Making it together, locally - IEEE Xplore

Making It Together, Locally A Making Community Learning Ecology in the Southwest USA

Micah Lande & Shawn Jordan Polytechnic School, Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering Arizona State University at the Polytechnic campus Mesa, Arizona, USA [email protected], [email protected] Abstract—This paper illustrates the spaces, tribes and experiences within the Maker community. Using a theoretical framework of learning ecology and communities of practice, we illustrate and provide the context of Making, Maker Faires and Mini-Maker Faires, and Makers’ experiences. We contribute a proposed taxonomy by which makerspaces can be categorized. We begin to compare Makers in our Southwest region of the United States to information known about Makers throughout the United States. Keywords- Makers; community; engineering; learning ecology

I.

INTRODUCTION

This paper focuses on the spaces and tribes in which Makers assemble and do their work. A Maker is an emerging colloquial term we use to describe a group of do-it-yourselfminded individuals participating in formal and informal communities (doing-it-together and doing-it-with-others) that support and celebrate building and prototyping technical proofof-concept exploration and ad-hoc product development. A Maker is a modern-day tinkerer and hands-on doer and fashioner of stuff. Through an ongoing research project, we are exploring the educational pathways of Makers. This paper extends our understanding to include and identify the resources and people Makers may interact with, both nationally, and locally in our Southwest region of the United States. There is a range of such spaces from formal educational settings to informal and even ad-hoc organizations. Settings in K-12 or college may support making activities. It may happen in the engineering classroom in college with learning opportunities come from class assignments and course work. Students are scaffolded to develop skills to make one attractive to direct entry into the engineering workforce, through acquiring skills like soldering and professional skills like teamwork experience. In informal situations too, Makers have experiences tinkering in the garage, in the backyard, in the basement. They partake in extracurriculars or clubs or tinker on their own. They assemble and troubleshoot their own projects and maybe have started their own activity to engage with others to do the same. They participate in community Maker Faires and hackerspaces. Membership may also happen at a for-profit fabrication space like TechShop or in a community center, library, or science museum making space.

978-1-4799-3922-0/14/$31.00 ©2014 IEEE

II.

CONTEXT OF MAKING

A Maker creates technical artifacts, personally undertaking a project often without prior expertise. The do-it-yourself ethos is historically rooted in efforts like Popular Mechanics magazine demystifying everyday stuff for hobbyists and the Whole Earth Catalog: Access to Tools [1] surveyed everyday tools for the counterculture movement of the 1960s. Additional real-world touchstones are the growth of Radio Shack stores and the 1980s television program MacGyver where the lead character would resolve each episode’s predicament by fashioning an escape plan out of found objects [2]. Technology and sharing of information via the Internet has greatly increased the ability for smaller communities with shared interests to coalesce and grow. The label Maker is a self-determined one assigned by affinity or involvement in a larger making community. Make magazine was founded in 2006 as a quarterly publication and presents “DIY Projects, Inspiration, How-tos, Hacks, Mods & More” [3]. It has published over 3 dozen issues and has a circulation of 300,000. Make Magazine is a central participant in championing making, described as "a central organ of the maker movement” [4]. Its pages celebrate the people engaged in making and is a modern-day equivalent of the Whole Earth Catalog crossing technology with the category of tools covered. Different intellectual communities have focused on different aspects one can relate to making. The New York Hall of Science has hosted cross-disciplinary workshops for informal science and engineering educators and academics and teachers in September 2010 [5] and 2011. Topics of discussion included creativity informing K-12 education, inspiration to STEM learning and collaborations between Makers and teachers, academics and informal science community members. The human-computer interaction field has studied hacking and tinkering in the context of DIY and tools and practices [6, 7]; design research, ad-hoc prototyping and tinkering using local objects [8]. Flexible spaces for Making activities are growing in popularity, including the creation of community hacker spaces [9], makerspaces in academia [10, 11, 12], and fab labs [13].

III.

