time?

The Right Pieces And Parts

We’re often asked by makerspace novices, “What 

equipment should we buy?” and “How many 

3D printers do we need?” While the tools and 

materials are an important component of making, 

they should align with a program’s goals, the 

capacity of the staff, and your organization’s 

visitors. What are the tools, materials and 

architecture that are central to supporting learning 

through making in a program and space? 

Ask yourself:

• What tools are important in terms of the 

purpose of your maker experiences? Why?

• What materials are important in terms of the 

purpose of your maker experiences? Why?

• What physical architecture is conducive for the 

purpose of your maker experiences? Why?
CHILDREN’S MUSEUM OF PITTSBURGH | INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES 7

• What role does digital technology play in 

the selection of tools and materials by your 

audience? Why?

• What processes (i.e., design process) 

are important to integrate in your maker 

experiences? Why?

By addressing these elements, we can foster the 

conditions for learning in library and museum 

makerspaces.

The next sections of this report will: 

• Further explain the elements

• Provide brief descriptions of different 

makerspaces and maker programs

• Explain how they address elements of the 

framework

Depending on an organization’s experience 

and capacity, engaging in the framework may 

reveal meaningful gaps that cannot be instantly 

rectified. However, ongoing engagement in these 

elements can support the intentional design and 

implementation of a makerspace. This includes 

identifying meaningful intersections across the 

elements.
8 MAKING+LEARNING IN MUSEUM AND LIBRARY MAKERSPACES 

INTRODUCTION

Framework Development

We developed the framework in several phases. First, our project 

team members reviewed the relevant literature 

about making as it relates to museums, libraries 

and learning. This included policy reports, 

evaluation reports, conference proceedings, 

blog posts, research articles and books related 

to the intersection of making and learning. The 

effort informed the project’s understanding of 

the current landscape of making and learning 

within museums and libraries, and it guided the 

subsequent activities of phase one and phase two. 

The Landscape of Making 

During the first phase of the project, our team 

visited libraries and museums across the country 

with active maker programs and/or makerspaces. 

Several strategies guided our selection process. 

Based on conference presentations we’d attended 

and publications we’d read, we were able to 

generate a list of institutions recognized as leaders 

and early adopters. 

After consulting with our collaborators at IMLS and 

project thought partners, we included additional 

museums and libraries to the list of prospective 

sites. We took this comprehensive list, and then 

refined it to reflect a diverse range of museums 

and libraries with respect to region of the 

country, institution type and type of geographic 

municipality (urban, suburban or rural). In all, we 

visited 30 sites across the United States. 

Proof Positive

For each site visit, we visually documented 

the library and museum makerspaces with 

photographs. We interviewed at least one 

staff member and, in many cases, interviewed 

multiple members of the makerspace team. 

These interviews were digitally recorded and later 

transcribed verbatim. Additionally, we collected 

collateral materials that communicated programs 

offered and other (outward-facing) aspects of the 

makerspaces. When we couldn’t physically visit a 

space, we conducted the interview remotely.

Ann Arbor District Library, 

Ann Arbor, MI

Anythink Libraries, 

Adams County, CO

Arkansas Discovery Network, 

Little Rock, AR

Benedum Foundation, 

Pittsburgh, PA

Betty Brinn Children’s Museum, 

Milwaukee, WI

Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh, 

Pittsburgh, PA

Carnegie Museum of Art, 

Pittsburgh, PA

Chattanooga Public Library, 

Chattanooga, TN

Chicago Public Library, 

Chicago, IL

Children’s Museum of Houston, 

Houston, TX

Cleveland Public Library, 

Cleveland, OH

Creative Discovery Museum, 

Chattanooga, TN

Explora

Santa Fe, NM

Free Library of Philadelphia, 

Philadelphia, PA

Grable Foundation, 

Pittsburgh, PA

Great Lakes Science Center, 

Cleveland, OH

Idaho Commission for Libraries, 

Boise, ID

Iowa Library Services - North Central 

District, Des Moines, IA

Kentucky Science Center, 

Louisville, KY

Kidzu, 

Chapel Hill, NC

Lawrence Hall of Science, 

Berkeley, CA

MacArthur Foundation, 

Chicago, IL

Madison Public Library, 

Madison, WI

Meridian Library District, 

Meridian, ID

SITE VISIT AND CONVENING PARTICIPANTS
CHILDREN’S MUSEUM OF PITTSBURGH | INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES 9

Museum of Discovery, 

Little Rock, AR

Museum of Life and Science, 

Durham, NC

Museum of Science, 

Boston, MA

National Museum of American History: 

Lemelson Center for the Study of 

Invention and Innovation, 

Washington, DC 

National Science Foundation, 

Washington, DC

New York Hall of Science, 

New York, NY

Orange County Library System, 

Orlando, FL

Phoenix Public Library, 

Phoenix, AZ

Science Museum of Minnesota, 

St. Paul, MN

Science Museum of Oklahoma, 

Oklahoma City, OK

ScienceWorks Hands On Museum, 

Ashland, OR

Scott Family Amazeum, 

Bentonville, AR

Sprout Fund, 

Pittsburgh, PA

Tech Museum of Innovation, 

San Jose, CA

Tulsa Children’s Museum, 

Tulsa, OK

Tulsa City-County Library, 

Tulsa, OK

University of Nevada Reno, 

Reno, NV

University of North Carolina at Chapel 

Hill, Chapel Hill, NC

University of Pittsburgh, 

Pittsburgh, PA

Vermont Department of Libraries, 

Montpelier, VT

Westport Library

Westport, CT

Winchester Thurston School, 

Pittsburgh, PA

Young Adult Library Services 

Association, Chicago, IL

The interview transcripts were analyzed for 

reoccurring themes related to supporting learning, 

the steps taken to implement their program and 

then the general effectiveness of the space and/

or program. The initial framework emerged from 

this analysis. This framework was discussed with 

the thought partners, the IMLS collaborators 

and local colleagues, and was revised based on 

their feedback. These revisions included both the 

elements of the framework, as well as the specific 

language used to describe the elements.

A Meeting Of Maker Minds

In January 2015, our project team hosted a 

convening of library and museum makerspace 

practitioners, as well as relevant policymakers and 

funders. The primary purpose was to examine 

and evaluate the framework as a usable and 

relevant tool for supporting learning through 

making. Through structured discussions that 

were grounded in maker-based activities, 

participants discussed how the elements of the 

framework resonated, or conflicted, with their own 

experience as designers and facilitators of making. 

Additionally, participants identified missing pieces 

and perspectives, and noted language choices 

that may have presented barriers to practitioners 

working in institutions like their own.

The Framework Refined

Following the convening, the framework was 

revised once more. Case studies, which illustrated 

the elements of the framework, were developed 

for this publication.

The framework consists of three elements that 

we believe create the conditions for learning 

in makerspaces and programs in museums 

and libraries. These elements are: Purpose; 

People; and Pieces and Parts. In the upcoming 

sections, we’ll describe these elements and 

provide case descriptions to illuminate the variety 

and interrelationship within and among these 

elements.

Curious about what happened at the 

convening? For a description of the 

convening, see a summary on the IMLS blog: 

https://www.imls.gov/news-events/upnextblog/2015/02/maker-movement-takesover-pittsburgh
10 MAKING+LEARNING IN MUSEUM AND LIBRARY MAKERSPACES 

SO THAT WE’RE ALL SPEAKING THE SAME LANGUAGE

The following symbols represent a variety of components that 

makerspaces and maker programs utilize in order to provide a 

robust learning experience. We use these symbols to draw the 

reader’s attention to certain makerspace components that are 

addressed in the text. We do not claim that these components are 

comprehensive and include every single important variable in the 

implementation of a making educational program. However, these 

symbols do make note of the complexity that exists as we put 

together makerspaces and maker programs to support learning.

A Note on Language

This report is peppered with the terms “makerspaces” and “maker 

programs.” Maker-based learning experiences take 

place in a wide variety of settings in museums and 

libraries. Therefore, “maker programs” is used to 

acknowledge that making can take place with or 

without a dedicated space. A maker program can 

encompass the maker activities that are carried 

out in the conference room of the library, using a 

mobile cart, working out of a closet or acting as a 

“pop up” in any corner of a museum or library.

The term “maker” or “making” can be inclusive 

or exclusive, depending on your perspective. 

Here, “making” is viewed as an umbrella term that 

may include programs that refer to themselves 

as tinkering rather than making, or spaces that 

refer to themselves as Fab Labs, rather than 

makerspaces. While some will argue that there 

are meaningful differences between those terms, 

we’ve chosen to group these terms together 

for the purpose of creating the most broadly 

applicable framework. The field continues to 

learn a great deal from a variety of hands-on, 

participatory learning experiences. Our project 

team asserts that all programs may gain value from 

embracing the elements of our framework.
CHILDREN’S MUSEUM OF PITTSBURGH | INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES 11

INTRODUCTION

VISION

The organization’s ideal future 

state, based on its values.

The framework through which 

learning is defined.

APPROACH TO 

LEARNING LEARNERS

The users of a makerspace or 

program. 

MISSION

An important goal or purpose 

that aligns with values.

INTERACTION

Shared activity between two 

or more people.

SAFETY

The precautions taken to 

ensure safety for all.

STAFFING STRUCTURE

The arrangement of staff 

reporting and management.

SPACE

The environment in which the 

maker program is situated.

STAFFING CAPACITY

The availability and capability 

of staff members.

EXPERTISE

Expert-level skills that the 

organization can leverage.

KNOWLEDGE

Information and facts gained 

through experience. 

The technologically-enabled 

tools and resources.

ACTIVITIES TECHNOLOGY

Structured or unstructured 

interactions within a program.

TOOLS

The instruments available for 

conducting a maker activity.

MATERIALS

Raw or unformed items 

available for tinkering/making.

SUCCESS METRICS

The criteria by which success 

can be measured.

FACILITATORS

The people who teach, advise, 

scaffold, and plan a program.

VALUES

The organization’s core 

morals and belief system.

GOALS

End states the organization 

hopes to reach.

VOLUNTEERS

People who support 

the program without 

compensation.

SUPPORTING STAFF

Any person who provides 

support to a maker program.

PARTNERS

People or organizations who 

take a vested interest in the 

organization or program.

FUNDERS

People or organizations who 

provide financial assistance.

TECHNIQUE

A particularly skillful way of 

completing a task.
12 MAKING+LEARNING IN MUSEUM AND LIBRARY MAKERSPACES 

Museum of Discovery

VISION APPROACH TO 

LEARNING

MISSION VALUES GOALS SUCCESS METRICS LEARNERS
CHILDREN’S MUSEUM OF PITTSBURGH | INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES 13

PURPOSE

Why making? When libraries and museums can choose from 

a wide variety of traditional, innovative and 

potentially effective learning experiences 

to implement, what is it about making that 

helps achieve their intentions and goals? 

This is the overarching question of the 

purpose element of the framework.

What Are Your Challenges? 

