Methods of Data Collection

To compare practices between the school-based makerspace and the museum-based makerspace, I took field notes during my observations, mapped the physical space, including the movement of facilitators within the space, and interviewed the makerspace facilitator. I recorded written instructions that are posted or distributed to makers. With these methods, I collected data that enabled me to determine the impact of the facilitators' pedagogies and curriculum on the makers' outcomes in the makerspace, as well as the impact of the

makerspace environment and the philosophy of making. The following sections describe each method in detail.

3.7.1 Interview

At both the school-based and museum-based makerspaces, I attempted to interview

the lead facilitator, the facilitator who had the most impact on the space. I was able to interview the facilitator at the museum-based makerspace, but I was unable to reconnect with the

facilitator at the school-based makerspace, due to changes made by the school district

administrators regarding the use of the space. I was able to ask questions of the school-based makerspace facilitator at points during my observations in the space, which informed my data analysis. The facilitator I selected to interview at the museum-based makerspace had the most input on the initial design of the space and the most influence over the pedagogy enacted within the space. I was able to complete a semi-structured interview with the facilitator at the museum-based makerspace who had contributed to the environmental design and curriculum production of the makerspace. This was a semi-structured interview, in which I asked

predetermined questions, shown in Appendix A, but allowed the interviewee to guide the conversation. Questions posed in the interview were informed by aspects of my literature review and my observations in the makerspace.

3.7.2 Observation

I performed a set of observations in each makerspace, where I recorded notes and maps in a sketchbook. Also using my iPhone camera enabled me to also include pictures of set activities, settings, and signage in my notes, without having to carry around more equipment. During each observation, I first attempted to refrain from being a participatory observer, but I did follow along with direct instruction and answer questions directed at me regarding the material, when I knew the answers, because not doing so would have interrupted or disturbed the process the facilitator was enacting. While observing the surroundings, I drew maps of the layout of the makerspace when empty. I also drew maps of the makerspace in use, in which I included the movements of one or more facilitators within the space, including what they were doing in certain areas and the paths they took around the space.3.7.3

3.7.3 Mappings

My map-making was partially inspired by David Turnbull’s (2003) exploration of maps in

Masons, Tricksters and Cartographers: Comparative Studies in the Sociology of Scientific and Indigenous Knowledge. Turnbull (2003) presents two sides of the use of maps: internal and

external. Internally, maps enhance connectivity “through the spatial arrangement of information” and externally, maps “allow for the assemblage of information at centers of calculation” (Turnbull, 2003, p. 91-92). My hope for the maps while documenting facilitators’ movements was to identify patterns of movement by overlaying the drawn representations of the facilitator’s movements to display any matching paths with the intention of identifying areas within the space the remain empty and areas most frequently inhabited by facilitators.

By mapping the physical design of the makerspace and the facilitators' movements through it, I was able to determine the effects of the design of the space on the outcomes of the curriculum and pedagogy. I used mapping by drawing a top-down view of the makerspace, including textual indicators of what activities, materials, or equipment existed in each component of the space that I drew. To monitor the movements of the facilitators, I drew a circle for their starting position within the space, a line for the path they took to reach their next position, and a circle at their destination. These circles were numbered and corresponded to a list of the facilitators’ actions that I wrote next to the drawn map. By locating the places within the makerspace where facilitators positioned themselves or lingered, I was able to align their movements to their philosophy for facilitating making. The facilitators’ movements indicated their intended purposes within the makerspace by identifying the areas in which the facilitators demonstrated a need for proximity. Facilitators used proximity to show their interests, exhibit necessary supervision, or guide makers to a process. Facilitators also used distance to encourage free exploration among makers. By mapping these movements within the space visually, I was able to recognize

While the areas where congregation took place were identified, as I recorded the movements of the facilitators through the makerspace in order to identify patterns of

movement and observe the flow of the space, I recognized two determining factors that often dictated the facilitators’ movements: leading the makers or being led by the makers. A third type of movement did not fall into either category, which occurred when a facilitators simply needed to move through the space without any intentions for the makers. By comparing the paths of the facilitators’ movements in the maps to the actions of the facilitators in my

documented observations, I was able to identify which movements were guided by the makers, which movements were guiding the maker, and which movements were independent of the maker. Determining the influences on the facilitators’ movements revealed more patterns of behavior than comparing the patterns of facilitators’ movements. For example, I noticed that facilitators in the museum-based makerspace were more likely to be led to a place by a maker, while the school-based makerspace facilitator was more likely to lead a maker to a place. 3.8 Methods of Data Analysis

In order to recognize the philosophies, pedagogies, and environmental designs of both a school-based and museum-based makerspace, I looked for comparative data through

observations, mappings, and an interview. I coded my data according to my research question, placing emphasis on data that aligned with philosophy, pedagogy, or the design of the

makerspace environment. I coded my data for patterns, utilizing methods referenced in An

Introduction to Codes and Coding by Johnny Saldaña (2016). I looked primarily for patterns in

similarity, correspondence, and causation (Saldaña, 2016). I then categorized my coding according to my research question, identifying the codes that related to philosophy, pedagogy, and the design of the environment. For reliability, ensuring that I had a sound method for coding, my data coding was peer-reviewed by two other art education Masters students, who were provided with my data and research question.

To compare the pedagogies, environments, and curriculum in each makerspace, I looked for patterns surrounding how the facilitators enacted their own philosophy of making. Patterns indicating child-centeredness can appear through the interactions between makers and facilitators and through the movements of the facilitators throughout the makerspace,

represented by the movements in which facilitators were led by the makers.

To determine how makerspace facilitators transferred the philosophy of making, I wrote notes of what kinds of questions from participants get answered by facilitators, and what kinds of questions the facilitators ask, and how those questions are answered. This analysis of the written notes and questions provided insight into the level of child-centered exploration that is permitted and encouraged by the makerspace facilitators, the style and focus of the facilitators’ instruction, and the makers’ actions within the makerspace.

To determine the impact of the physical environment on the makers’ abilities and

inclination towards making, I determined common patterns of facilitators’ movements within the space. I looked to determine whether they are following the makers or the makers are following them. Informed by the literature, I expected facilitators to follow makers to materials or

equipment that the makers are most interested in using, so analyzing the patterns of movement of the facilitators helped me determine how the physical design of the space can impact the makers’ engagement and exploration. Analyzing the patterns of facilitators’ movements through the space also helped provide insights into the pedagogy of the facilitator, because it allowed me to see if the aim of the design of the space is child-centered.

To analyze the most accessible interview with the facilitator, I focused on the patterns that emerged regarding curriculum and pedagogy. Although one makerspace facilitator implemented pedagogy and curriculum in a school-based setting and the other implemented pedagogy and curriculum in a museum-based setting, interviewing the facilitator revealed patterns of intentions and motivations that were applicable to facilitators of the two

makerspaces. The results of these intentions and motivations, through the decision-making processes, was apparent in observations of facilitators in the makerspaces.

During my analysis of the data, I expected to find emerging patterns in the interview and observations with the facilitators. These patterns would likely emerge surrounding the

motivations and intentions of both the facilitators and the makers, which would guide the decision-making processes. The data indicated that the similarities and differences existed between the school-based and museum-based makerspaces. I sorted these similarities and differences into categories as they related to philosophy, pedagogy, and design of environment ranging from the planned activities to the use of the space. I based my findings in Chapter 4 on these categorical similarities and differences.