MAKING TOGETHER

Through a theoretical framework of learning ecologies and communities of practice, we will describe the range of affiliations and congregations. The term learning ecology was defined by Barron [14] as “the set of contexts found in physical or virtual spaces that provide opportunities for learning” [14]. Each context consists of a unique configuration of activities, material resources, and relationships that, when taken together, support learning. With research on adolescents learning technologies in Intel Computer Clubhouses, Barron demonstrated that those learning ecologies abundant in resources (e.g., books, classes, and mentors) are successful in sparking and sustaining adolescents’ interests. Such learning ecologies also motivate students to spend significant amounts of time honing their interests and stimulate more creative thinking [13]. Building on that, we will present a taxonomy for the spaces and groups within the broader Maker community. Additionally, the theoretical framework of communities of practice will also be used. According to Wenger, a community of practice is a group “of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly” [15]. The Maker community of practice is brought together by a common interest in Making, have a shared knowledge in how to Make things, and regularly learn techniques from others in the Maker community.

since then in the Bay Area and New York City, featured faires in Austin, Detroit and Kansas City, and Rome. Fig. 1 (from [17]) visually illustrates the growth of Maker Faires and MiniMaker Faires from 2006 - 2013. In addition to annual flagship faires and featured faires, there has been a rapid increase in the number of independently organized “Mini-Maker Faires”. These are much smaller in scope, organized for a weekend afternoon with just the local community involved. In 2013, there were over 100 community events. Fig. 2 shows a map of Maker Faires and Mini-Maker Faires in the United States (from [18]).

Figure 2. Map of Maker Faires and Mini-Maker Faires in the US. From [18].

IV.

MAKER FAIRES AND MINI-MAKER FAIRES

Maker Faire has been an outreach effort of Make magazine, convening flagship, multi-day fair events in select cities and supporting smaller, regional one-day events around the country. Its credo is to “celebrate arts, crafts, engineering, science projects and the DIY mindset” [16]. Makers volunteer to exhibit at Maker Faire festivals. They are assigned a 4’ x 10’ (or larger) space inside an exhibition hall or an outdoor area to then set up their exhibits and demonstrations. There are also workshops and talks on a main stage as well as special events scheduled throughout the event. For the flagship Maker Faire events, attendees pay a nominal entry fee for a ticket ($20-28) for 1-day admittance to the 2-day weekend festival.

Figure 1. Size and Distribution of Maker Faires from 2006-2013. From [17].

The first Maker Faire was in the San Francisco Bay Area in 2006, attracting 100 exhibitors and 22,000 attendees. In 2010, the Bay Area Maker Faire hosted 1000 makers and had 80,000 in attendance [6]. Flagship Maker Faires have been held there

V.

MAKERSPACES

Makers also populate co-working, shop and hacker spaces often called Makerspaces or Hacker spaces. The expressed purpose of many of these spaces is knowledge brokering [20], to bring together a diverse group of people and share and leverage their particular expertise. A proposed categorization for labels and descriptors for Makerspaces is presented below. A. The Shared Co-Working Space With the rise of working from home and independent contractors, co-working spaces for regular business activities have become more prevalent. In consideration of what amenities one may need, beyond a desk, phone, and meeting spaces, co-working spaces have begun to bring in simple building and rapid prototyping tools like 3-D printers and laser cutters. Rudimentary making spaces are becoming more and more expected, particularly in co-working spaces with a manufacturing and hardware focus. This is the broadest and most inclusive category; in the simplest configuration, it is an office space with building and rapid prototyping tools. B. The Collaborative Clubhouse Even with the individual cost of rapid prototyping tools becoming more affordable, equipping a makerspace can be costly. Cooperative, collaborative clubhouse spaces then can address this by pooling financial resources and sharing space. There is sometimes a focus on electronic hardware and software, and members will spend long hours programming. Spaces for electronic hacking, for example, provide both a work space for tools and a place for creating and collaborating.

