Evaluating Fab Labs and Makerspaces
Two people work on a carpentry project inside a makerspace.
Makerspaces and fab labs are crucial parts of the informal STEM learning ecosystem. Though different in their origin, both offer accessible spaces for people to create with access to tools, education, technology, and digital fabrication. Sometimes these spaces are publicly available and other times they are limited to a community (like a school). And it’s a widespread movement. This directory of makerspaces from MAKE magazine lists nearly 800 results from around the globe, while the FabFoundation cites over 2,300 fab labs globally.
Activity in makerspaces and fab labs may be self-guided and individual, or communal and more highly structured. Often makerspaces and fab labs are touted for building STEM skills and STEM workforce development, but many visitors also visit for creative and entrepreneurial purposes (Teasdale, 2021; Soomro et al., 2022). These objectives can also exist in combination, as is the case in a study by Susanne Walan (2021) who examined youth engagement with a makerspace to create props for a drama show, linking STEM skills and learning with 21st century skill development.
Evaluation of makerspaces and fab labs, like anything else, must be tied to your goals. Typically, when defining a focus for an evaluation, we rely on what are called “evaluative criteria.” These are elements of focus that inform the development of evaluation questions. One way to identify evaluative criteria is to think about what success looks like for your program.
Teasdale (2020) conducted a study of library-based makerspaces to identify common and unique evaluative criteria, based on how different staff and participants defined success for their makerspaces. While this study identified six different definitions of success, including providing access to digital fabrication technology, fostering entrepreneurship, nurturing creativity, strengthening communities and families, supporting realization of intrinsic benefits and helping makers save money, you may have different definitions of success for your space.
Many evaluations have focused on library-based makerspaces, but there are other contexts in which makerspaces and fab labs exist, such as in schools, universities, afterschool and informal learning spaces, and museums. Evaluation of these spaces might focus on one or multiple of three elements: the maker themself, the makerspace, or the process of making (Cun et al., 2019). Though the following tools and research were largely developed with a focus on library-based makerspaces, the ideas are adaptable to evaluation within other contexts.
To help identify which evaluative criteria to focus your evaluation on, it may be useful to reference this assessment matrix, created by Cun et al., (2019) that outlines possible evaluative criteria (e.g., attendance, learning progress, interest, and mastery of skills), among multiple participant types and activities, in a public library makerspace. This visual framework communicates the complexity of identifying evaluative criteria in makerspaces and fab labs as well as in other informal learning contexts.
Figure showing library makerspace assessment matrix. Credit: Cun et al., 2019, p. 43
Or, you may reference the following sample set of focus group and interview questions, developed by Teasdale (2020) for library makerspace staff and participants, focused on determining what success means for the space.
Table of suggested focus group questions for makerspace staff and leaders. Credit: Teasdale, 2020, p. 4
Once you’ve defined the evaluative criteria that will guide your investigation, the next step is to develop evaluation questions and align methods that will help you answer these questions.
Methods you might use to evaluate makerspaces and fab labs include interviews, focus groups, surveys, card sorts, observations, and documentation of made objects and the making processes, but of course it is important to treat each context uniquely by defining your own criteria and evaluation questions, and by aligning methods that best suit your needs.
Interested in developing a framework for your fab lab or makerspace? Get in touch with us! We can work together to craft an approach that meets your needs.
References:
Cun, A., Abramovich, S. J., & Smith, J. M. (2019). An assessment matrix for library makerspaces. Library and Information Science Research, 41, 39-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2019.02.008
Soomro, S. A., Casakin, H., & Georgiev, G. V. (2022). A Systematic Review on FabLab Environments and Creativity: Implications for Design. Buildings, 12(6), 804. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12060804
Teasdale, R. M., (2020). Defining success for a public library makerspace: Implications of participant-defined, individualized evaluative criteria. Educational Psychology, 42, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2020.101053
Teasdale, R. M. (2021). “It’s a lab full of art machinery”: Implications of women’s experiences, values, and visions of success for makerspace evaluation. Information and Learning Sciences, 122(3/4), 223-245. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-08-2020-0177
Walan, S. (2021). The dream performance - a case study of young girls’ development of interest in STEM and 21st century skills, when activities in a makerspace were combined with drama. Research in Science & Technological Education, 39(1), 23-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2019.1647157
If you enjoyed this post, follow along with Improved Insights by signing up for our monthly newsletter. Subscribers get first access to our blog posts, as well as Improved Insights updates and our 60-Second Suggestions. Join us!