Today’s library and museum makerspaces 

seek to achieve a variety of goals, including:

• Cultivating 21st century skills 

such as critical thinking, creativity, 

communication and collaboration

• Supporting workforce development and 

economic vitality

• Assisting with college and career 

readiness and awareness

• Supporting Science, Technology, 

Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) or 

Science, Technology, Engineering, Art 

and Mathematics (STEAM) learning

• Seeding entrepreneurship

• Nurturing dispositional shifts like 

persistence, resilience, interest, selfefficacy, etc.

• Engaging visitors in a positive, social and 

creative atmosphere

What Audience Are You Trying To Reach? 

The purpose element of the framework also 

addresses the extent to which a program 

or space targets a specific audience. For 

certain institutions this might be easy to 

answer. For instance, for typical children’s 

museums, the dominant audience is 

families with young children. But for many 

museums and libraries, the audience may 

be a point of explicit consideration.

The values and/or goals addressed in 

maker-based learning experiences may 

align better to certain audience segments. 

For example, equipment safety might 

be an issue for young children, whereas 

workforce development might be more 

appropriate for teens or adults. 

What’s Your Intended Impact?

Identifying the metrics of success for a 

maker experience is vital to assessing the 

extent to which the program is having an 

impact on participants. However, identifying 

success can be challenging since traditional 

metrics of success may be inadequate 

to capture the richness of maker-based 

learning experiences. For example, 

counting the number of participants in a 

program may not make sense since many 

maker programs place a greater emphasis 

on depth of experience. Also, the more 

participants there are in a program, the 

more pressure that’s put on the facilitator. 

This ultimately can translate into a less 

enriching learning experience.

The success of a learning experience is 

incumbent upon identifying its purpose with 

respect to its goals, mission and affiliations, 

programmatic strengths and values.

SECTION TWO
14 MAKING+LEARNING IN MUSEUM AND LIBRARY MAKERSPACES 

Connecting Making 

to the Heritage of a City

Betty Brinn Children’s Museum: www.bbcmkids.org Be A Maker Space: www.makermke.org

CASE STUDY: PURPOSE

The Be A Maker Space (BAM) is the 

makerspace of the Betty Brinn Children’s 

Museum of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. As a 

children’s museum, Betty Brinn seeks 

to provide interactive experiences and 

educational resources primarily for newborns 

to 10-year-olds.

Started in 2014, BAM is a raw space within the 

children’s museum with a big wooden table 

at its center. Temporary wooden walls define 

the space. A large metallic clock stands at one 

end of the space. More than 100 years old, the 

clock is a remnant of the museum building’s 

previous use as a train depot. On a busy day 

in December, visitors who entered the space 

were greeted by a mixture of old and new 

technologies spread out for observation and 

use: a hacked Roomba vacuum robot playing 

“Jingle Bells,” and an 8-foot cardboard “robot.”

BAM has several overarching goals for the 

experiences that it provides. One goal is to 

help learners understand the made world 

and develop skills to build and take apart 

objects they come across in their daily lives. 

Additionally, the BAM staff works to facilitate 

learning experiences that emphasize the 

process of making as opposed to just valuing 

the final products. They encourage visitors to 

work collaboratively rather than individually.

With these broad goals and values in 

mind, BAM seeks to establish and uphold a 

connection to the city in which it’s located 

through the activities of the makerspace. Mike 

Cook, BAM’s Director of Maker Experiences, 

talked about how these experiences connect 

to Milwaukee’s industrial heritage. Cook 

explained that making resonates with the city’s 

blue-collar character. Many children’s parents 

work in industrial jobs.

While the connection to Milwaukee’s industrial 

past does not actually manifest itself in every 

program, BAM believes that there is a real 

value to putting authentic tools in the hands 

of learners. Cook said an amazing spark 

occurs when a child is empowered with a 

tool. He said that they never received that sort 

of reaction from glue sticks and scissors. 

A by-product of BAM’s connection to the 

city and its industrial past has been the 

recognition by children, parents and even 

LEARNERS

GOALS

VALUES

PURPOSE
CHILDREN’S MUSEUM OF PITTSBURGH | INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES 15

SUCCESS

METRICS

GOALS

PURPOSE

staff as seeing themselves as makers. When 

Joe Dorn, Maker Educational Program 

Manager, learned that the museum had plans 

for a makerspace, he thought, “Okay cool, but 

am I a maker?” Dorn felt that many people 

wondered if they had what it took to be a 

maker, too. 

While the arguments for making and 

makerspaces often focus on the immediate 

content and skills derived from the experience, 

Be A Maker Space is fostering a cultural 

connection, and by situating their programs 

within the context of Milwaukee’s heritage, 

BAM is hoping to change how children and 

families see themselves and their city in the 

context of making.
16 MAKING+LEARNING IN MUSEUM AND LIBRARY MAKERSPACES 

LEARNERS

GOALS

LEARNERS

Aligning Making to 

a Larger Campus Vision

CASE STUDY: PURPOSE

Makerspace @ Kenan Science Library, UNC-Chapel Hill: library.unc.edu/makerspace

PURPOSE

The makerspace at the Kenan Science Library 

at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill 

was originally designed to meet the needs 

of science students. Over time, its role on 

campus has evolved beyond exclusively 

serving the needs of science students to 

exemplifying the evolving interplay between 

the goals of makerspaces and the programs 

and activities they provide.

The initial goal of the makerspace was 

intimately tied to the library’s larger mission: 

to provide innovative services and a robust 

collection for the science students. 

The library’s services and collection connect 

students and faculty to meaningful resources. 

As this work evolved, the library has become a 

catalyst for maker-related activities across the 

university.

David Romito, a science librarian, described 

the makerspace program’s beginnings. He 

said that microbiology instructors wanted to 

demonstrate how molecules fit together. They 

printed out 3D models of the proteins. Soon, 

a chemistry professor challenged students 

to design their own molecules using a 3D 

modeling program called SketchUp, which 

required more support from the makerspace.

Before long, the Kenan Science Library 

makerspace faced a scale issue. As its 

reputation grew with faculty and students 

across campus, it became difficult to maintain 

the same level of service with increased 

demand. Danianne Mizzy, Head of Kenan 

Science Information Services, explained 

that technology limitations were resulting 

in a bottleneck. At that time, there were 

approximately 125 students minoring in 

Entrepreneurship, and it would take them 

several weeks to 3D print 125 projects – that 

is, if everything went well. Thus, to meet the 

goals of the makerspace, the staff needed to 

re-think how it served the campus community. 

This was partly an equipment issue – one 

that called for a different level of machinery. 

It was also a social and organizational issue 

in needing to think about the way that they 

connect the patrons to resources.

 

As the makerspace scaled up, the staff looked 

outside the library to see if anyone else on 

campus was doing similar work or providing 
CHILDREN’S MUSEUM OF PITTSBURGH | INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES 17

MISSION

PURPOSE

a similar service. Chad Haefele, Emerging 

Technologies Librarian, reported finding little 

pockets of maker activities. The art department 

had a 3D printer. The design center carried out 

machining work. The archaeology department 

had a 3D scanner. Haefele noted that 

departments were pursuing these activities in 

silos, and participation was restricted to faculty 

and staff and students associated with each 

department.

The university rose to the challenge by 

forming a committee of faculty and staff 

interested in making, makerspaces and 3D 

printing which recommended establishing 

an interdisciplinary makerspace: Creator 

Space. Faculty member Rich Superfine said, 

“It was clear that what we had on campus 

were individual spaces. We recognized an 

opportunity to form a central space – but still 

keep these other spaces, which could be used 

in a variety of ways. If we really understand all 

the resources, if we’re communicating closely, 

it could really be a phenomenal network.”

 

The Kenan Science Library makerspace 

reminds us that as conditions change, human 

resources and technologies must realign to 

support the purpose of the makerspace. 
18 MAKING+LEARNING IN MUSEUM AND LIBRARY MAKERSPACES 

PURPOSE

Defining Success in the 

Process of Making

CASE STUDY: PURPOSE

Lawrence Hall of Science: www.lawrencehallofscience.org

GOALS

Shifting notions of success in makerspaces 

and maker programs is forcing many 

educators to look beyond the traditional 

metrics of number of learners served.

The Ingenuity Lab – a program and exhibit at 

the Lawrence Hall of Science, University of 

California-Berkeley’s Public Science Center – 

is at the forefront of the conversation about 

addressing this challenge of measuring 

success. The Ingenuity Lab focuses on fun 

ways that human ingenuity can be leveraged 

to solve problems. Program activities revolve 

around themes such as hydraulics, structures, 

linkages and water-powered machines. By 

approaching challenges in creative ways, 

the program believes that people may find 

solutions that are unique to their own interests 

and perspectives. 

In some ways, as a program and exhibit, the 

Ingenuity Lab defines success in a similar 

way as other comparable endeavors. Monika 

Mayer, Director of Ingenuity Programs, said 

that success is partially based on visitor 

and participant feedback. In addition, 

engagement time with activities has been 

high. Typical exhibit engagement time is about 

two minutes, but in the Ingenuity Lab exhibit, 

it averages just under 40 minutes.

Mayer and her team look for evidence of 

success through participant engagement in 

Ingenuity Lab activities. For instance, Mayer 

says that the program emphasizes “working 

like an engineer.” This means that learners 

engage in a series of phases. They often 

brainstorm an idea in a team, decide on an 

idea or a set of ideas and design, build and test 

their prototype. 

Since the program focuses more on process 

than the final product, evidence of success 

is found in the extent to which the learners 

engage in various phases of the process. This 

might include the extent to which the learners 

seek to incorporate a particular mechanism 

that is tied to the overall theme.

However, success with making activities does 

not only rest in the program itself. Mayer says 

that they receive and collect photographs of 

projects that visitors and participants work on 

outside of the program. Recently, the father 

of a seven-year-old visitor emailed to thank 

Mayer. His son had exhibited at a Mini Maker 

Faire – a showcase of maker projects within 

community – namely because of the unique 

SUCCESS

METRICS

SUCCESS

METRICS
CHILDREN’S MUSEUM OF PITTSBURGH | INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES 19

PURPOSE

opportunity to explore at The Ingenuity Lab.

In general, the Ingenuity Lab’s work to 

monitor success represents a common 

tension among museum and library 

makerspace practitioners. On the one hand, 

there are established methods for monitoring 

success, such as tracking the number of 

participants engaging in an exhibit or program 

or the duration of the engagement. At the 

same time, these do not fully capture the 

richness and uniqueness of the programs 

themselves, nor the innovation and creativity 

of the learners’ constructive activities. 

SUCCESS

METRICS
20 MAKING+LEARNING IN MUSEUM AND LIBRARY MAKERSPACES 

PURPOSE

Chicago Public Library’s 

Maker Lab was established in 2013 

to serve as an access point for adult 

patrons to learn how to use emerging 

digital design and production tools 

in a collaborative and exceedingly 

democratic setting. The Maker Lab 

supports CPL’s larger goal of making 

science concepts and complex problemsolving skills broadly accessible. 

In preparing to launch the Maker Lab, we 

organized our programming to support 

the following objectives:

1. Serve as an access point for fostering 

an interest in Science, Technology, 

Engineering, Art and Math for all 

patrons.

2. Offer a hands-on experience with 

digital fabrication technology that can 

be translated into real world job skills. 