C. The Library/Community Center Historically, libraries have been centers of learning and hubs of knowledge in society. Freely and readily available electronic resources on the Internet have stirred debate on the transformation of libraries from places that house materials to places “where users can work” [19]. Libraries experimenting with makerspaces see a renaissance in deep contextualized learning that complements – not competes – with the core mission of the library. For example, a child reading a book about robots can check out both the book and a hands-on robot kit, developing “a powerful sense of agency from early childhood, including a perception of self as being productive and much more than a consumer” [20]. Other positive examples of deeper learning could be a student using a 3-D printer to print a 3-D model of a molecule to better visualize it, or “individuals synthesizing knowledge across disciplinary boundaries able to interact with members of communities of practice in a non-threatening environment… with a librarian at the ready to assist with resources and dispense advice regarding intellectual property opportunities or concerns” [21]. Both the Maker and library communities embrace empowering users to develop and share knowledge, making their convergence a salient opportunity for libraries to connect with the community and become collaborative clubhouses open to the public. Good [22] outlined 3 models for successful makerspaces in libraries: (1) collaboration; (2) centralize, develop, and deploy; and (3) opportunistic/entrepreneurial. In a collaborative makerspace model, a library partners with a local makerspace by making space available (even just a trailer) on or near the library to promote combined use of library and makerspace resources by the community. The entities cross-promote and jointly offer programs, emphasizing the value of both research and prototyping. In a centralized model, a library internally develops and manages its own space, perhaps re-defining its existing technology areas to promote collaboration and prototyping. Staff are typically trained library assistants, and offer classes for patrons. In an opportunistic/entrepreneurial model, responsibility falls on an internal champion in the library to find funding to create a makerspace. An entrepreneurial mindset helps make arguments to shift library resource priorities; e.g., to take space away from paper journals that are typically accessed electronically to create a makerspace, or to compare the cost of a 3-D printer to that of a journal subscription. Such comparisons can help incite change, that can be strengthened through pubic promotion of the new resources [22]. D. The School Innovation Space In a similar vein, K-12 schools want to prepare students for success. In science classrooms or engineering courses, learning-focused use of making and tinkering may come forward. It may be in contrast to the convergence of the scientific method and the general use of a science fair approach. The Maker Education Initiative seeks to “create more opportunities for all young people to develop confidence, creativity, and interest in science, technology, engineering, math, art, and learning as a whole through making” [23]. Their focus includes “expanding the number of maker spaces in both school and after-school settings, developing hands-on projects

for young people of all ages and interests, and recruiting mentors who can share their passion and expertise with the next generation of Makers” [24]. E. Science Museum for Informal Education A combination of the community center and the K-12 space, makerspaces in science museums may spark the imagination of visitors and connect them with similar spaces available to them closer to home. Makerspaces are appearing with increasing frequency at science museums around the country, and align well with the hands-on science museum philosophy of participatory learning. Some are focused on activities for kids, while others promote collaboration among entire families. Most use real tools, eclectic materials, and embrace failure as a pathway to learning. Most offer workshops, though some museums focus on skills-based workshops (e.g., sewing, soldering) while others focus on activity-based workshops (e.g., design with a MakerBot). Some offer open-ended design activities with structure, while others offer more open-ended exploration. For example, the Design Challenges program at the Museum of Science [25] in Boston offers students challenges (e.g., design and build a race car) where their solutions may take a number of different forms. These activities embody the open-ended spirit of Making because they do not constrain visitors to a single “correct” solution but instead challenge them to follow a design process and generate their own solution. Other programs, such as the Tinkering Studio at the Exploratorium in San Francisco [26], offer a mix of exploratory and structured activities and an eclectic set of materials to connect with a variety of visitors. These also embody the spirit of Making as visitors determine the definition of both the problem and solution. Other makerspaces, such as the Fab Lab at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago [27], focus entirely on digital fabrication skills, in the spirit of the Fab Lab concept pioneered by MIT [28, 29]. F. The For-Profit Shop For-profit shops are an increasingly popular model for providing space, technical, and human resources in a professional makerspace. One of the leading for-profit makerspaces, TechShop, was founded on the principle of providing the tools of the industrial revolution and beyond to anyone willing to pay a monthly membership fee. TechShop offers space in which to build, a complete selection of manual through computer-controlled wood, metal, and additive manufacturing tools, staff to both train customers on how to use the tools and consult on customers’ design ideas, and a creative community in which to inspire and be inspired. Since TechShop is a business, the initial investment is borne by public or private investors. TechShop, Arizona State University (ASU), and the City of Chandler, Arizona have a unique public-private partnership to bring TechShop to both the community and the university. TechShop and ASU share a facility where the makerspace in the building is managed by TechShop, and the classrooms are managed by ASU. ASU students who take classes in the facility receive memberships to TechShop, where they can

make full use of the “world-class creative workspace and prototyping studio” [30]. TechShop members can interact with ASU students, improving community awareness and fostering partnerships between ASU and the community. G. Makerspace Characteristics With all of these Makerspaces, there are categories that one might be able to organize and represent visually across a spectrum of characteristics, listed below in Table 1.

TABLE I.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

CATEGORIES OF MAKERSPACE CHARACTERISTICS

Sharing in the Commons Low to High Collaboration w/ Makers Low to High Curiosity and Discovery Not Valued to Valued Entrepreneurship No to Present Roles Makers to Hackers Cost Free Individual to Cost Group VI.

