Informal learning environments play a critical role in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning across the lifespan and are consequential in informing public understanding and engagement. This can be difficult to accomplish in life science where expertise thresholds and logistics involved with handling biological materials can restrict access. Community laboratories are informal learning environments that provide access to the resources necessary to carry out pursuits using enabling biotechnologies. We investigate a group of these spaces in order to ascertain how this occurs—with specific attention to how material and intellectual resources are structured and shape learning. Using surveys and focus group interviews, we explore a group of these spaces located in the United States. We found that the spaces examined offer learning activities that are sufficiently scaffolded and flexible as to promote personalized and community-driven practice. We discuss these findings in relation to informal learning environment design and learning.
AndersonC (2012) Makers: The New Industrial Revolution. New York: Crown.
2.
AndersonJRRederLMSimonHA (1996) Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher25(4): 5–11.
3.
BartonACTanEGreenbergD (2017) The makerspace movement: Sites of possibilities for equitable opportunities to engage underrepresented youth in STEM. Teachers College Record119(6): 1–44.
4.
BrownJSCollinsADuguidP (1989) Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher18(1): 32–42.
5.
CigariniABonhoureIVicensJPerellóJ (2021) Public libraries embrace citizen science: Strengths and challenges. Library and Information Science Research43(2): 101090.
6.
DoughertyD (2012) Make/intel maker market study and media report: An in-depth profile of makers at the forefront of hardware innovation. Report. Available at: https://cdn.makezine.com/make/sales/Maker-Market-Study.pdf (accessed 18 April 2022).
7.
FreemanSEddySLMcDonoughMSmithMKOkoroaforNJordtH, et al. (2014) Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111(23): 8410–8415.
8.
GoodwinECAnokhinVGrayMKJZajicDEPodrabskyJEShortlidgeEE (2021) Is this science? Students’ experiences of failure make a research-based course feel authentic. CBE—Life Sciences Education20: ar10.
9.
GrahamMJFrederickJByars-WinstonAHunterABHandelsmanJ (2013) Increasing persistence of college students in STEM. Science341(6153): 1455–1456.
10.
GrothCPevereMNiinimäkiKKääriäinenP (2020) Conditions for experiential knowledge exchange in collaborative research across the sciences and creative practice. Codesign164: 328–344.
11.
HalversonERSheridanK (2014) The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review84(4): 495–504.
12.
HeckerSHaklayMBowserAMakuchZVogelJBonnA (2018) Citizen Science: Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy. London: UCL Press.
KafaiYBWalkerJT (2020) Tools for biomakers: Reviewing affordances and challenges for K-12 hands-on making with biology. In: Proceedings of the FabLearn 2020-9th annual conference on maker education, New York, 4–5 April, pp. 10–17. New York: ACM.
15.
KingDMaJArmendarizAYuK (2018) Developing interactive exhibits with scientists: Three example collaborations from the Life Sciences Collection at the exploratorium. Integrative and Comparative Biology58(1): 94–102.
KyeH (2020) Who is welcome here? A culturally responsive content analysis of makerspace websites. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER)10: Article 1.
18.
MaiorcaCRobertsTJacksonCBushSDelaneyAMohr-SchroederMJ, et al. (2021) Informal learning environments and impact on interest in STEM careers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education19: 45–64.
19.
MalteseAVSimpsonAAndersonA (2018) Failing to learn: The impact of failures during making activities. Thinking Skills and Creativity30: 116–124.
20.
MaravilhasSMartinsJSB (2017) Tacit knowledge in maker spaces and fab labs. In: Advances in Knowledge Acquisition, Transfer, and Management. IGI Global. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2394-9.ch011
21.
MorseJM (2016) Qualitative Health Research: Creating a New Discipline. Routledge.
22.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018) Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
23.
National Research Council (2009) Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
24.
NGSS Lead States (2013) Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
25.
OlsenDG (1999) Constructivist principles of learning and teaching methods. Education120(2): 347–347.
26.
PapertS (1993) The Children’s Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer. New York: BasicBooks.
27.
PepplerKMcKayC (2013) Broadening participation and issues of inclusion and accessibility in making. In: Interaction design for children conference (IDC), New York, NY, 24–27 June.
28.
PepplerKHalversonERKafaiYB (eds) (2016a) Makeology: Makers as Learners, vol. 2. New York: Routledge.
29.
PepplerKHalversonEKafaiYB (eds) (2016b) Makeology: Makerspaces as Learning Environments, vol. 1. New York: Routledge.
30.
PeretóJPorcarM (2021) Can life be standardized? Current challenges in biological standardization. Metode Science Studies Journal11: 75–81.
31.
RavitchSMCarlNM (2019) Qualitative Research: Bridging the Conceptual, Theoretical, and Methodological. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
32.
RazzoukRShuteV (2012) What is design thinking and why is it important?Review of Educational Research82(3): 330–348.
33.
ResnickMSilvermanB (2005) Some reflections on designing construction kits for kids. In: Proceedings of the 2005 conference on interaction design and children, Boulder, CO, 8–10 June, pp. 117–122. New York: ACM.
34.
SheridanKHalversonERLittsBBrahmsLJacobs-PriebeLOwensT (2014) Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review84(4): 505–531.
TanECalabrese BartonA (2018) Towards critical justice: Exploring intersectionality in community-based STEM-rich making with youth from non-dominant communities. Equity and Excellence in Education51(1): 48–61.
37.
Van HolmEJ (2014) What Are Makerspaces, Hackerspaces, and Fab Labs? Elsevier.
38.
VossoughiSBevanB (2014) Making and tinkering: A review of the literature. National Research Council Committee on Out of School Time STEM67: 1–55.
39.
VossoughiSHooperPKEscudéM (2016) Making through the lens of culture and power: Toward transformative visions for educational equity. Harvard Educational Review86(2): 206–232.
40.
WalkerJT (2021) Middle school student knowledge of and attitudes toward synthetic biology. Journal of Science Education and Technology30: 791–802.
41.
WalkerJTKafaiYB (2021) The biodesign studio: Constructions and reflections of high school youth on making with living media. British Journal of Educational Technology52: 1116–1129.
42.
WallersteinNDuranBOetzelJGMinklerM (2017) Chapter 2: Theoretical, historical and practice roots of CBPR. In: Community-Based Participatory Research for Health: Advancing Social and Health Equity. Newark, NJ: John Wiley, pp. 17–30.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