3. Serve as a bridge to other maker 

organizations that will allow patrons 

to expand their skills and offer deeper 

opportunities for their application. 

4. Create an opportunity for Chicago 

Public Library to further investigate 

and implement strategies and skills 

for 21st Century learning, finding 

methods that best support its mission 

and incorporating them into regular 

programming. 

5. Create a model space that can be 

replicated by public libraries and 

other institutions, and share project 

outcomes with the library and maker 

communities.

Today, the Maker Lab provides access 

for any Chicagoan to learn about 

and use cutting-edge tools in design 

and fabrication in a collaborative and 

welcoming setting. As Chicago’s only 

free makerspace, the Lab serves as 

a gateway to exploring the growing 

maker ecosystem. The Maker Lab team 

coordinates workshops that focus on 

everything from origami to Arduinopowered robotic knitting, thus inviting 

learners to explore new technologies. 

Partner Perspective: 

“Purpose at the Chicago 

Public Library”

The patrons represent a wide swath of the populace across 

all demographic measures, suggesting that the Maker Lab has 

acheived the goal of broad access and inclusivity.

Andrea Saenz

First Deputy Commissioner

Chicago Public LIbrary

Chicago Public Library Maker Lab // On-Ramp to Digital 

Design and Multiple Forms of Making
CHILDREN’S MUSEUM OF PITTSBURGH | INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES 21

PURPOSE

The space allows the Library to introduce 

adults to digital design and fabrication 

and explore STEM concepts. It also offers 

mentor-led workshops and hosts daily 

open shop hours where participants 

can work alone or collaboratively, as 

well as interactive workshops where 

users work together to design and solve 

problems. The Lab serves as a bridge into 

digital fabrication for over 4,000 visitors 

each month – and includes students, 

entrepreneurs, retirees, inventors, 

designers, hobbyists and those who are 

simply curious.

CPL complements services offered 

by local, fee-based makerspaces, 

universities, museums and others 

by leveraging community members’ 

expertise as instructors and building 

relationships among Maker Lab 

participants that reach beyond the walls 

of the library. Maker Lab programming 

includes visits to explore other spaces 

in Chicago’s maker ecosystem and “pop 

up” Maker Labs in neighborhood libraries, 

parks and schools. Maker Lab participants 

are deciding to join these or pursue new 

career and educational opportunities as a 

result of the networks and insights gained 

at CPL’s Maker Lab.

Maker Lab program offerings are 

organized into two main categories: 

Instructor-led Digital Toolbox classes and 

Open Shop. Instructor-led classes focus 

on specific tools and skills to create 

a product and provide opportunities 

for beginners to easily engage with 

basic design concepts. Open Lab 

caters to participants with some level 

of experience with the Maker Lab 

equipment for self-directed creation. 

We’ve seen a remarkable response from 

community members of all ages and 

walks of life. We’ve also been surprised 

by the extent to which our making 

activities have engaged women. In 

contrast with other tech and hacker 

spaces, where it’s often hard to break 

into the group where people speak in the 

same terms and know how to use most 

of the tools, our Maker Lab serves as 

an “on ramp” to the maker community. 

That is one of the things a good library 

does well. It lets a person ask a question 

in a non-judgmental place where they 

are not graded on the result. This helps 

people feel safe coming to the library to 

learn something new. The Chicagoans 

who have participated represent a 

wide swath of the populace across all 

demographic measures, suggesting that 

the opportunities presented by the Maker 

Lab have achieved the goal of inclusivity 

established by the program design team.

Through regular surveys, Maker Lab 

participants have reported:

• Improved ability to use digital design 

software, such as Inkscape and 

Sketchup.

• Improved ability to use digital 

fabrication technology, such as 3D 

printers and vinyl cutters.

• They made something while in the 

Lab, thereby boosting their creative 

confidence.

• They worked collaboratively in the 

Lab, thereby creating a greater sense 

of belonging.

• Increased understanding of the 

maker movement, the technologies 

they employ and improved 

connection to the Chicagoland 

hacker/maker community and 

spaces. 

• Plans to pursue the creative and 

career interests fostered by the Maker 

Lab through enrollment in classes, 

membership in makerspaces or selfdirected study.
22 MAKING+LEARNING IN MUSEUM AND LIBRARY MAKERSPACES 

Museum of Art and Design

SUPPORTING 

STAFF

LEARNERS FACILITATORS VOLUNTEERS PARTNERS FUNDERS STAFFING INTERACTIONS

STRUCTURE

STAFFING 

CAPACITY
CHILDREN’S MUSEUM OF PITTSBURGH | INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES 23

PEOPLE

Even though colorful walls or fancy equipment are what 

people equate with makerspaces, we’d 

like to let you in on a hard-earned secret. 

People have the potential to make or break 

a makerspace program. The importance 

of people in the facilitation of makerbased learning experiences cannot be 

underestimated.

Ideally, it is people who facilitate the makerbased learning experience. This includes the 

planning, designing or adapting of activities 

before the experience. During the makerbased experience, facilitators demonstrate, 

ask and answer questions, provide feedback 

and encouragement and connect learners 

to resources to further their projects. After 

the activity, the facilitators reflect on the 

activity, document the artifacts of the 

activity, then clean up and organize the 

space for the next learning experience. 

It Takes A Committed Staff

Related to the role of people is the staffing 

structure. For some sites, this includes 

creating new positions such as a program 

manager who has ownership over the 

space and accompanying activities. 

For other sites, this means reallocating 

responsibilities so that existing staff 

members can facilitate maker experiences 

in addition to their ongoing responsibilities. 

Of course, many institutions are unable 

to hire new people or reallocate time. 

Instead, some libraries and museums 

have had success by utilizing volunteers, 

college work-study students, interns and 

even children to support maker-based 

experiences.

Facilitation 101

Finally, what is the model of facilitation for 

your makerspace or program? Facilitation 

might mean hands on co-learning between 

a staff member and participants. It might 

mean an interactive discussion with 

participants while they are engaged. It might 

even mean inserting signs or resources into 

the space to further their creative process. 

Ultimately, facilitation means using an 

awareness of the maker-program’s goal 

so that the people are facilitating toward a 

particular end.

The importance of people in a maker-based 

learning experience begins with defining the 

role people play in supporting the mission of 

the program or space.

SECTION THREE

KNOWLEDGE EXPERTISE
24 MAKING+LEARNING IN MUSEUM AND LIBRARY MAKERSPACES 

PEOPLE

GOALS

Thinking Differently 

About Staffing Structure 

CASE STUDY: PEOPLE

Westport Library: westportlibrary.org MakerSpace: westportlibrary.org/services/maker-space

EXPERTISE

The Westport Library’s makerspace opened in 

2012. Situated in the center of the main 

floor of the library amid stacks of books, 

the makerspace serves as a place for 

creation, collaboration, innovation and 

entrepreneurship. 

While economic development and workforce 

development have come to be a goal for 

many libraries, Bill Derry, former director 

of innovation, described Westport’s goals 

in different terms. He noted that, while 

economic development is important, they are 

more focused on building community.

Westport’s makerspace serves learners of all 

ages. In order to meet the needs of those who 

visit the makerspace and provide innovative 

programs, the Westport Library has had to 

think differently about its staffing structure. 

In other words, in order to get the expertise 

needed to work, manage and facilitate their 

maker-based learning experiences, they’ve 

had to reach out to a diverse set of people—

even some of their youngest patrons.

 

Sam is one of the makerspace facilitators at 

Westport. He is an engineer who was looking 

for work and wanted to diversify his skills. 

Sam knew that the makerspace didn’t have a 

teacher for Solid Works, a software package 

used in 3D design. Bill understood that Sam 

had a background in CAD, but did not know 

Solid Works. So Bill told him that if he taught 

himself, the library would compensate him to 

teach other patrons. The makerspace provided 

professional development experience for Sam 

to learn Solid Works and, through a grant, Bill 

was able to hire Sam to work up to 10 hours a 

week to extend the library’s programs.

Jacob, another trainer, came to the 

makerspace as an 11-year-old who needed 

to do community service for his Bar Mitzvah. 

Once Jacob started volunteering, he 

poured his energies into all aspects of the 

makerspace, experimenting and mastering 

new tools and activities. He is now a trainer, 

which means the library considers him 

qualified to teach specific skills to other 

patrons, such as how to work with certain 
CHILDREN’S MUSEUM OF PITTSBURGH | INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES 25

software or tools. However, that does not 

quite capture the extent of his role. Bill said 

that Jacob is more than a trainer for them. He 

can come whenever he wants. He has access 

to every adult staff room. He has all the codes. 

Westport also brings local teachers into 

the space. A local middle school teacher is 

serving as a volunteer facilitator. She recently 

volunteered to become an Imagination 

Foundation leader. She and Bill identified a 

natural overlap and are taking advantage of it.

 

The Westport Library relies on diverse 

stakeholders to fulfill roles in its makerspace, 

who work together to offer community 

building maker-based learning experiences.

This demonstrates that the work of a 

makerspace does not solely need to be carried 

out by dedicated staff. While paid staff are 

certainly important, Bill and his colleagues are 

resourceful about meeting the growing needs 

of the community through volunteers, parttime staff and outside partnerships.

PEOPLE

STAFFING

STRUCTURE

Imagination Foundation is a national 

non-profit organization that has 

the mission of finding, funding and 

fostering creativity for children around 

the world. http://imagination.is 
26 MAKING+LEARNING IN MUSEUM AND LIBRARY MAKERSPACES 

PEOPLE

APPROACH TO 

LEARNING

Facilitating Creatively 

Without Staff or Space

CASE STUDY: PEOPLE

The Learning Technologies Center at the 

Science Museum of Minnesota (SMM) has 

been designing and supporting innovative 

learning experiences since 2010. It creates 

and encourages informal science learning 

through creative and meaningful applications 

of classic and emerging technologies. To 

guide the design of its learning experiences, 

the Center has developed an engineering 

design continuum that consists of: Play – 

Tinker – Make – Engineer. This continuum 

is supported by a pedagogical approach that 

is guided by: Inquiry – Design – Engineering 

Design. 

 

Keith Braafladt and his colleagues recognized 

that these thoughtful approaches depend on 

facilitation to carry out their vision for visitor 

learning experiences. So, based on need and 

circumstances, Braafladt built up a cadre of 

volunteers to help facilitate them. Developing 

the capacity for and approach to volunteer 

facilitation to support learning through 

making at SMM went through several phases. 

Braafladt and his team did a test with 30 

volunteers who were already active museum 

volunteers. He and the volunteers set up 

stations around the museum with maker 

activities from previous workshops. Braafladt 

quickly trained the volunteers on facilitating 

the activities, and then opened what became 

the first of many pop-up maker activities that 

now take place every Saturday and on other 

high attendance days.

 

This tremendous effort of activating volunteers 

has grown the initial volunteer cohort of 30 

to 44, which Braafladt divides into two crews. 