DATA COLLECTION VIA SURVEY INSTRUMENTS

In addition to understanding the ecosystem and landscape of Making activities, our efforts have gone further to collect the impressions and experiences of Makers in the Southwest region of the United States. We have deployed a survey instrument locally based on a national Maker Media survey [31]. We have found local Maker events in Tucson and Mesa in Arizona, located nearby our institution. The initial research question was to compare the national population of Makers to our regional group of Makers. A 1-page paper survey was created based on [30] and deployed at these events. Here, we report on 37 responses from the Mesa event from March 2014. A. Survey Tool The survey had 10 questions about the participants experience and involvement with Making. Table 2 lists the questions asked. Each question was multiple choice, detailed in the next section. TABLE II.

1. 2.

SURVEY QUESTIONS

How would you describe yourself as a Maker? What types of projects are you involved in as a Maker? 3. Who uses what you Make? 4. Who do you Make things with? 5. What sharing/collaborative activities do you engage in? 6. Do you participate in Makerspaces and Make with others? 7. What is your involvement in a Makerspace? 8. How have you participated in a Makerspace in the last 12 months? 9. How have you sold or shown your work? 10. What needs does your product or service address?

VII.

THE NATION AND THE SOUTHWEST REGION

A. Description as a Maker Survey participants were asked to select as many descriptions that they felt applied from a list, shown in Table 3. They were given a write-in option. TABLE III.

LIST OF DESCRIPTORS FOR “MAKER”

Academic / Educator Artist Beginner Builder Cheapskate Crafter Designer Developer TABLE IV.

Local Sample Artist Designer Crafter Hobbyist Builder Engineer Tinkerer Professional Inventor Developer Entrepreneur Hacker Cheapskate Programmer Beginner Academic/Ed

Engineer Entrepreneur Hacker Hobbyist Inventor Professional Programmer Tinkerer

Other

RANKING FOR MAKER DESCRIPTOR

57% 49% 49% 38% 38% 32% 30% 27% 24% 24% 19% 19% 16% 16% 8% 8%

National Sample Hobbyist Tinkerer Engineer Builder Programmer Beginner Crafter Artist Hacker Designer Cheapskate Professional Inventor Entrepreneur Academic / Ed Developer

48% 36% 23% 21%

Note: Participants could select more than one choice.

The categories of Artist – Designer – Crafter were most prevalent with our local cohort of Makers. This might highlight a lower barrier to entry and participation for local artisans and crafters to the event we surveyed than attending and participating a flagship Maker Faire.

 



  
 


"
" 
#
  
# 

%
  & 



 
 
!
!





 
 #






 

 



   
  

! 




 

 
 





 



 

 





 


$


'


*


('


(*


)'


)*


&


'


(


)


%$


%&


%'


%(


%)


&$


Figure 5. Who Do You Maker Things With? Survey question

Note: Participants could select more than one choice. Number of participants was 37.

Figure 3. How Would You Describe Yourself as a Maker? Survey Question

B. Who Uses What You Make? Similarly, the focus of the individual Maker or family and the local community as also the end customer is inverted from the National sample to the Local sample, as listed in Table 5.

D. What Sharing/Collaborative Activities Do You Engage In?  
 %  
 

!
 
#

  % %   


 
' $$
&(
 
 %  

  


TABLE V.

RELATIVE RANKING FOR USE




  


National Sample 1. My Family or myself 2. Others 3. Co-workers 4. Other Makers 5. Local community 6. Students

Local Sample 1. Local community 2. Students 3. Other Makers 4. My Family or myself 5. Co-workers

 
% 
  

  
  

 
  
 
 %
!

)


-


*)


*-


+)


+-


,)


Figure 6. What Sharing/Collaborative Activities Do You Engage In? survey questions

E. Do You Participate in a Makerspace with Others? Participants for the Southwest cohort indicate that less than half participate in an identified Makerspace, shown below in Fig. 7. This is in line with the National cohort responses.

 

 















 

 


 
 

 

 



 
  

 
 


 



















Figure 4. Who Uses What You Make? Survey question

C. Who Do You Make Things With? A majority of survey participants make things with other, details listed below in Fig. 5.





 











!


"











!


Figure 7. Do You Participate in a Makerspace with Others? Survey question

F. What is Your Involvment in a Makerspace? Participants were asked specific questions about their engagement and involvement in makerspaces and activities in a makerspace over the previous year.