He schedules one crew on one week, and 

one crew the next. With at least 20 per crew, 

Braafladt can count on a regular attendance 

of 10 to 15 volunteer facilitators. To manage 

the demand that the volunteers experience 

during their facilitation time on the museum 

floor, Braafladt has developed an ever-growing 

menu of maker activities. When a learner signs 

up for a particular activity, the volunteer rolls 

out the cart of supplies and sets up. About 

four hours later, the volunteer takes everything 

down and cleans up.

As the program has matured, it’s evolved to 

better support the volunteers, who range in 

age from teens to seniors. To develop the 

capacity of these volunteers, Braafladt and 

team try to be responsive to each volunteer’s 

needs, while understanding that they learn 

best by doing, over and over again. Each 

Science Musem of Minnesota: www.smm.org Learning Technologies Center: shimmrglittr.tumblr.com

FACILITATION

VOLUNTEER
CHILDREN’S MUSEUM OF PITTSBURGH | INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES 27

PEOPLE

volunteer gets a two-hour training that 

informs them about the program, introduces 

some of the activities, and then gives them 

an opportunity to play. Braafladt focuses 

the training on developing relationships 

and fostering conversation, since it is 

fundamental to their work with learners.

 

There are at least two key aspects of Keith’s 

work that are relevant to the role people 

play in supporting maker-based learning 

experiences in the museum. First, the number 

of volunteers and the assigning of volunteers 

to activities underscores the important role 

that people, facilitation and interactions have 

on supporting learning through making. 

Second, a lack of full-time staff and dedicated 

space are not insurmountable barriers to 

integrating making into an organization’s 

programming and learning experiences. 

Braafladt and team are able to galvanize 

enough participation from volunteers to carry 

out learning experiences on a regular basis. 

Whether they’re demonstrating an activity, 

explaining, troubleshooting or providing 

encouragement, the volunteers provide the 

backbone of SMM’s maker-based learning 

experiences.

STAFFING

STRUCTURE

EXPERTISE
28 MAKING+LEARNING IN MUSEUM AND LIBRARY MAKERSPACES 

PEOPLE

Networking Organizations 

to Facilitate Making 

CASE STUDY: PEOPLE

Arkansas Discovery Network: www.museumofdiscovery.org/about/arkansas-discovery-network

Oklahoma Museum Network: http://omn.sciencemuseumok.com

GOALS

SUPPORTING

STAFF

Sometimes building the capacity of educators 

goes beyond a single organization. The 

Donald W. Reynolds Foundation has 

supported two statewide networks of 

museums engaged in making: the Oklahoma 

Museum Network and the Arkansas Discovery 

Network. Each network supports a variety 

of methods for engaging museum staff 

and visitors in making experiences and, 

when possible, the two networks work 

together to share resources. One notable 

focus of this work has been building the 

capacity of museum staff as facilitators of 

making experiences through professional 

development.

While there is active communication and 

collaboration between the two networks, each 

one has taken a slightly different approach 

to building their member museums’ capacity 

for the facilitation of making. In Arkansas, the 

network regularly hosts a series of networkwide professional development sessions. 

Kathleen Lawson, Network Director of the 

Arkansas Discovery Network, underlines the 

importance of bringing in experts from other 

museums to facilitate workshops around 

specific activities or mediums of making. 

Importantly, the professional development 

that the educators receive through these 

workshops is focused on the facilitation of 

the particular activities and the pedagogy 

which guides this practice. For example, 

if the activity is centered on automata, the 

educators do not simply learn how to build 

automata in their spaces – they learn how 

to support their visitors in the process of 

building their own automata, which is notably 

a different skill.

In Oklahoma, the network has established a 

different strategy for building the capacity of 

the museum-based makerspaces. In addition 

to regional workshops, the professional 

learning of the network museums is 

supported by a staff member who plays a 

role similar to an instructional coach in a 

school. Trevor Taylor has played this role at 

the Oklahoma Science Museum’s Tinkering 

Garage, where he worked with museum 

APPROACH TO 

LEARNING
CHILDREN’S MUSEUM OF PITTSBURGH | INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES 29

PEOPLE

educators to prototype new activities and 

actively support learners in the space. While 

traveling across the state, Taylor worked 

with local museum educators and staff to 

share prototyped activities, co-plan new 

activities, co-facilitate activities and debrief 

about the pedagogy, design and practice of 

facilitating rich experiences for learning. He 

played the role of a critical friend to network 

museum educators as well as a guide for 

those educators who desired to improve their 

facilitation strategies.

In viewing the learning experiences in 

makerspaces and maker programs as 

facilitated endeavors, the work of the Arkansas 

Discovery Network and the Oklahoma 

Museum Network provide useful examples of 

how each educator or museum is not alone in 

developing their own or their staff’s facilitation 

capacities. By leveraging the resources of 

a network, whether it be in-state or across 

a more remote community of practice, it’s 

possible to provide learning opportunities 

for educators to improve and deepen what 

it means to support learners of making in 

museums and libraries. 

KNOWLEDGE
30 MAKING+LEARNING IN MUSEUM AND LIBRARY MAKERSPACES 

PEOPLE

The growth of makerspaces in museums and libraries 

comes with an increased awareness 

of maker-centered learning and the 

importance it plays in the overall 

educational landscape. This movement 

offers an opportunity for institutions to 

embody their educational stance, putting 

the person and his or her learning at 

the center of the process, focusing on 

their development over time and making 

these educational possibilities more 

accessible, more personalized and more 

widespread than ever before.

Makerspaces first emerged as grassroots 

spaces for people to make things, to 

think with their hands and develop new 

ideas and fluencies through explorations 

involving tools and materials. Developing 

this type of fluency (and disposition) is 

important, especially in the makerspaces 

focused on supporting social learning. 

Social spaces like these support makers 

to work alongside other makers, seeing 

themselves as increasingly competent 

and contributing to the collective and 

independent work people are engaging 

in. The collaborations, friendships and 

relationships that develop can be life 

changing for all involved – young and 

old, novice and expert.

It’s important to note that making and 

tinkering dispositions are developed 

one learner at a time. They take time 

to nurture and require a deliberate 

effort to support. Spaces and programs 

that support this type of development 

in people are carefully designed, well 

facilitated and based on an educational 

plan of action core to the organizational 

mission.

Designing Makerspaces for People

The Tinkering Studio is an immersive, 

active, creative place at the 

Exploratorium, where museum visitors 

can slow down, become deeply 

engaged in an investigation of scientific 

phenomena, and make something with 

their hands. While creating the Tinkering 

Studio, we developed a few guiding 

principles for the space. 

As we were developing the space, we 

asked a few key questions, including: 

What does an ideal makerspace look like 

when it is designed to support thinking 

and learning? What kinds of activities 

or experiences are people engaged in? 

What sets of tools, materials, and supplies 

are available for them to use? What is 

the educational philosophy embodied 

by the design of the space and programs 

offered there? 

Partner Perspective: 

“Makerspaces as Social 

Endeavors”

The collaborations, friendships and relationships that develop in 

makerspaces can be life changing for all involved, young and old, 

novice and expert.

Karen Wilkinson and Mike Petrich

Exploratorium Tinkering Studio
CHILDREN’S MUSEUM OF PITTSBURGH | INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES 31

PEOPLE

In the Tinkering Studio, visitors are invited 

to explore a curiosity-driven exhibit, chat 

with a featured artist, or investigate a 

range of phenomena with staff artists, 

scientists, educators and others by 

participating in a collaborative activity. 

This is often accompanied by an eclectic 

assortment of materials, tools and 

technologies, provided for people to use 

as they explore and create.

Spaces and tools are cool and innovation 

and new inventions may be inspiring, but 

it’s the community of learners inhabiting 

these spaces that are its greatest assets. 

People bring projects and purpose 

together, giving life to the things that are 

made and ultimately bringing life to the 

space itself. Because of this, educational 

makerspaces designed for people don’t 

always start with a checklist of equipment 

and tools. Designs that support engaged 

exploration, personal expression and 

the development of understanding over 

time include the following decisions 

that need to be considered in order to 

design spaces for people to engage in 

meaningful making. Designs of these 

sorts necessarily encourage us to 

consider how we might support the 

educators and activity designers who are 

supporting the learners. In our space, the 

notion of a community of practice has 

emerged as important.

Developing a Community of Practice

The people of makerspaces – the 

facilitators, mentors, visitors and 

caretakers – all play an important role 

in helping convey the values and goals 

of the program. Developing ways of 

making those ideas visible and tangible to 

everyone involved helps foster a sense of 

community of practice, an idea that can 

be embodied by all who enter the space 

as it becomes more established.

Many programs approach making spaces 

as teaching spaces, teaching how to use 

a fabrication tool, or offering a class to 

learn how to program microcomputers, 

etc. These types of programs have their 

place, but makerpaces that support 

learning in museums and libraries need 

to be clear about the difference between 

a maker teaching space and a maker 

learning environment. This distinction 

shifts the focus from the tool (as in a 

training program), to the person (as in a 

learning environment). These distinctions 

impact learner expectations and, by 

extension, facilitator roles.

Makerspaces become communities of 

practice when people begin shifting roles 

and seamlessly move between learner, 

teacher, mentor and facilitator. Working 

with learners over time in a makerspace 

supports facilitators to consider new 

areas for development, and new possible 

outcomes for the program activities 

themselves. If facilitators are encouraged 

to engage in the explorations and 

activities as co-learners, distributed 

learning occurs and everyone involved in 

the space benefits.

New ideas formed this way push 

the predicted activity outcomes into 

new territory and potentially lead to 

tangents beyond the current program 

expectations. Supporting facilitators 

to be actively assessing the pedagogy 

and purpose throughout the programs 

will help ensure the evolution of 

the makerspace, pedagogically and 

programmatically.

When facilitators and activity developers 

are actively and collaboratively engaged 

in revising the maker programs through 

regular debrief sessions, peer-to-peer 

mentoring and dedicated time to 

revise the toolset, activity structure 

and expected outcomes, a shared 

understanding and ownership emerges. 

Old ideas are reviewed and reconsidered, 

new ideas emerge and purposeful 

refinements made to programs and 

experiences are the ultimate signs of 

success. A general openness towards 

constant refinement and seeking out 

opportunities to learn at every step 

is fundamental to creating an active 

community of practice.

Conclusion

While entrepreneurial advancements 

in makerspaces are exciting, the more 

interesting outcome for us has been 

the evolution of an individual’s thinking, 

learning and personal stance toward 

their own making abilities. The capacity 

for the people who use these spaces to 

arrive at the edge of their understanding 

and push through to new ideas is worthy 

of supporting. Telling the stories of the 

processes that lead to these innovations 

is worth spending time on.

The wonderful thing about making 

is that it’s a deeply human endeavor. 

It is firmly in the hands of the people 

and communities we are interested in 

working with in the first place. People are 

the reason that we’re engaged in these 

spaces. Supporting learners to grow and 

change, to see themselves as makers 

who can make a difference as they 

develop new dispositions, attitudes and 

expertise is the reason to pay attention 

to our skills as facilitators, designers and 

stakeholders of these programs. It’s an 

investment that reaps rewards far beyond 

a physical space or set of programs, 

it pays dividends in people as doers, 

enabled and empowered to advocate for 

a different approach to learning in and 

out of schools.
32 MAKING+LEARNING IN MUSEUM AND LIBRARY MAKERSPACES 

Scott Family Amazeum

TOOLS TECHNOLOGY MATERIALS FUNCTIONS ACTIVITIES SPACE
CHILDREN’S MUSEUM OF PITTSBURGH | INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES 33

PIECES & PARTS

Many people think about maker experiences 

as the tools and materials that enable 

staff, visitors or patrons to create a variety 

of artifacts. We refer to these tools and 

materials as pieces and parts.