Figure 11. What Needs Does Your Product or Service Address? survey question







 
 
 
! 
"


 


VIII. IMPORTANCE OF MAKING

 


 

 

 
 

   

 


 
 
 
! 
"


 




 
%


&


'


(


)


*


+


,


-


.


&%


Figure 8. What is Your Involvement in a Makerspace? Survey question 


 


 

 

&'
 

 





 

    

 




 
 
 
! 
  "

 



  
 
%


'


(


)


*


&%


&'


Figure 9. How Have You Participated in a Makerspace in the last 12 months? survey question

G. How Have You Sold / Shown Your Work Survey participants from the Southwest cohort identified selling at events in 3x the numbers of selling in a brick & mortar store. The National cohort had a more balanced proportion. It might be that the larger number of artists and crafters at our local event explains that mismatch. p

Figure 10. How Have You Sold / Shown Your Work? survey question

H. What Needs Does Your Product of Service Address? The largest number of respondents were interested in serving a social need, shown below in Fig. 11. 



 

 

  
  
 





 





  





 






























Understanding the context of Making and how making and engineering activities overlap is at the core curiosity of our research efforts. Consider how we might be able to learn from the Making community to better inform workplace readiness, pathways into engineering and STEM, and how we might improve the teaching of engineering. A. Call to Action for K-12 Education and the Workplace Faced with a dynamic world of complex problems crossing disciplinary boundaries, our country needs technical and engineering talent to solve challenges, e.g., NAE Grand Challenges for Engineering [32], of the future now. 21st Century Skills [33], particularly those of learning and innovation (critical thinking, communication, collaboration, creativity) are becoming part of the discussion of preparing K12 students. The talent necessary to address the pathways largely comes from a formal engineering education system challenged with producing sufficient numbers of qualified engineers. Useful qualifications can come from cohorts of Young Makers. Qualities like practical ingenuity, creativity, and lifelong learning and engagement are indispensible to success in engineering and the workplace. They are also some of the characteristics used to describe the envisioned Engineering of 2020 [34]. We seek to better understand the benefits of Making for Young Makers and the pathways to STEM majors and related careers. B. Broadening Engineering Pathways A more inclusive vision of engineering crossed with making could build future engineering capacity as well as raise awareness to the general public of the work and impact such work offers. Findings from the Center on the Advancement of Engineering Education’s Academic Pathways Study [35], studying undergraduate persistence in engineering and students’ pathway by and through engineering studies, found 2 groups of students with different motivations for engagement. The first seeks financial security, overcoming barriers of foundational math and science courses to continue, aiming for graduation. The second approached their studies with an intrinsic psychological motivation, seeking meaning and impact through their studies. Our ambition is to change the conversation to highlight the efficacy and possibilities for this second group. We do not equate engineering students, practicing engineers and Makers completely but find the possible overlaps and stories of pathways within to be possible for transformational change in our field. Consider the benefits to STEM and resulting societal benefits for those who have influence over student decisions like teachers, school counselors, and parents to have an appreciation of the multiplicity of pathways into such careers or the value of technical literacy, both based in problem solving or making activities. This is especially true for underrepresented groups to make the case that they are evident in the population of people already doing.

C. Informed Eduational Efforts Makers create their inventions wholly out of their imaginations. Their work is done outside the confines of established engineering education curricular activities. But their commitment and engagement is something that can be better understood to advantage our teaching in the classroom. This approach also aligns with project-based learning as a teaching method in the classroom, a call made by Sheppard [36]. Engaging K-12 students may mean developing curriculum and pedagogy that allows students to apply the knowledge learned in the classroom and make. Regardless of whether students choose pathways toward engineering-related fields, Making will engage students to become technologically literate citizens with the skills to apply an innovation process to solve real-world problems. ACKNOWLEDGMENT This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.1232772. REFERENCES [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

[6]

[7]

[8] [9]

[10] [11]

[12] [13] [14]

Brand, S. (1971). The last whole earth catalog: Access to tools. New York: Random House. McFedries, P. (2007, June) The hobbyist renaissance. IEEE Spectrum, 88. MAKE Magazine. (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2014, from http://www.makezine.com. More than just digital quilting. (2011). The Economist. Retrieved April 25, 2014, from http://www.economist.com/node/21540392. Honey, M., & Siegel, E. (2010). Proceedings from the Innovation, Education, and the Maker Movement Workshop. New York Hall of Science. Buechley, L., Paulos, E., Rosner, D., & Williams, A. (2009). DIY for CHI: Methods, communities, and values of reuse and customization. Proceedings of ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, MA. Kaye, J., Williams, A., and Oehlberg, L. (2011) Hacking, tinkering, crafts and inventive leisure practices. In the Proceedings of ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2011. Hangzhou, China. Louridas, P. (1999) Design as bricolage: Anthropology meets design thinking. Design Studies, 20(6), 517-535. Tweney, D. (2009). DIY freaks flock to ‘hacker spaces’ worldwide. Wired. Retrieved April 25, 2014 from http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/03/hackerspaces. Kolko, B. (2012). Hackademia. Retrieved April 25, 2014 from http://uwhackademia.wordpress.com/. National Science Foundation EEC (2011). Award Abstract #1136708 Research Initiation Grant: Can Makerspaces Develop Undergraduates' Research Creativity and Innovation? Retrieved April 25, 2014 from http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=11367 08&WT.z_pims_id=503584. Lande, M (2012). Making Room: Creating Design Spaces for Design Practice. Frontiers in Education Conference. Seattle, WA. October 3-6. Mandavilli, A. (2006). Appropriate technology: Make anything, anywhere. Nature, 442, 862-864. Barron, B. (2006). Interest and Self-Sustained Learning as Catalysts of Development: A Learning Ecologies Perspective, Human Development, 49(4) pp. 193–224.

[15] Wenger, L. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. [16] MAKE Magazine. (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2014, from http://www.makezine.com. [17] Maker Faire. (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2014, from http://makerfaire.com. [18] Maker Faire Maps. (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2014, from http://makerfaire.com/map. [19] Hargadon, A.B. (1999). Group Cognition and Creativity in Organizations, Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 2. pp. 137– 155. [20] Balas, J. (2012). Do makerspaces add value to libraries? Computers in Libraries, 32(9), 33. [21] Colegrove, T. (2013). Editorial board thoughts: Libraries as makerspace. Information Technology and Libraries, 32(1), 2. [22] Good, T. (2013). Three makerspace models that work. American Libraries, 44(1/2), 45-47. [23] Maker Education Initiative (n.d.). Retrieved July 9, 2014, from http://www.makered.org. [24] Kalil, T. (2012). Extreme marshmallow cannons! How the government and private sector can turn American kids on to science through "Making." Retrieved July 9, 2014 from http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/06/every_ch ild_a_maker_how_the_government_and_private_sector_can_turn_kids_ on_to_science_and_engineering_through_making_.html [25] (Boston) Museum of Science (n.d.). Retrieved July 9, 2014, from http://www.mos.org. [26] The Exploratorium (n.d.). Retrieved July 9, 2014, from http://www.exploratorium.org. [27] Gershenfeld, N., (2012). How to make almost anything: The digital fabrication revoluation. Foreign Affairs, 91(6), 43-57. [28] Mikhak, B., Lyon, C., Gorton, T., Gershenfeld, N., McEnnis, C., & Taylor, J. (2002). Fab lab: An alternate model of ICT for development. Development by Design (dyd02). Bangalore, India. [29] The Museum of Science and Industry (Chicago) (n.d.). Retrieved July 9, 2014, from http://www.msichicago.org. [30] TechShop. (2014). TechShop celebrates grand opening of ASU Chandler Innovation Center. Retrieved July 9, 2014 from http://techshop.ws/press_releases.html?&action=detail&press_release_id =59 [31] MAKE/Intel Maker Market Study and Media Report: An In-depth Profile of Makers at the Forefront of Hardware Innovation (2013). Retrieved April 25, 2014, from http://cdn.makezine.com/make/sales/Maker-Market-Study.pdf. [32] Perry, W., Broers, A., El-Baz, F., Harris, W., Healy, B., Hillis, W. D., et al. (2008). Grand challenges for engineering. Washington, DC: National Academy of Engineering. [33] Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. [34] National Academy of Engineering (2004). The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. [35] Atman, C. J., Sheppard, S. D., Turns, J., Adams, R. S., Fleming, L. N., Stevens, R., Streveler, R. A., Smith, K. A., Miller, R. L., Leifer, L. J., Yasuhara, K., & Lund, D. (2010). Enabling engineering student success: The final report for the Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers. [36] Sheppard, S. D., Macatangay, K., Colby, A., & Sullivan, W. M. (2008) Educating engineers: Designing for the future of the field. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.