Know Your Goals

Once a museum or library has identified 

its overarching programmatic goals for 

its makerspace, then it should consider 

the tools, materials and equipment that 

best facilitate those goals. For example, 

if fostering creative expression is the 

overall goal of a makerspace, this goal 

may be reached by means of materials 

like cardboard, wires, wood, and textiles. 

If supporting workforce development 

is a goal, then pieces and parts should 

be chosen that engender specific skills 

and mindsets valued by the workforce 

area of interest. This could include skills 

like persistence, collaboration and goal 

setting, as well as tool and/or equipment 

proficiency within the focus workforce area. 

Know Your People

Ideally, the pieces and parts should also 

align with the skills, capacity and interests 

of the people who manage the space. For 

example, if the facilitators of a program 

are skilled programmers, then activities 

could make use of tools and materials that 

enable those facilitators to develop those 

skills in learners. A goal of this program 

or space might be related to developing 

the technological fluency of the learners 

or cultivating those skills with respect to 

a particular end in mind, as a means to 

support creative problem solving.

Know Your Physical Space

Another important component of pieces 

and parts is the architecture of the 

physical space in which programming 

occurs. Learning happens in a designed 

context, whether it is a permanent, 

dedicated space, or a temporary space 

that is transformed as needed. How the 

physical context for making is defined and 

designed is important for communicating 

to learners the intentions of the program 

as a learning experience. For example, 

does the arrangement of furniture suggest 

collaboration or service? Are materials and 

tools visible and within reach? How does 

the location of a maker activity align with 

a display of books/media or an adjacent 

exhibit? These questions address the 

architecture of making as it relates to the 

purpose and people of the program, space, 

and organization as a whole.

Ultimately, when there is intentional 

alignment between the three elements of 

the framework –the purpose, the people 

and the pieces and parts – a space may 

develop a cohesive identity about what it is 

and what kinds of learning experiences the 

program is working to support.

SECTION FOUR

If explicitly aligned with the purpose and 

people, the pieces and parts of a makerspace 

or program will help the learning experience 

develop an identity of its own.
34 MAKING+LEARNING IN MUSEUM AND LIBRARY MAKERSPACES 

PIECES & PARTS

Viewing Tools in Service of 

Program Goals

CASE STUDY: PIECES & PARTS

New York Hall of Science: nysci.org

MISSION

LEARNERS

The New York Hall of Science (NYSCI) has 

been a leader in maker programs in museums 

for several years. They have produced a 

popular book about the topic, Design, Make, 

Play, which is the same phrase that guides 

and shapes the ethos of the museum. One 

important aspect of the work that has shaped 

the programs, the tools and materials involved 

in the program is their focus on design. 

In particular, the Little Makers Program, 

Design Lab and the Makerspace have been 

innovative spaces for design with youth of 

various ages.

David Wells, Director of Maker Programming 

at NYSCI, explains that the overall focus is 

not just on building, but also on designing, 

especially with youth visitors. In the case of 

building a roller coaster, this means that the 

youth participants will spend time generating 

ideas, sketching out some of their better ideas 

and getting materials together to help them 

realize their design. Only then will they begin 

building. In this design-focused approach, it 

is the design that determines the materials 

more than the materials determining the 

design.

Engaging youth in the design process isn’t 

always easy. Sometimes they are reluctant to 

engage. Sometimes they need help coming 

up with ideas. And sometimes they need a 

friendly reminder that their first attempt at 

making may leave something to be desired. 

APPROACH TO 

LEARNING
CHILDREN’S MUSEUM OF PITTSBURGH | INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES 35

PIECES & PARTS

This focus on design is also captured in 

how young people think about tools. The 

learners often focus on 3D design. This does 

not mean 3D printing – there are more nimble 

and adaptive tools and materials that allow 

Wells and his participants to model 3D figures. 

Wells has nothing against 3D printers, but 

he does not want the 3D printer to be the 

“sexiest thing” in the room. The facilitators try 

to incorporate it as a tool in the service of the 

design process.

Viewing the tools and materials of a maker 

program in service of the goal of that program 

is one way to ensure that there is alignment 

or coherence in one’s overall program. Taken 

to its extreme, Wells aspires to someday have 

youth participants build their own tools and 

use these tools to carry out their design.

VISION

TOOLS
36 MAKING+LEARNING IN MUSEUM AND LIBRARY MAKERSPACES 

PIECES & PARTS

Aligning Tools 

to Learner Goals

CASE STUDY: PIECES & PARTS

Cleveland Public Library: cpl.org/thelibrary/subjectscollections/techcentral/makerspace-2

MISSION

TECHNOLOGY

STAFFING

STRUCTURE

SPACE

TechCentral, the makerspace at the main 

branch of the Cleveland Public Library, 

is intended to provide a creative and 

collaborative design and fabrication space. 

This space, which opened in January 2014, 

enables adult patrons to turn their ideas into 

reality, using the library’s collection of cutting 

edge equipment—iincluding a laser engraving 

and cutting machine, 3D printers and a vinyl 

cutter. TechCentral also provides patrons 

with access to professional-grade software 

for photography, videography, graphic 

design and music.

TechCentral’s tools and equipment have 

been intentionally selected to align with its 

mission of enabling patrons to be creative, 

collaborative and able to bring their ideas to 

life. CJ Lynce, Manager at TechCentral, says 

that their equipment is intended to support a 

deliberate shift in library service from content 

consumption to content creation. To be 

makers, the mix of the library patrons can span 

from pure amateurs to sophisticated experts. 

There are opportunities for library patrons to 

make relatively simple products with everyday 

materials, as well manufacture professionalgrade prototypes with advanced equipment 

and tools.

The physical space of TechCentral is 

purposefully located in the basement of 

the library next to the computer lab with a 

hundred stations. This enables the library 

to share staff across the makerspace and 

computer lab. However, this isn’t the only 

reason the makerspace is located in the 

basement. As Lynce explained, “This space 

gets really noisy, especially when the laser 

engraver is going. This can get to be a really 

noisy, chaotic area at times.” While some 

libraries and museums choose to put a 

makerspace in the center of their space to 

convey a sense of organizational priority, this 

may not be practical depending on the use.
CHILDREN’S MUSEUM OF PITTSBURGH | INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES 37

PIECES & PARTS

While the tools and materials currently 

available at TechCentral emphasize digital 

production, Lynce and his team have 

discovered that their focus many need to 

shift as they expand their maker programs 

to branch libraries across the system. For 

example, they offer newer workshops on 

making with duct tape and how to brew beer. 

When considering this shift, Lynce stated 

that these non-digital maker experiences 

still tap into their goal. He said that the goal 

of the work is intensely focused on learning 

and creativity. They were able to address this, 

in part, by introducing patrons to the idea 

of creating work products. He emphasized, 

“We’re not just a consumer culture, but also 

producers. And being a producer can be an 

analog or digital experience.”

Ultimately, TechCentral represents an 

intentional alignment between the goals of 

engaging patrons in creative, collaborative 

endeavors that enable the patrons to make 

their ideas tangible, and the tools and 

materials that meet those goals.

GOALS
38 MAKING+LEARNING IN MUSEUM AND LIBRARY MAKERSPACES 

PIECES & PARTS

Activating Lifelong Learning 

with Tools and Materials

CASE STUDY: PIECES & PARTS

Chattanooga Public Library: chattlibrary.org

LEARNERS

The Fourth Floor of the Chattanooga Public 

Library has been lauded for its innovative 

library services: a mixture of high-end and 

low-tech tools and the GigLab (a co-working 

and special event space). The Giglab provides 

public access to the city’s high-speed 

connectivity (“the gig”) for experimentation 

and learning applications. Less well known, 

the Second Floor offers a similarly innovative 

yet more scaffolded maker experience for 

kids, tweens and teens. 

The Second Floor offers 3D printers, an 

augmented reality sandbox, zine making and 

video games, as well as a meeting space. 

Justin Hoenke, who previously served as a 

librarian on the Second Floor and is currently 

the Library Director at Benson Memorial 

Library in Titusville, Pennsylvania, describes 

the offerings on the Second Floor as reflective 

of what kids want these days. This includes 

a mixture of hands-on building activities, 

games, play, art and dramatic experiences. 

Ultimately, these tools and materials 

demonstrate how important the intentional 

selection of tools and materials can be in 

achieving a program’s goals.

By serving as a bridge for young people to 

the sophisticated tools that are offered on the 

Fourth Floor, the Second Floor carries out 

the library’s mission to be the community’s 

catalyst for lifelong learning. In specific 

terms, this support is integrally tied to the 

tools and materials that are offered to the 

young patrons. Hoenke and his colleague 

Megan Emery described this as something 

like an assembly line: learning to use the 

button maker is not just for making buttons, 

but also exposes young patrons to the making 

or building process.

The Second Floor staff intentionally select 

activities that expose patrons to a variety 

of traditional and emerging technologies. 

A visitor is just as likely to see an old Ms. 

Pac-Man arcade console and record player 

on the Second Floor as they are to see a 3D 

printer and Arduino boards. Young patrons 

have even tinkered with the Ms. Pac-Man 

game, replacing parts like the joysticks with 

repurposed materials.

MISSION

TOOLS
CHILDREN’S MUSEUM OF PITTSBURGH | INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES 39

PIECES & PARTS

While the tools and materials that the 

Second Floor offers seek to expose 

patrons to the inner workings of machines 

and demystify the building process, the 

accompanying learning experiences are 

still driven by the patrons’ interests. During 

the summer, the library offered a program 

where students learned to code, and the 

Second Floor received a grant to acquire 

some Chromebooks to support the learning 

process. Hoenke said that they saw this as 

being linked to the larger trend of STEAM 

learning, like many of their learning activities. 

But he noted that the youth wanted to learn 

to code because they loved video games, 

wanted to make their own video games and 

engaged with the program as a way to learn. 

Ultimately, the Second Floor at Chattanooga 

Public Library demonstrates how the 

deliberate choice of tools and materials can 

align and support the goals of a makerspace 

or maker program. 

GOALS

APPROACH TO 

LEARNING
40 MAKING+LEARNING IN MUSEUM AND LIBRARY MAKERSPACES 

Our first makerspace, in the James B. Hunt Jr. Library, 

launched as a collection of tool-based 

services (3D printing, laser cutting) and 

devices available to borrow (Arduino 

and Raspberry Pi kits, 3D scanners, and 

more). Underlying this new program, 

though, was our library’s vision: to be NC 

State’s competitive advantage. With that 

in mind, we chose tools we hoped would 

have a big impact on a broad swath 

of our campus community, especially 

when made available with affordable, 

supported, and open services.

As our makerspace program has 

expanded and taken on new areas of 

technology (e.g. wearable technology 

and the Internet of Things), our main 

motivations have been to enable access 

and facilitate literacy. So when we look at 

pieces and parts, whether it be designing 

a space or pop-up activity, or choosing 

an electronics kit, we ask questions like:

• How accessible is this to a total 

beginner? How easy is it to get 

started?

• What are the barriers to entry (e.g., 

unusable software, high cost of 

materials due to manufacturer 

lock-in)? Can these be eliminated or 

minimized by staff support?

• How would I teach this, and does it 

facilitate deeper learning?

Inevitably, the pieces and parts of a 

makerspace program reflect the people 

who run it—the librarians or museum 

educators. The questions we ask and 

the design choices we make should 

evidence our values and principles. For 

instance, one might prefer a 3D printer, 

which is open source hardware (meaning 

its plans are free to study, copy, and 

re-use) and can print with any standard 

filament (not just that supplied by the 

printer’s manufacturer)—because they 

value openness and flexibility. At the 

NCSU Libraries, we have chosen to 

primarily support and teach software, 

which is free for students to download 

on their own computers—because 

we value independent learning and 

accessibility.

PIECES & PARTS

Partner Perspective: 

“Pieces and Parts at 

the NCSU Libraries 

Makerspaces”

At the NCSU Libraries, our makerspaces have been most visibly 

and easily defined by their pieces and parts—especially their 

technologies and physical spaces. 

Adam Rogers

Emerging Technology Services Librarian

North Carolina State University
CHILDREN’S MUSEUM OF PITTSBURGH | INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES 41

PIECES & PARTS

With the success of the NCSU Libraries’ 

first makerspace, we had the wonderful 

opportunity to expand the program with 

a second, much larger location. Rather 

than duplicate our first space, the new 

D.H. Hill Makerspace was designed to 

strategically complement the first and to 

offer new and different experiences. The 

most significant pieces and parts of the 

environment we built are:

• a floor-to-ceiling glass wall which 

invites new users in, enables 

serendipitous discovery, makes 

visible the work that’s done in the 

space, and more

• an entrance lobby with an opendoor policy, which further invites 

in visitors and new users, engaging 

them with hands-on activities and 

compelling example projects

• entirely flexible furniture—tables and 

chairs on casters, ceiling-mounted 

power cord reels, movable 

ventilation—which allows for 

multiple uses and rearrangement

• a simple and reliable teaching setup: 

a projector and drop-down screen, 

a set of 20 laptops, and easy A/V 

connections

• very little fixed equipment: this 

privileges a one-to-one hands-on 

learning experience, and keeps the 

space open-ended, with new tools 

easily added.

So, clearly these pieces and parts were 

selected with purpose, by a thoughtful 

design team, with a lot of consideration 

of the people who would manage and 

use the space. 

One thing to call attention to regarding 

pieces and parts, is the impetus to buy 

new and more stuff. Particularly in a 

technology-oriented environment, there 

is an impulse to chase after what’s next, 

the latest and greatest. There is often 

a positive motivation here: we want 

to engage our users and offer them 

exciting, transformative experiences. 

But a few words of caution are in order: 

(1) every new purchase has hidden 

costs and implications in terms of 

setup, training, support, maintenance, 

and continued costs, and (2) tools and 

technologies are only made meaningful 

by what you and your users can do with 

them.

The magnetism of pieces and parts in 

the makerspace movement is no doubt 

because they are so malleable, so shiny, 

and often so affordable and seemingly 

easy. There are always new things to 

explore and experiment with. This makes 

our work really exciting, but it can also 

arouse a consumerist urge to buy into 

new modes of engagement (e.g., buy 

a 3D printer, and you’re supporting 

innovation). This surface view can 

obscure the hard work of redefining 

purpose, developing vision, learning 

new skills, and engaging communities 

in new ways. But—it can also be a way 

in, a prompt to figure things out and try 

new things. For most people, just getting 

started making and supporting making 

is the most important step—if it’s a shiny 

new technology that gets you there, 

great. Just be prepared to think critically 

and ask questions about how it fits and 

what it really does for your users.
42 MAKING+LEARNING IN MUSEUM AND LIBRARY MAKERSPACES 

Exploratorium
CHILDREN’S MUSEUM OF PITTSBURGH | INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES 43

LEARNING

Once we begin to consider these elements, how do 

we know that learning is taking place? To 

answer this question, it may be helpful to 

first consider our perspective on learning 

and what we care about with respect to 

learning.

 

The theories and rationales for learning that 

advocates draw from when implementing 

maker-based learning experiences are 

varied. Some of these, like constructionism, 

constructivism and project-based learning 

have been covered elsewhere. Whether or 

not one chooses to connect the learning 

in their makerspace or maker program to 

a particular theory such as project-based 

learning or inquiry-based learning, the 

difficult question still remains, what does 

learning look like in your space or program?

To address this topic, we will provide two 

different but connected ways to approach 

the evidence of learning through making. 

First, an approach called Evidence-Centered 

Design as a way of conceptualizing learning 

in a program or space. Second, work 

from Children’s Museum of Pittsburgh to 

consider what learning can look like in a 

makerspace.

Learning Through Making: General to 

Specific

As we reviewed literature on makerspaces, 

conducted site visits nationwide and spoke 

with practitioners from these spaces, we 

always asked about the kinds of learning 

experiences they sought to support 

through making. This proved to be a 

difficult question for many. We noticed that 

many practitioners left the terminology 

for learning at a general level, focusing on 

popular learning outcomes. Some of the 

learning goals they spoke about were:

• STEM (Science, Technology, 

Engineering and Math)

• STEAM (Science, Technology, 

Engineering, Art and Math)

• Computational Thinking/Literacy

• Creativity

• Collaboration

• College and Career Readiness Skills

• Dispositions such as Persistence, 

Passion and Curiosity

Whether the overall goal of a makerspace 

is represented in one of the above 

terms or not, documenting evidence of 

learning proved to be challenging for 

our colleagues. It became even more 

challenging when we asked how they knew 

that their participants were learning the 

program’s particular goal. 

SECTION FIVE

The framework to support learning in 

museum and library makerspaces is intended 

to foster conditions for learning in those 

settings. 
44 MAKING+LEARNING IN MUSEUM AND LIBRARY MAKERSPACES 

LEARNING

Evidence Of Learning

A significant aspect of designing for learning is the 

ability to make evidence-based claims about the 

learning in a space or program. To address this 

question, many have advocated for asking some 

fundamental questions. What does learning look 

like in a makerspace or maker program? 

How can we make learning more visible in a 

makerspace? And to what extent does the effect 

of maker-based learning experiences persist over 

time? 

We can take a variety of approaches to answer 

these questions and gather evidence of learning. 

Below are some basic strategies. While not a 

comprehensive list, these strategies are intended 

to demonstrate the kinds of approaches that we 

can employ to collect evidence of learning in 

our makerspaces, and tell our stories of learning. 

Please note that these are strategies for collecting 

evidence of learning, and not the evidence itself.

Observation Notes: Whether you’re the 

educator or the manager of a space (or both), 

writing down observations can be a productive 

way to document what learners are doing and 

saying while they engage with your space and 

programs. This can also include what family 

members and makerspace staff are doing and 

saying, since they are often partners in the 

learning process.

Interviews/Focus Groups: Speaking to learners 

and educators can create opportunities to 

understand the learning experience and 

accomplishments of learners in their own 

words. These can be written or recorded.

Artifacts of Work: To capture the material 

nature of maker-based learning experiences, 

the artifacts or products of what learners use 

and what learners create can serve as evidence 

of learning. The artifacts can offer windows 

into the learners’ process like completing a 

storyboard or understanding of a particular 

concept like constructing an automata that 

moves in intended ways.

Video/Photographs: Visual documentation 

can offer a chance to document not only the 

artifacts of work and processes to create them, 

but who the learners are and their energy and 

emotions as they engage in their making.

Surveys/Written Responses: Asking learners 

questions can provide quicker access to their 

perceptions of the maker-based learning 

experience. Surveys can vary in length. 

Five minute surveys can be designed to be 

informative and still be less disruptive to the 

learning experience. 

Taking into consideration which strategies are 

most appropriate for your space or your capacity 

and strategically utilizing them can offer evidence 

to address the question of what participants are 

learning in your makerspace or maker program. 

These strategies can be employed by those 

external to the makerspace (i.e., evaluators and 

researchers), as well as those internal to the 

makerspace (i.e., educators, volunteers and 

learners). Strategies might vary from program to 

program. 
CHILDREN’S MUSEUM OF PITTSBURGH | INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES 45

LEARNING

The strategies outlined above serve as a starting point for building a 

case for learning in a makerspace, but it’s also 

necessary to tie them to some model of learning 

and engagement that supports the organization’s 

mission and values. The approaches above 

essentially help us consider how to collect 

evidence of learning. However, models of learning 

provide us with notions of what kinds of learning 

we wish to support. 

As a specific, illustrative example, Children’s 

Museum of Pittsburgh has developed Learning 

Practices of Making, which serve as observable 

behaviors of learners in MAKESHOP®, the 

museum’s makerspace. This work was funded 

by an IMLS National Leadership Grant (LG-25-

12-0577-12) involving a partnership between the 

Children’s Museum of Pittsburgh and the New York 

Hall of Science. The practices were developed 

collaboratively between the teaching artists of 

MAKESHOP® and researchers to identify the 

kinds of learning that the museum values, how 

to adequately describe this learning and how 

to design to support visitor engagement in this 

learning. 

In Table 1, we present these learning practices as 

a concrete example of how a space can identify 

and empirically track its own learning priorities. 

However, we recognize that these may not be 

appropriate for all makerspaces.

Table 1: Learning Practices with Descriptions

LEARNING PRACTICE PRACTICE DESCRIPTION

Inquire Learners’ openness and curious approach to the possibilities of the context through 

exploration and questioning of its material properties.

Tinker Learners’ purposeful play, testing, risk taking and evaluation of the properties of materials, 

tools and processes.

Seek & Share 

Resources

Learners’ identification, pursuit/recruitment and sharing of expertise with others; includes 

collaboration and recognition of one’s unfamiliarity and desire to learn.

Hack & Repurpose Learners’ harnessing and salvaging of materials, tools and processes to modify, enhance or 

create a new product or process; includes disassociating object property from familiar use.

Express Intention Learners’ discovery, evolution and refinement of personal identity and interest areas 

through determination of short and long term goals; includes learners’ responsive choice, 

negotiation and pursuit of goals alone and with others.

Develop Fluency Learners’ development of comfort and competence with diverse tools, materials and 

processes; developing craft.

Simplify to 

Complexify

Learners’ demonstration of understanding of materials and processes by connecting and 

combining component elements to make new meaning.

Models of Learning Lisa Brahms and Peter Wardrip

Children’s Museum of Pittsburgh

Other examples of learning 

models include the Dimensions of 

Learning from the Tinkering Studio 

at Exploratorium and Activation 

measures from Activation Lab at 

Lawrence Hall of Science. See 

makingandlearning.org
46 MAKING+LEARNING IN MUSEUM AND LIBRARY MAKERSPACES 

Below, we describe and briefly illustrate each 

learning practice as it relates to learners’ 

participation with the Circuit Blocks activity. The 

examples depicted come from data collected with 

visitors’ consent to participate in research activities, 

through researcher observation using video and 

field notes.

The Circuit Blocks are a collection of wooden 

blocks with different components and power 

sources affixed to them. These blocks are made 

of a variety of materials such as small motors, 

buzzers, speakers, propellers and wheels – most 

of which are harvested from electronic toys or 

appliances. Each of these components is fastened 

to a separate wooden block, with its wire leads 

exposed and attached to conductive nails. 

Blocks can be connected to one another using 

wires with alligator clips on the ends. A number of 

power sources are available, such as battery packs 

and cranks, as well as diverse forms of switches, 

including traditional light switches such as those 

found in a home, binder clips, paper clips and even 

conductive hair pins. Visitors may connect and 

reconnect the various components and switches 

to a power source with the loose wire leads. 

Inquire

As a learning practice, it means that the learner 

is open and curious about the possibilities of the 

context. This context is the making activity that 

may include tools, materials, processes and other 

makers. The maker’s curiosity and openness can 

be seen in the exploration and questioning of the 

properties of the tools and materials available for 

the making activity.

Learners often engage in the practice of inquiring 

as an initial phase in their making process. When 

approaching the Circuit Blocks, children’s inquiry 

is often expressed as curiosity about the materials 

before them or the function of the mechanism. 

A child may pick up a circuit block and ask “What 

is this?” or “What does this one do?” Oftentimes, 

these simple questions provide robust points of 

entry for deep exploration of process.

Tinker

As a learning practice, it relates to the learner 

evaluating the various properties of the tools 

and materials available to them in the making 

experience. This evaluation might be seen as 

purposeful play, testing or risk taking.

The tinkering we see with the Circuit Blocks 

includes learners swapping power sources, testing 

different wires or configurations of wires among 

circuit blocks, flipping switches on and off, and 

gently striking an alligator clip connected to a 

power source against different parts of other 

blocks, such as the nails, wire tails or holes within 

a component itself. Children often begin their 

exploration of the circuit blocks with phrases 

such as, “Let’s see what happens when I try this,” 

or “What if I do this?” As learners connect blocks, 

some connect and reconnect them in ways 

that complete the circuit and ways that do not 

complete the circuit, exhausting the possible 

combinations of connecting the wires. We also 

see tinkering when children work at repeatedly 

opening and closing the alligator clips or 

connecting the alligator clips to various surfaces.
CHILDREN’S MUSEUM OF PITTSBURGH | INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES 47

Seek & Share Resources

As learners engage in a making experience, 

they openly rely on the resources available to 

them to understand how to use a particular 

tool, what the affordances of certain materials 

are and how specific processes may be used to 

pursue their goals. Seeking and sharing resources 

means that learners may identify, pursue and/or 

recruit the expertise of another in order to carry 

out their making activity. As participants in the 

making activity, these learners also share their 

own expertise with others who are participating. 

Ultimately, seeking and sharing resources as a 

learning practice acknowledges, on the learner’s 

part, that he or she does not know some things 

related to the making activity, and desires to learn 

even more. 

As learners engage with the Circuit Blocks, we’ve 

seen them seek and share resources in several 

ways. Children observe and show off what they 

have done to family members or nearby visitors. 

A child might say to friends or someone sitting 

near them, “Hey, look at this” when they’ve made 

a working connection between a power source 

and component, such as a light or motor. Once 

they’ve made the connection, children often 

offer an explanation of their process to a parent 

or Teaching Artist, as a way to process their 

developing understanding and simply express 

their accomplishment. A child might seek out 

information, or ask another child, parent, or 

Teaching Artist, “How did you make the fan move?”
48 MAKING+LEARNING IN MUSEUM AND LIBRARY MAKERSPACES 

Hack and Repurpose

Learners that hack and repurpose when engaged 

in making activities demonstrate the potential 

of materials, tools and processes beyond their 

intended use. When learners hack and repurpose, 

they modify, enhance and/or create a new 

product or process by salvaging or harnessing old 

ones. Hacking and repurposing disassociates the 

properties of an object from its most familiar use.

With Circuit Blocks, children’s engagement in 

hacking and repurposing as a learning practice 

includes recognizing and using everyday materials 

in useful or new ways for creating complete 

circuits. The Circuit Blocks are made primarily 

of repurposed electronic components (motors, 

lights, buzzers, switches, etc.) that have been 

harvested from old electronic toys, appliances 

and devices. This act of deconstruction happens 

in MAKESHOP® as a “take apart” activity situated 

near the Circuit Blocks’ table, allowing visitors to 

make direct connections between the toys and 

appliances and the repurposed elements of the 

blocks. Children will even “hack” the Circuit Blocks 

themselves, using an existing combination of 

power source, component and switch to teach 

themselves how a connection is made, swapping 

out different blocks to test variables.

Express Intention

As fundamental to the making process is the 

learners’ ability to express intention. By this we 

mean more than the learner following their own 

path. Expressing intention involves the discovery, 

evolution and refinement of the learners’ areas 

of interest through the determination of shortand long-term goals. These goals are pursued 

independently and collectively through responsive 

choices and negotiation of the making experience. 

Ultimately, this process of goal pursuit and interest 

development serves to foster the learner’s personal 

identity.

When do learners exhibit intentionality? From 

the moment they decide to work with the 

Circuit Blocks and not with some other activity 

in MAKESHOP.® They may articulate a goal path, 

saying things like: “First, let’s connect these wires 

together,” or “I’m going to get all of these lights to 

turn on at the same time,” or “I’m going to make 

the fan spin faster.” Children will make explicit 

choices about which components they’ll use and 

explain their rationale for such choices.

Develop Fluency

As learners engage in making, they can become 

more fluent in different components of the making 

activity. This includes the development of the 

learners’ comfort and competence with a variety 

of tools, materials and processes. Ultimately, 
CHILDREN’S MUSEUM OF PITTSBURGH | INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES 49

fluency development may be seen as the 

cultivation of a learner’s craft within a domain.

When making activities are shorter or less 

sustained over time, it can be difficult to observe 

fluency development. However, we’ve seen 

children developing craft, especially with circuits, 

in a variety of ways. Oftentimes, children will 

repeatedly connect and complete a circuit, 

demonstrating an understanding of how they 

work. Similarly, adding switches, dimmers, or 

other additional elements further demonstrates 

their understanding of circuits. Children may 

exhibit fluency by using accurate vocabulary and 

by identifying the right tool for the job, such as 

knowing the property of a switch.

Simplify to Complexify

In many cases, making enables learners to build 

and create using a variety of base materials. What 

do we mean by simplify to complexify? It’s when 

learners combine and connect unique elements 

to give new meaning to those elements. This 

serves to demonstrate a learner’s understanding of 

materials and/or processes and to enable learners 

to expand and deepen their understanding in 

boundless ways.

With Circuit Blocks, this practice is basic to building 

complete circuits. For example, when a child 

completes a circuit, he uses wires to connect a 

power source to some sort of output, like a light or 

a fan. Each of these components is given meaning 

through its relationship to the others. To a simple 

circuit (power source and output), the learner can 

add a switch. The Circuit Block table enables a 

learner to combine different components in nearly 

infinite ways, such as building parallel circuits or 

testing the limits of outputs relative to different 

power sources. Outputs, power sources and 

switches can be exchanged or added to explore 

possibilities and make new meaning. 

These learning practices are meant to serve as 

an illustrative example of the kinds of identifiable 

learning taking shape in makerspaces. Perhaps 

they aren’t completely appropriate for other 

spaces. However, the process of identifying 

important behaviors and actions within one’s 

maker-based learning experience is key to 

documenting what learning is taking place and 

designing to support it.
50 MAKING+LEARNING IN MUSEUM AND LIBRARY MAKERSPACES 

LEARNING

For years, portfolios have been actively used by artists and 

designers as a tool for professional and 

academic assessment (i.e., admission 

to schools, securing employment, etc.). 

Others have used portfolios as a tool 

for learning and reflection, creating 

opportunities for examining both the 

whole of one’s work, as well as the 

learning process over time. Portfolios 

have also served as a means of 

formative assessment – in conjunction 

with presentations, performances and 

competitions.

No matter what the context, portfolios 

have proven instrumental for learners 

to develop a sense of who they are 

through the curation of their work and 

artifacts – be it within art, design, writing, 

engineering, and now, anything that 

involves making.

Maker Education Initiative (Maker Ed), in 

collaboration with Indiana University’s 

Creativity Labs, has been focused on 

rethinking the use of portfolios by youth, 

whether as part of maker-based learning 

experiences[1] or more broadly. The 

Open Portfolio Project aims to develop 

a common set of practices for portfolio 

creation, reflection, sharing, assessment, 

and technology solutions to create an 

open, decentralized, and distributed 

lifetime portfolio system for makers. 

Within the research project, open 

portfolios are conceptualized to be part 

of “an openly networked, decentralized, 

and distributed portfolio system in 

which the maker maintains control of 

the content and curation process. Open 

portfolios seek to revisit the utility of 

portfolios as a central tool for lifelong 

learning and as a viable alternative to 

contemporary assessment practices, 

while leveraging new technologies to 

help address the shortcomings in prior 

educational initiatives.”

Open portfolios help youth develop 

and hone a variety of skills, including 

digital citizenship, digital literacy and 

metacognitive skills. Being able to 

comfortably present projects and 

Partner Perspective: 

“Open Portfolios: As 

Bridge Between Formal 

and Informal Learning”

No matter what the context, portfolios have proven instrumental 

for learners to develop a sense of who they are through the 

curation of their work and artifacts.

Lisa Regalla and Stephanie Chang

Maker Education Initiative
CHILDREN’S MUSEUM OF PITTSBURGH | INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES 51

LEARNING

learning processes in front of a large 

online audience – and receive feedback 

and encouragement along the way – can 

also help build confidence and prepare 

the youth to thrive in the increasingly 

digitally-driven higher education 

environment and workforce.

Also, truly open portfolios are not solely 

tied to proprietary software or a private 

institution, enabling portfolio creators 

to take their assets with them beyond 

the program at hand and build on them 

throughout a lifetime of learning. This 

process of creating a digital portfolio 

encourages a level of analysis and 

reflection to be able to curate the 

collected artifacts into a certain identity. 

Youth are deputized to think about what 

persona they wish to present to whom, 

as well as what their digital footprint and 

persona might look like.

Since the purpose of one’s portfolio and 

the setting in which it is created can vary 

widely, educators use various frameworks 

to organize portfolio creation and 

educational use. For instance, one 

possibility is to adopt the common 

writing framework RAFT (Role, Audience, 

Format, Topic) to help organize portfolio 

creation. 

RAFT helps youth understand their roles 

as writers, the audience they will address, 

the varied formats to consider, and the 

topic they’ll focus on. By adapting this 

strategy for portfolios, educators in 

museums and libraries can encourage 

youth to consider four important aspects 

of before diving in:

Role: What is your role? Artist, expert, 

maker, applicant, yourself, a new 

persona?

Audience: Who is your audience? Who 

will you share this with? Is this portfolio 

for an admissions board, personal use, 

adult makers, teachers, peers? How 

would a portfolio differ for each?

Format: How will a viewer interact 

with your portfolio? How important 

are the design, aesthetics, hosting 

platform and curation?

Topic: What question are you trying to 

answer? What gets you excited? What 

do you want to know?

The best way to envision what type of 

portfolios might work best, is to start by 

looking at examples of existing online 

portfolios, such as:

Individual Project Portfolio: “ljarin” 

documented the full process of the 

Touchless Trash Can Opener project on 

Build-in-Progress, a platform run by the 

MIT Media Lab. It’s evident in the steps 

laid out, along with the descriptions (and 

comments!) provided, that the project 

encountered a few difficulties along 

the way but ultimately concluded in a 

successful finish. This project could be 

included as part of a larger individual 

portfolio and/or one could look at ljarin’s 

profile to see what else has been made.

Group Portfolios: The largest art 

organization in the Bronx borough of 

New York City, the DreamYard Project, 

offers area youth a wide array of 

programming opportunities across a 

number of art forms including theater, 

poetry, dance, visual arts, photography, 

video, music and audio production, 

fashion design and engineering. The 

DreamYard Art Center has a Tumblr 

aggregate page that hosts links to other 

Tumblr aggregate pages for each of their 

art form-specific programs. All hosted on 

Tumblr, these pages allow students to 

have a public-facing platform for sharing 

their work outside the group.

In today’s digital age, it’s particularly 

important to curate one’s own identity 

and have control over how one’s work 

is displayed. Having an online presence 

is an opportunity to create a brand, build 

an aesthetic, contribute work to share 

with the greater world and access a 

genuine audience. Open portfolios also 

help bridge the gap between formal 

and informal learning, allowing for 

the collection of learning and artifacts 

across multiple settings and along a 

continuum of growth. Portfolios may 

show professionalism beyond the norm, 

and even confidence in one’s own work. 

A single project or artifact can prove that 

a student has completed something from 

beginning to end and can demonstrate 

his or her process, development and 

skillset. As an assessment tool, an open 

porftolio can provide a richness that 

captures depth of learning, voice and 

skills that a flattened test score simply 

cannot show.

For more information on the Open 

Portfolio Project, go to:

http://makered.org/opp/
52 MAKING+LEARNING IN MUSEUM AND LIBRARY MAKERSPACES 

Chattanooga Children’s Museum
CHILDREN’S MUSEUM OF PITTSBURGH | INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES 53

CONCLUSION

The amount of momentum around makerspaces and 

making programs in museums and libraries 

has been substantial in recent years. The 

framework to support learning in these 

makerspaces is intended to provide 

new practitioners at various levels of 

an organization some guidance for the 

development of a makerspace for visitors 

and patrons of all ages. Moreover, the 

framework is intended to give professionals 

who are already implementing maker 

programs an opportunity to take stock 

of their program, reflect on what they’ve 

accomplished and potentially identify areas 

of refinement. 

The framework reflects the diversity of 

makerspaces in museums and libraries 

across the country. Hands-on learning 

experiences in makerspaces and maker 

programs can look very different depending 

on their focus, the capacity of their 

educators and the tools and materials 

used to engage their learners. However, 

despite this diversity, this report documents 

how productive makerspaces incorporate 

an intentional approach to the design 

of learning experiences. This learning 

experience design is grounded in the 

purpose of the makerspace, the role people 

play in supporting the learning experiences 

and pieces and parts that engage the 

learners. 

Thus, to create the conditions for learning 

in these spaces, maker educational 

professionals ought to first ask, “Why a 

makerspace?” and not “What do I need to 

buy?” As we have seen, there are a variety of 

goals and motivations educators might have 

to implement a makerspace or a maker 

program in a museum or library. However, 

the motivations or goals we have for the 

learners in our makerspaces influences the 

tools and materials we use. 

We invite all museums and libraries to 

consider the three broad elements of the 

framework. We hope that this document 

will inspire you to foster the development of 

your unique makerspace or maker-program 

to be the best that it can possibly be for the 

benefit of the community you serve. 

Beyond this report, we encourage 

you to go to our web site, www.

makingandlearning.org to use the tools 

and resources available to carry this work 

forward.

SECTION SIX

It’s our goal to make every makerspace, and 

every maker-program, the best that it can 

possibly be. 
54 MAKING+LEARNING IN MUSEUM AND LIBRARY MAKERSPACES 

CONCLUSION

Credits

Columbia College Library

Columbus Museum of Art

Conner Prairie

Creative Discovery Museum

Cuyahoga County Public Library

Digital Youth Network

Discovery Center Museum

Discovery World Science and 

Technology Center

DuPage Children’s Museum

Evanston Public Library

expERIEnce Children’s Museum

Explora

Exploratorium

Field Museum

Free Library of Philadelphia

Grable Foundation

Great Lakes Science Center

Hagley Museum and Library

Hive Research Lab

Idaho Commission for Libraries

Iowa Library Services - North Central 

District

Kentucky Science Center

Kidzu

Kohl’s Children’s Museum

Lawrence Hall of Science

Liberty Science Center

MacArthur Foundation

Madison Public Library

Maker Education Initiative

Meridian Library District

Millvale Library

Milwaukee Public Library

We would like to 

thank the following 

organizations who played 

a role in the development 

of the framework and the 

publication through their 

participation in meetings 

and workshops held by 

this project’s team.

AHA! A Hands-On Adventure, A 

Children’s Museum

Akron-Summit County Public Library

Albright-Knox Art Gallery

Ann Arbor District Library

Anythink Library

Arkansas Discovery Network

Assemble

Barrington Area Library

Benedum Foundation

Benson Memorial Library

Betty Brinn Children’s Museum

Brooklyn Children’s Museum

Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh

Carnegie Science Center

Chicago Children’s Museum

Chicago Public Library

Children’s Discovery Museum of Illinois

Children’s Discovery Museum of West 

Virginia

Children’s Museum of Houston

Children’s Museum of Illinois

Children’s Museum of Pittsburgh

Cleveland Public Library

Montshire Museum of Science

Museum of Art and Design

Museum of Discovery

Museum of Life and Science

Museum of Science and Industry

Museum of Science Boston

National Museum of American History: 

Lemelson Center for the Study of 

Invention and Innovation

National Science Foundation

New York Hall of Science

New York Public Library

Newark Museum

Normal Public Library

North Carolina State University Libraries

Northbrook Public Library

Northern Tier Library

Orange County Library System

Paul Orselli Workshop

Phoenix Public Library

Please Touch Museum

Queens Library

Science Museum of Minnesota

Science Museum of Oklahoma

ScienceWorks Hands On Museum 

Scott Family Amazeum

Sprout Fund

Stepping Stones Museum

Tech Museum of Innovation

The Public Library of Youngstown and 

Mahoning County 

Tulsa Children’s MuseumVermont

Tulsa City-County Library

University of Nevada-Reno
CHILDREN’S MUSEUM OF PITTSBURGH | INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES 55

University of North Carolina at 

Chapel Hill 

University of Pittsburgh 

University of Wisconsin

Vermont Department of Libraries 

Westport Library

Wilkinsburg Public Library

Young Adult Library Services 

Association (YALSA)

References

The following references were used 

to inform the development of the 

publication from the beginning to the 

release. These publications represent 

the perspectives of researchers, 

practitioners and policymakers who 

advocate for making and makerspaces 

as opportunities for ambitious learning 

experiences. 

Bevan, B., Gutwill, J. P., Petrich, M., 

& Wilkinson, K. (2015). Learning 

Through STEM-Rich Tinkering: Findings 

From a Jointly Negotiated Research 

Project Taken Up in Practice. Science 

Education, 99(1), 98-120.

Bowler, L. (2014). Creativity through” 

maker” experiences and design 

thinking in the education of librarians. 

Knowledge Quest, 42(5), 58.

Brahms, L. & Wardrip, P.S. (2014). 

Learning Practices of Making: An 

Evolving Framework. A White Paper 

released by the Children’s Museum of 

Pittsburgh with support from IMLS and 

the Sprout Fund. Accessed from www.

tiny.cc/makeshop

Clapp, E. P., Ross, J., Ryan, J. O., & 

Tishman, S. (2016). Maker-centered 

learning: Empowering young people 

to shape their worlds. New York: John 

Wiley & Sons.

Dougherty, D. (2016). Free to Make: 

How the Maker Movement is Changing 

Our Schools, Our Jobs, and Our Minds. 

Gutwill, J. P., Hido, N., & Sindorf, L. 

(2015). Research to practice: Observing 

learning in tinkering activities. Curator: 

The Museum Journal, 58(2), 151-168.

Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). 

The maker movement in education. 

Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 

495-504.

Honey, M., & Kanter, D. E. (Eds.). (2013). 

Design, make, play: Growing the next 

generation of STEM innovators. New 

York: Routledge.

Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. (2013). 

Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and 

engineering in the classroom.

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, 

computers, and powerful ideas. Basic 

Books, Inc.

Peppler, K., Halverson, E., & Kafai, Y. B. 

(Eds.). (2016). Makeology: Makerspaces 

as learning environments (Vol. 1 & 2). 

New York: Routledge.

Thomas, A. (2014). Making makers: Kids, 

tools, and the future of innovation. 

Maker Media, Inc.

Vossoughi, S., & Bevan, B. (2014). 

Making and tinkering: A review of the 

literature. National Research Council 

Committee on Out of School Time

STEM, 1-55.

Wardrip, P. S., & Brahms, L. (2015, 

June). Learning practices of making: 

developing a framework for design. In 

Proceedings of the 14th international 

conference on interaction design and 

children (pp. 375-378). ACM.

Wilkinson, K., & Petrich, M. (2013). The 

Art of Tinkering: Meet 150+ Makers 

Working at the Intersection of Art, 

Science & Technology. San Francisco, 

Welden-Owen. 

Publication design by:

Julina E. Coupland

The icons used here are in accordance 

with the attribution requirements of the 

Creative Commons, the Noun Project and 

the following:

Juan Pablo Bravo

Proletkult Graphik

Samuel Dion-Girardeau

Mike Ashley

Alexandra Hawkhead

Nicolas Morand

Owen Payette McGarry

Wilson Joseph

Eva Verbeek

Berkay Sargin

Michele Zamparo

Bjorn Andersson

Thomas Le Bas

Nico Tzogalis

iconsmind.com

Rohith M S

Guillaume Beaulieu

Joao Proenca

Christopher Holm-Hansen

Anbileru Adaleru

Joshua Ganyon

Claire Jones

Creative Stall

Melissa Holterman
MAKING+LEARNING IS A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT (IMLS National 

Leadership Grant MG-00- 14-0074- 14) BETWEEN the Children’s Museum of 

Pittsburgh AND the Institute of Museum and Library Services. THE PROJECT 

IS SUPPORTED BY THOUGHT PARTNERS FROM the Exploratorium, the 

Chicago Public Library, North Carolina State University Libraries AND the 

Maker Education Initiative.